What Kind of “View on Religion”, What Kind of “Religious Studies”? Also on “Academic Theology” (Part I)

On August 6, 2013, the *China Ethnic News – Religion Weekly Forum* published a signed article (author abbreviated) titled “Scientifically Study the Marxist View on Religion and Develop Chinese Religious Studies” (abbreviated as “the Article”), the content of which involved a reprimand of certain views of mine in the “Interview with a Distinguished Scholar” (abbreviated as “the Interview”) in the 5th issue of this year’s *Marxist Studies* (abbreviated as *Studies*). The *Studies* interview with me was to commemorate the 120th anniversary of Mao Zedong’s birth and the 50th anniversary of the directive to establish the Institute of World Religions. At the time, I specifically stated: during my tenure as director, “I was very unqualified, barely managed one term and then stepped down, and I am not very familiar with the situation in the institute thereafter. However, when it comes to the whole country——” But when published, this statement was deleted by the editors. My remarks in the interview, based on Comrade Mao Zedong’s directive, about “studying religion” and “criticizing theology,” were also a review of the national situation. The author interpreted my words in the interview as being directed at the Institute of World Religions, which seems somewhat deliberate. Moreover, the Institute of World Religions does not belong to any individual’s private domain; even if it involved someone from the Institute of World Religions, does that make it an attack on the institute itself? “I am the institute, the institute is me”? [1]1 Liu Xiaofeng is a prominent Chinese intellectual and scholar of Christian theology, known for his work on “Sino-Christian theology” (汉语神学), which seeks to articulate Christian thought in the Chinese cultural and linguistic context.

2013年8月6日《中国民族报-宗教周刊论坛》发表了一篇题为《科学研究马克思主义宗教观发展中国宗教学》的署名（略称作者）文章（略称《文章》），内容涉及对我在今年《马克思主义研究》（略称《研究》）第5期《名家访谈》（略称《访谈》）中若干观点的训斥——《研究》对我的访谈，是为了纪念毛泽东诞辰120周年和批示建立世界宗教研究所50周年的；当时我特别声明：自己在所长的任上，“很不称职，勉强干了一届就下来了，对此后所里的情况不甚了解。不过谈到全国------”。但发表时，这个声明被编者删略了。我依据毛泽东同志的批示提出“研究宗教”“批判神学”的要求，也是回顾全国的情况。作者把我在访谈中的话解释成是针对世界宗教研究所的，似有些故意；何况世界宗教研究所也不属于某个私人的领地，即或有涉宗教所的某个人就成了针对宗教所了？朕即所，所即朕？

Regarding academic issues, I believe any person or any viewpoint can be questioned, especially those directed at me personally. I have also expressed views on many issues in the field of religion that differ from, or are even completely opposite to, those of others. Therefore, I originally did not intend to respond to some critical opinions aimed at me. However, the Article asserts: “Some people, without systematically studying Marxist doctrines and views on religion, still make irresponsible remarks about this specialized study of the Marxist view on religion,” which I find somewhat repugnant. Can the study of the “Marxist view on religion” only be monopolized by certain people, with no room for others to speak? The Article then completely shifts from the issue to the person: what “its low level of attainment and narrow-mindedness are clearly visible”; either “fundamentally ignorant” or “historically ignorant”; “academic childishness of taking words literally and speaking irresponsibly,” and so on. It seems to have changed the subject, from “scientific research” to a very unscientific personal attack. Finally, there is a warning: “Do not degenerate into nitpicking and exaggerating problems in religious studies, becoming an ‘off-duty urban management assistant’ [2]2 Neo-Kantianism was a late-19th- and early-20th-century philosophical movement in Germany that revived Kantian themes, often rejecting metaphysical speculation about ultimate reality (ontology) in favor of epistemological and methodological questions. in academia who has no right to ‘enforce the law’.” Usually presenting the image of a modest gentleman, how could one suddenly become like this?

关于学术问题，我以为对任何人、任何观点都可以提出质疑，尤其是针对我个人。我在宗教领域的许多问题上也发表过与他人不甚相同，甚或完全相反的看法，因此对有些针对我的批判意见本来不想作答。但《文章》断言：“有人并没有系统研究马克思主义关于宗教的学说及观点，却对这种马克思主义宗教观的专门研究说三道四”，就有些反感了：“马克思主义宗教观”的研究只能由某些人独占，容不得别人插嘴？《文章》接下来完全对人而非对事了：什么“其境界之低、思想之狭隘则明显可见”；要么“根本不懂”，要么就是“历史的无知”；“望文生义、信口开河的学术幼稚”，诸如此类，似乎转移了话题，从“科学研究”变成了很不科学的人身攻击。最后是警告：“不要沦为对宗教学研究的找茬挑刺、上纲上线，变成学术界无权‘执法’的‘城管临时工’”——平日给人以谦谦君子的表象，怎么骤然会变成这副模样？

I do not know what role “off-duty urban management assistants” play in their eyes, but their contemptuous attitude is self-evident. This forces me to make a public response: “Academia has no right to ‘enforce the law’” is common sense, but the Article often treats common sense as its own cleverness. However, is there freedom of speech? Is there the right to appeal to the competent authorities to seriously “enforce the law”? This is also common sense, but precisely this common sense is overlooked and suppressed by the author. Merely to uphold the right to freedom of speech as a citizen, and to call for the serious implementation of the legislation on “separating education from religion,” it seems I must continue to speak out.

我不知道“城管临时工”在他们眼中是个什么角色，但其鄙视的态度自在不言中。这迫使我不得不公开作出回应：“学术界无权‘执法’”，这是常识，但是《文章》经常把常识当作自己的高明——但有没有言论自由？有没有呼吁主管部门认真“执法”的权利？这也是常识，但恰恰这一常识被作者忽略了，封杀了。仅仅为了维护作为公民言论自由的权利，呼吁认真实行“教育与宗教相分离”的立法，看来还得继续说下去。

I. Introduction

一、引言

I do not wish to touch upon the author’s character or writing style, but the overbearing and domineering attitude displayed in the Article arouses 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” inherited from Plato by “academic circles outside the church.” Is this so? I have not systematically studied Plato, and I absolutely dare not “make irresponsible remarks” about this Greek philosopher, such as whether he can be reclassified from a philosopher to a theologian. But we might as well look at Western commentary. Paul-Henri Thiry d’Holbach’s *The Pocket Theology* records:

对于作者的做人和做文我不想涉及，但《文章》中显示的那种专横跋扈，却引起我的好奇：这是哪里来的？作者自称他构建的神学不是基督教神学，而是“教外学术界”远承柏拉图的“学术神学”或曰“学院派神学”。是否如此？我没有系统研究过柏拉图，绝对不敢对这位希腊哲人“说三道四”，例如是否可以把他从哲学家归类为神学家等？但不妨可以看看西方人的评论。保尔-霍尔巴赫的《袖珍神学》这样记述：

“Plato is the Athenian philosopher and father of the Christian Church. The Church, without saying a word, enrolled him in its calendar. The Church owes to him many of its dogmas, articles of faith, and not a few of its great sacraments.”

“柏拉图是雅典的哲学家和基督教教会之父。教会一句话没有说，就把他列入自己的教历。教会之所以有许多教条、信条，不算伟大的圣礼，都应归功于他”。

Thus there are two Platos: one from ancient Greece, and one drawn into Christianity. Which Plato does the author inherit? More on this later. Plato’s particular philosophical fame stems importantly from his raising the issue of the relationship between the universal and the particular, founding a major school of objective idealism. His unique position within Christianity arises from this “rational” role in constructing a theological system. Bertrand Russell, in his *History of Western Philosophy*, devotes considerable space to analyzing Plato, saying:

于是就有了两个柏拉图：一个是古希腊的，一个是被拉进基督教的。作者所承接的柏拉图究竟属于哪一个？后文细说。柏拉图之所以在哲学上特别著名，一个重要的原因是他提出了一般与个别的关系问题，开创了客观唯心主义一大流派；其在基督教中之占有独特地位，即缘于它在构建神学体系中的这种“理性”作用。罗素在其《西方哲学史》里用了不少篇幅解析柏拉图，说：

“I wish to understand him, but I have very little respect for him, as if he were a modern Englishman or American advocating totalitarianism.”

“我想理解他，但对他却很少敬意，就好像他是一个现代的英国人或美国人而在宣传着极权主义那样。”

And among modern Americans, some directly call Plato a “fascist.” Russell also says:

而在现代的美国人中还有直呼柏拉图为“法西斯”的。罗素还说：

“Christian theology and philosophy, at least until the thirteenth century, were more Platonic than Aristotelian.”

“基督教的神学和哲学，至少直迄十三世纪为止，始终更其是柏拉图式的而非亚里斯多德式的。”

Thus, attributing “academic theology” to Plato does not distance it from Christian theology at all. And Christian theology’s absorption of Platonic philosophy may indeed contain an element akin to “totalitarianism” or “fascism.”

如此看来，把“学术神学”归在柏拉图名下，一丁点也没有离开基督教神学，而基督教神学之吸取柏拉图哲学，或许真有这么一个因素，即类似“极权主义”或“法西斯”的东西。

Christianity’s internal repression and authoritarianism are well known; externally, it manifests as exclusivity, aggression, and invasion. Among Abrahamic monotheisms, Christianity has carried exclusivity to the most thorough and resolute degree, transforming it into open aggression. The “Inquisition” continued into the 19th century; the “Crusades” lasted nearly two hundred years. The fire and blood of the latest “Second Crusade” have not yet subsided, and its consequences are still fermenting—just look at the democracy and freedom delivered to Iraq for a rough idea. From the late 19th century, the banner of “Conquering the World for Christ” passed into American hands, and from then on, the “Movement for Christian Occupation of China” also arose, which still seems to be in a burgeoning state today.

基督教的对内禁锢和专制，是著名的；对外则表现为排他、攻击和侵略——在亚伯拉罕一神教中，把排他性做得最彻底、最坚决并转化为公开侵略的以基督教为甚。“宗教裁判”延续到19世纪，“十字军东征”打了近二百年；最新的“第二次十字军东征”之火与血至今未息，它的后果仍在发酵，看看送给伊拉克的民主自由就可知道个大概。从19世纪后期，“为基督征服世界”的旗帜转到美国人手中，从那时开始也兴起了“基督教占领中国运动”，迄今似仍呈方兴未艾的态势。

The author of the Article is engaged in “Christian studies.” Could he be influenced by Christianity’s characteristics of internal repression and external exclusivity? The author himself offers an explanation:

《文章》的作者从事“基督教研究”，是否会受到“基督教”对内禁锢对外排他的特性熏陶？作者自己有个说明：

“Someone once asked me whether studying religion has any influence on one’s personal thought and spirit. I answered him by quoting Bacon’s ‘On Studies’—‘Studies perfect nature’ and ‘Studies change temperament,’ that is, ‘Studies enter into character’—affirming this influence.”

“曾经有人问我研究宗教对个人的思想精神有无影响，我以培根在‘论学问’中所说的‘学问锻炼天性’、‘学问变化气质’，即‘学问入于性格’回答他，肯定了这种影响”。

I find this statement refreshingly candid. From this, I associate the overbearing manner displayed in the Article with the possibility that it results from Christian Platonic theology entering into his “temperament and character.” I believe that if a person is talented, it is best not to adopt this kind of temperament and character; otherwise, “talent” can easily turn into “folly.”

我感到这话说的难得坦诚，由此联想到《文章》所表现出来的那种霸气，或许就是基督教柏拉图神学入于了他的“气质、性格”所致。我以为，人很有才，最好不要接纳这种气质性格为好，否则，“才”很容易转化为“愚”。

II. Dialogue

二、对话

The Article does not comment on the basic viewpoints in my interview; it only selects a few topics for censure. This selection is a technique for seizing discursive initiative, for which there might be specialized training in Western Christian communication studies. Nevertheless, I am willing to respond in the order of the Article’s refutations of me.

《文章》并没有对我在访谈中的基本观点作出评论，只选择了几个话题进行责难；这种选择是一种掌握话语主动权的技巧，西方基督教传播学中或许有这一项专门训练。尽管如此，我还是愿意按《文章》驳难我的次序作答。

In the Interview, regarding Mao Zedong’s directive to “study religion,” my view was: the mainstream achieved this, but the countercurrent was turning “study” into “propaganda,” hence the need to “bring order out of chaos” to restore religion’s true features. As for the directive’s “criticize theology,” it was basically not done; on the contrary, “constructing theology” was prevalent, so “remedial lessons must be carried out” to uphold the dominance of scientific rationality. I also pointed out that the prerequisite and foundation for implementing the spirit of the directive should be in accordance with constitutional and legal provisions, and that freedom of religious belief should not be interpreted as religious anarchism. Since the Interview was conducted by *Marxist Studies*, my views were confined to the Marxist discourse system. If the author of the Article did not wave the banner of Marxism, or was uninterested in Marxism, or even disgusted or opposed to it, I would not have discussed the issues as I did in the Interview. This time, the author not only wants to “scientifically study the Marxist view on religion” but also to “Commemorate the 120th Anniversary of Chairman Mao’s Birth.” This compels me to repeat a sentence from the Interview: “This shows that the wind direction has changed, which is a good thing.” Hence, the following response to the topics selected by the Article.

在《访谈》中，对毛泽东批示“研究宗教”，我的看法是：主流是做到了，逆流则是把“研究”改成了“宣传”，所以要“拨乱反正”，以恢复宗教的本来面貌；对于“批示”的“批判神学”基本上没做，相反，“构建神学”大行其道，所以“必须开展补课”，以维护科学理性的主导。我还指出，贯彻“批示”精神的前提和基础，应该按照宪法和法律的规定，不能把宗教信仰自由解释成宗教无政府主义。由于《访谈》是由《马克思主义研究》来做的，我的看法也就限定在马克思主义话语系统；如果《文章》作者不打马克思主义旗号，或对马克思主义不感兴趣，甚或反感、反对，我也不会像《访谈》中那样讨论问题。这次，作者不但要“科学研究马克思主义宗教观”，而且还要《纪念毛主席诞辰120周年》。这使我不由得要重复《访谈》的一句话：“这表明风向有了变化，是件好事”。因而也就有了对《文章》所选话题的如下回应。

First, on the issue of the “Marxist view on religion.”

第一关于“马克思主义宗教观”问题。

The Article says:

文章说：

Some people “even absurdly believe that the Marxist view on religion is not an organic component of Marxism, but was ‘put in’ only after ‘considerable trouble.’ History will have its own fair verdict on this.”

有人“甚至荒唐地认为马克思主义宗教观不是马克思主义的有机构成，而是“费一番周折”“装进”去的。对此，历史自有公论”。

Whether there is a systematic study of Marxist teachings on religion, and whether it is absurd or not, and whether the verdict is fair or not, are all irrelevant to the topic. The key is: who is it that “believes that the Marxist view on religion is not an organic component of Marxism, but was ‘put in’ only after ‘considerable trouble’”？

有没有系统研究马克思主义的宗教学说，以及荒唐不荒唐，公论不公论，都与论题无关。关键是，是谁“认为马克思主义宗教观不是马克思主义的有机构成，而是“费一番周折”“装进”去的”？

My original words in the *Interview* were: The central point is to oppose separating the Marxist view on religion from the entirety of Marxism, and replacing “guidance by Marxism” with “guidance by the Marxist view on religion.”

我在《访谈》中的原话是：中心是反对把马克思主义宗教观从马克思主义整体中分割出去，用“马克思主义宗教观指导”取代“马克思主义指导”。

To illustrate the change the author of the *Article* has made in the subject of “guidance,” it is worthwhile to analyze the expression in the opening paragraph of the *Article* — this paragraph can be further divided into two sub-paragraphs:

为了说明《文章》作者在“指导”的主语上所做的变化，不妨就《文章》开头一段的表述做点分析——此段又可析为两小段：

First sub-paragraph: one subject is “the Marxist view on religion,” with three predicate clauses: 1 “is an important component of the Marxist theoretical system,” 2 “is the concrete embodiment of Marxism in the understanding of and research on religion,” and 3 therefore “is also the guiding ideology for our religious work and religious research.” It can be seen that here, 1 “the Marxist theoretical system” excludes the practical movement of scientific socialism, and thus is not the entirety of “Marxism”; 2 in fact, Marxist discussions on religious issues are by no means limited to “understanding of and research on religion”; 3 “therefore,” the “Marxist view on religion” as the “guiding ideology” can only be the personal “framework” of the *Article*’s author — this is the real meaning behind my questioning why the *Article*’s author had to “go to considerable trouble to ‘put the Marxist view on religion back into the Marxist ideological and theoretical system.’”

第一小段，一个主语是“马克思主义宗教观”，三个谓语句：1“是马克思主义理论体系的重要组成部分”，2“是马克思主义在宗教认识及宗教研究上的具体体现”，3因而“也是我们宗教工作和宗教研究的指导思想”。可以看出，此中，1“马克思主义理论体系”，排除了科学社会主义运动实践，因而并非“马克思主义”整体；2事实上马克思主义关于宗教问题的论述，决不限于对“宗教认识和宗教研究”；3“因而”作为“指导思想”的“马克思主义宗教观”，只能是《文章》作者的个人的“框架”——这就是我之所以质疑为什么《文章》作者要“费一番周折，再把‘马克思主义宗教观装进马克思主义思想理论体系’里”的真实原意。

Recently I came across the expression “planning the disciplinary framework for the Marxist view on religion,” which further confirms that the “basket” or framework for loading the Marxist view on religion does indeed exist, though it is still in the “planning” stage — exactly what has been loaded in and what has not is omitted here.

最近读到了“对马克思主义宗教观学科框架进行规划”的说法，更验证了装载马克思主义宗教观的“筐子”即框架确实是有的，不过还处在“规划”中而已——究竟都装进了些什么，没有装进的是什么？此处从略。

That is to say, what was originally my questioning of the *Article*’s author has been turned by the *Article* into my own assertion, and made into a charge against me for opposing the Marxist view on religion. What a fine debating technique! But regardless, literally speaking, the *Article*’s author seems to intend to express the view on religion as a component of Marxism, merely demanding that the view on religion be used as “guidance.” Yet even so, I consider it inappropriate, because this formulation replaces the whole with a part, and such replacement is dangerous. Since the movement of scientific socialism, Communists have closely linked the resolution of religious issues with the resolution of social issues; religious work must obey and serve the Party’s general line and general tasks, and must not allow religious issues to divert or impact attention to political and economic issues, still less lead the masses toward religious belief. Proposing guidance by the Marxist view on religion to offset guidance by Marxism, I believe, not only severs the integrity of Marxism but also, in practice, shifts the direction, interfering with or even obstructing the overall situation of the Party and the state.

就是说，本是我质疑《文章》作者的话，《文章》却把它变成了我的主张，并成为我反对马克思主义宗教观的一条罪状。多好的辩论术！但不管怎样，从字面上看，《文章》作者似乎有把宗教观表述为马克思主义组成部分的意思，其要求的，只是用宗教观作“指导”而已。但即使如此，我也认为不妥，因为这种说法是以部分替代整体，而这种替代是危险的。从科学社会主义运动以来，共产党人就把解决宗教问题同解决社会问题紧密地联系起来，宗教工作必须服从和服务于党的总路线、总任务，不允许用宗教问题转移和冲击对政治问题和经济问题的关切，更不允许把群众引向宗教信仰一途。提出马克思主义宗教观指导而抵消马克思主义指导，我认为，不但割裂了马克思主义的完整性，而且在实践上转移了方向，干扰甚至阻挠了党和国家的大局。

The *Article*’s second sub-paragraph has four sentences: 1 Our religious research has always adhered to the guidance of Marxism; 2 research on the Marxist view on religion has achieved great successes; 3 scientifically studying and applying the Marxist view on religion is the implementation and concretization of our adherence to the guidance of Marxism in the field of religious research; 4 therefore, highlighting and emphasizing the Marxist view on religion is precisely our adherence to the guidance of Marxism in the field of religious work and research. Here, 1 does not use the guidance of the “view on religion” but “the guidance of Marxism”; 2 speaks of “research” on the Marxist view on religion, not “guidance” by the view on religion; 3 the “Marxist view on religion” that “we” study and apply is “our” “implementation and concretization of adherence to the guidance of Marxism”; “therefore,” it is only “our” understanding and implementation, and cannot be passed off as Marxism itself. Finally, 4, that “therefore” is untenable: how does “our” studied and applied “Marxist view on religion” become “adherence to the guidance of Marxism”?

《文章》第二小段有四句话：1我们的宗教研究一直坚持马克思主义的指导，2马克思主义宗教观研究取得了巨大成就，3科学地研究和运用马克思主义宗教观，是我们宗教研究领域对坚持马克思主义指导的贯彻落实。4因此，突出和强调马克思主义宗教观，正是我们在宗教工作及研究领域对马克思主义指导的坚持。此中1用的不是“宗教观”的指导，而是“马克思主义的指导”，2讲的是马克思主义宗教观“研究”不是宗教观“指导”，3“我们”研究和运用的“马克思主义宗教观”，是“我们”“坚持马克思主义指导的贯彻落实”，“因此”，它只是“我们”的理解和贯彻，不可以冒充马克思主义自身。最后4，那个“因此”不能成立：是你们研究和运用的“马克思主义宗教观”怎么就变成了“对马克思主义指导的坚持”？

Playing with words is a traditional feature of theology, and it remains prevalent today. In fact, the meaning expressed in these two sub-paragraphs is very simple: “our” “Marxist view on religion” is the “guiding ideology” for religious work and religious research. But why is it expressed so circuitously and tediously? Also very simple: to install some people’s “planned” “view on religion” under the name of Marxism, thereby elevating it to the “guiding ideology” for the entire Party and the entire country. In reality, it is not that easy.

玩弄文字是神学的传统特色，现今依旧盛行。其实这两小段话表达的意思非常简单：“我们”的“马克思主义宗教观”是宗教工作及宗教研究领域的“指导思想”。但为什么表达得如此曲折繁琐？也很简单，要把某些人“规划”的什么“宗教观”安置在马克思主义名下，从而提升为全党全国的“指导思想”。其实，并不那么容易。

As early as in the *Interview* published in *Research*, I made it very clear: there are two different situations in using the term “view on religion.” One is as a topic for study, research, and discussion, where different opinions are allowed to contend — I fully support this. The other is as a “guiding ideology,” in which case the nature changes completely. My original words were:

早在《研究》发表的《访谈》上我讲的已经很清楚：使用“宗教观”这个词有两种不同情况，一种是作为学习研究探讨的课题，允许各种不同意见争鸣，我举双手赞成。另一种是作为“指导思想”，性质就完全变了。我的原话是：

“It is claimed that the purpose of ‘upholding and developing the Marxist view on religion’ is ‘to provide an ideological foundation, methodological foundation, and decision-making foundation for strengthening and improving religious work under the new circumstances.’”

“据称，‘坚持和发展马克思主义宗教观’的目的，是‘为加强和改进新形势下的宗教工作提供思想基础、方法基础和决策基础’”。

This “it is claimed” quotes the words of the *Article*’s author. This kind of ambition on the author’s part is consistent; previously the author said:

这个“据称”引的就是《文章》作者的话。作者这种雄心壮志是一贯的，此前作者说：

“Religious research in contemporary China should have equal emphasis on and complementarity between ‘theoretical research’ and ‘applied research’… but overall, ‘theoretical research’ should… provide theoretical guidance, methodological support, and a scope of vision for applied research.”

“宗教研究在当代中国应该有‘理论研究’和‘应用研究’的并重与互补------但从总体来看，‘理论研究’应------为应用研究提供理论指导、方法支撑和视阈范围”。

The key point in both passages lies in the word “provide.” Originally it was “theoretical research” that “provides”; now it has been changed to the “Marxist view on religion” that “provides.” This is because the political wind has shifted, but the “purpose” has not wavered. According to the author’s own explanation, the “religious work” that needs to accept its “provision” includes the Party and government departments’ assessment of the religious situation, strategic decision-making, and formulation of policies and laws — that is, so-called “applied research.” It is precisely for this reason that it draws our special attention: what kind of ideological foundation, methodological foundation, decision-making foundation, theoretical guidance, methodological support, and scope of vision do they intend to provide to the Party and the state? — To what extent have these “purposes” been realized?

这两段话的要点，都在“提供”二字上，原本“理论研究”的“提供”，现今改为“马克思主义宗教观”的“提供”，这是因为风向变化了，而“目的”未见动摇。按作者自己的解释，需要接受其“提供”的“宗教工作”，包括党政部门有关宗教问题的形势判断、战略决策和政策法令的制定等，亦即所谓“应用研究”。正因为如此，引起我们特别的关注：他们要给党和国家提供什么样的思想基础、方法基础、决策基础，理论指导以及方法支撑，视阈范围？——这些“目的”实现到了什么程度？

Finally, aside from the “Marxist view on religion,” does the author have his own “view on religion”? There is no need to probe deeply; it is readily available:

最后，除了“马克思主义宗教观”，作者有没有自己的“宗教观”？这无须深追，俯拾即是：

“My understanding of ‘religion’ can be summarized as follows: religion is a value system, social form, and practical behavior through which humanity overcomes or transcends its finite self by means of transcendental belief.”

“我对‘宗教’的理解可概括如下：宗教是人类以超然信仰来克服或升华其有限自我的价值体系、社会形态和实践行为。”

Whether the *Article*’s author’s religious belief is “transcendental,” transcending “social existence” or the “economic base,” is none of my concern, but it is a far cry from the *Article*’s solemn declaration that the view on religion he upholds is precisely historical materialism. As for the formulation “finite self” here, it is itself theological, because only Christian theology calls God “infinite,” which has nothing whatsoever to do with Marxism. According to dialectics, the finite and the infinite are a pair of interrelated categories; apart from the finite, where does the infinite come from? To demand that people abandon vivid human life to pursue “eternal life” or “infinity” after death — even as scientific research or common human feeling, one may doubt it: is it possible? Is it deceiving others or deceiving oneself? If one uses this kind of belief to change people’s “value system,” that depends on whether citizens are willing to choose it; but to transform our “social form” according to this belief and value system and make others also “practice behavior” — then the problem becomes enormous. How enormous? “Academics” turns into “politics”: a secular China degenerates into a Christian China.

《文章》作者的宗教信仰是否“超然”，超然于“社会存在”或曰“经济基础”，这与我无关，但与《文章》义正词严地宣称他自己坚持的宗教观就是唯物史观，可就大相径庭了。至于这里“有限自我”的提法，自身就是神学的，因为只有基督教神学才把上帝称为“无限”，与马克思主义风牛马不相干。按辩证法，有限与无限是一对相关联的范畴，离开有限哪来的无限？要人们脱离鲜活的人生去追求死后的“永生”或“无限”，作为科学研究甚或人之常情也可以怀疑一下：可能么？是欺人还是自欺？如果即以此种信仰去改变人的“价值体系”，那得看公民是否乐于选择，但要按照这种信仰和价值体系去改造我们的“社会形态”，并让别人也去“实践行为”，那问题可就大了，大到什么程度？“学术”变成了“政治”：世俗的中国蜕变为基督教的中国。

This kind of view on religion is essentially a “Christian religion” view. The author says:

这种宗教观，实质是“基督宗教”观。作者说：

"The question of the significance of Christianity for China's social development is also a concern I have pondered deeply and deliberately sought to resolve. As a system of faith, a system of values, and a system of thought and culture, Christianity has had a multi-layered, all-round influence on world civilization. Its significance for China's social modernization is naturally multifaceted. For example, the Christian concepts of original sin, salvation, transcendence, ultimacy, and universality all have a certain referential value for our culture and value concepts."

“基督宗教对于中国社会发展的意义问题，这也是我苦苦思索、刻意求解的关切所在，基督教作为一种信仰体系、价值体系和思想文化体系，对世界文明有着多层次、全方位的影响，其对中国社会现代化的意义自然也是多方面的，比如基督宗教原罪观、拯救观、超越观、终极观、普世观，对于我们的文化及价值观念都具有一定的借鉴作用。”

This is entirely the statement of a Christian theologian. Not only is there no trace of the "Marxist view on religion," but even "research," "scholarship," and "neutrality" have vanished. Even "detachment" has landed on the ground. What remains is only the "deliberate seeking to resolve" the "significance of Christianity for China's social development," and moreover, its "significance for China's social modernization" in the sense of a "system of values and a system of thought and culture." If so many "systems" and "significances" are also stuffed into that basket of the "Marxist view on religion" and used as the "guiding ideology," what is its utility for "Chinese society"? Does this still need to be "raised to the level of principle"? [1]1 Liu Xiaofeng is a prominent Chinese intellectual and scholar of Christian theology, known for his work on “Sino-Christian theology” (汉语神学), which seeks to articulate Christian thought in the Chinese cultural and linguistic context.

这完全是基督教神学家的陈述，不但没有“马克思主义宗教观”的影子，连“研究”和“学术”以及“中立”都没有了，即使“超然”也落了地，剩下的只有“刻意求解”基督宗教“对中国社会发展的意义”，而且是作为“价值体系和思想文化体系”意义上对“中国社会现代化的意义”。如果把这么多的“体系”和“意义”，也装到那个“马克思主义宗教观”的筐子里并作为“指导思想”，其对“中国社会”的效用是什么，这还需要“上纲上线”么？

Second, on the question of "religious studies"

第二，关于“宗教学”问题

In the "Interview," I raised objections to the view of changing "religious research" into "religious studies research" and elaborated my reasons. At the same time, I pointed out that "so-called Western religious studies is, in essence, a kind of Christian theology born from Max Müller." In response, the "Article" sneered that this assertion about Western religious studies "can only reflect its lack of basic common sense about religious studies." So what does the "Article" itself say?

《访谈》中我对将“宗教研究”改为“宗教学研究”这个观点提出了异议，并阐述我的理由，同时指出“所谓西方宗教学，实质上是诞生于麦克斯•缪勒的一种基督教神学”。对此，《文章》讥讽地说：对西方宗教学的这种断言“只能反映其对宗教学基本常识的缺失”。那么《文章》自己是怎么说的？

"Although the source of religious studies is 'Western religious studies,' the characteristic of this discipline's independent development is to break away from the scope of Western Christian theology and its presuppositions of faith, advocating neutral comparative religious research and research on the history of religion. This separation was marked by the famous debate between Max Müller, a German-born British comparative linguist and German Christian church historian who was one of the founders of Western religious studies, and Harnack over the study of 'one religion' (referring to Christianity) or multiple religions. From then on, Western religious studies developed into a new discipline that parted ways with Christian theology."

“虽然宗教学的源头是‘西方宗教学’，但这一学科独立发展的特点就是脱离西方基督教神学的范围及信仰前提而倡导中立的比较宗教研究和宗教史研究。这种分离以西方宗教学创始人之一、英籍德人比较语言学家德国基督教教会史家麦克斯•缪勒与哈纳克关于“一种宗教”（指基督教）或多种宗教研究的著名争论为标志。西方宗教学从此发展为与基督教神学分道扬镳的新兴学科”。

Such a lengthy explanation is presumably intended to prove that the author himself is always beyond common sense. But what does this explain? 1. "The source of religious studies is Western religious studies." 2. The characteristic of this discipline's "development is to break away from the scope of Western Christian theology." Do these two points not indicate that Western religious studies was originally a branch of Christian theology? Otherwise, why would it need to "break away"? 3. The "separation" of "Western religious studies" from "Christian theology" was "marked by the famous debate" between Max Müller, "one of the founders of Western religious studies," and Harnack. What difference is there between this and my statement that "Western religious studies, in essence, was born from Max Müller"? 4. If there is a difference, it is that the "Article" provides a characterization of Müller's religious studies, namely that it "parted ways with Christian theology" — unfortunately, regarding such an important piece of "common sense," the author provides no evidence. As someone with a "shortage of basic common sense about religious studies," I can supplement some material to prove that Müller's religious studies is thoroughly Christian theology. In his *The Origin and Development of Religion*, Müller asserts that both humans and nature are finite, and that humans have an innate instinct to pursue the infinite, so the pursuit of the infinite becomes the "origin" of religion. Using this as a premise, he compares various religions and concludes that only "God" is the "infinite," and among all the world's religions, only Christianity, which believes in God, has reached the highest stage of religious evolution and embodies the highest faith. Here I can excerpt a conclusion Müller draws after comparing all religions:

这么长的解说，大约是为了证明作者本人总是超常识的。但这说明了什么？1“宗教学的源头是西方宗教学”；2这一学科“发展的特点就是脱离西方基督教神学的范围”。这两点是否表明西方宗教学原属基督教神学的一支，否则，干嘛还要“脱离”？3“西方宗教学”与“基督教神学”的“分离”，“以西方宗教学创始人之一”，麦克斯•缪勒与哈纳克的“著名争论为标志”。这与我所谓“西方宗教学，实质上是诞生于麦克斯•缪勒”有什么差别？4如果说有差别，那就是《文章》给缪勒宗教学的定性，即所谓“与基督教神学分道扬镳”——遗憾的是，这么重要的“常识”，作者并没有拿出根据来。以我“对宗教学基本常识的短缺”，倒可以补充一点材料，证明缪勒的宗教学就是十足的基督教神学——缪勒在其《宗教的起源与发展》中认定，人和自然都是有限的，人的本能就有对无限的追求，所以追求无限就成了宗教的“起源”。以此为前提，比较各色宗教，结论是，唯有“上帝”才是“无限”，在世界一切宗教中，也唯有信仰上帝的基督教才达到了宗教演化的最高阶段，体现了最高信仰。这里可以摘一段缪勒对所有宗教做了比较以后的结论：

"What the Christian takes away is the best of all things, namely, love for God. We freely call him by whatever name we like — 'the Infinite,' 'the Invisible,' 'the Immortal,' 'the Father,' 'the Supreme Self,' 'above all,' 'through all,' 'in all,' etc. Our love for God is manifested in our love for humanity, our love for life, our love for the dead, in our life and love."

“基督教徒带走的是一切事物中最美好的，亦即人们对上帝的爱心。我们随意地用自己所喜欢的名称来称呼他为‘无限’，‘不可见’，‘不朽’，‘父’，‘至上的自我’，“一切之上”，‘贯穿一切’，‘一切之中’等。我们对上帝的爱在我们对人之爱、对生命之爱、对死者之爱，在我们的生命与爱中体现出出来。”

As for whether religious studies and theology have truly "separated," let us look at the discussion of the author of the "Article" himself:

至于宗教学与神学是否真的“分离”开来，我们看看《文章》作者本人的论述：

"It should be pointed out that this kind of 'liberal' 'theological' research is still retained within theological seminaries in many Western universities, and 'religious studies,' as a branch discipline of theology, is also classified under 'practical theology' or 'homiletic theology.' Clearly, from the 'subjective' desire of the Christian church, religious studies was once hoped to serve its pastoral 'practice' or external 'evangelism,' as an auxiliary discipline."

“应该指出的是，这种‘开明性’的‘神学’研究，在西方许多高校仍保留在神学院校之内，而且‘宗教学’作为神学的一门分支学科，亦归属于‘实践神学’或‘宣道神学’。显然，宗教学从基督教会的‘主观’愿望上曾被希望为其教牧‘实践’或对外‘福传’服务，为其辅助性学科。”

That is to say, according to the exposition of the author of the "Article," Western "religious studies as a branch discipline of theology" is "still retained within theological seminaries." In contemporary China, however, it has entered the national university system and scientific research institutions. And now the author of the "Article" denies that Müller's religious studies belongs to theology.

就是说，根据《文章》作者的阐述，西方“宗教学作为神学的一门分支学科”“仍保留在神学院校之内”，在当前的中国，却进到了国家高校系统和科研单位，而现在《文章》作者又否认缪勒的宗教学属于神学。

In fact, I have no interest whatsoever in Western religious studies. It is only because some people have been expanding the scope of "religious studies" ever wider that I have had to study it. What is religious studies? This "source" turns out to be thus. And what about in China? The author distinguishes between a broad and a narrow sense of "religious studies": the narrow sense is probably the type the author himself cultivates, while the scope of "religious studies in the broad sense" is constantly expanding, stretching from general religious research to all disciplines that touch upon religion, all the way to the relevant statements and actions of "believers, scholars, and officials," all of which are brought into his discipline of "religious studies." Consequently, atheism is unfortunately also netted in and becomes a subordinate part of religious studies. Therefore, research topics and results concerning Chinese atheism must all be reviewed by the discipline of religious studies — at some unknown point, atheism suddenly became a second-level discipline under religious studies, and this second-level discipline must also accept the jurisdiction of the first-level discipline. [2]2 Neo-Kantianism was a late-19th- and early-20th-century philosophical movement in Germany that revived Kantian themes, often rejecting metaphysical speculation about ultimate reality (ontology) in favor of epistemological and methodological questions. Making atheism a second-level discipline under religious studies — it is not hard to imagine how difficult its days would be.

实际上，我对西方的宗教学毫无兴趣，只因为一些人将“宗教学”的范围越搞越大，不得不学习学习。什么是宗教学？这“源头”原来如此。那么到了中国呢？作者将“宗教学”区分为广义和狭义两类：狭义可能是作者本人经营的那类，“广义宗教学”的范围则不断扩大，从一般的宗教研究伸展到一切与宗教挂边的学科，一直到“信者、学者、官员”的有关言论和行为，都进到了他的“宗教学”学科，于是无神论不幸也被网罗进去，成了宗教学的部属。所以有关中国无神论的研究课题和研究成果，都得由宗教学科进行审查——不知道什么时候，无神论又突然变成了宗教学的二级学科，而且这二级学科还得接受一级学科的管辖。把无神论作为宗教学的二级学科，其日子如何艰难，就不难想象了。

Why infinitely expand the scope of religious studies? Enclosing atheism within it for management is certainly an important reason. But more importantly, it is to use the generality of "religious studies" to cover up the special meaning within its own discourse on religious studies, that is, to equate "religious studies" as a branch of Christian theology with "religious studies" as commonly understood as a discipline. To turn the illegitimate into the legitimate. The author says:

为什么要无限扩大宗教学的范围？把无神论圈进去管起来，固然是个重要原因。，但更重要的是用宗教学的一般掩盖其宗教学话题内的特殊含义，也就是将作为基督教神学一支的“宗教学”与作为普通理解为一种学科的宗教学等同起来。变非法为合法。作者说：

"The study of Christianity in Chinese academic circles is academic, scholarly, institutional, and scholar-type research. It should adhere more to the standpoint and method of religious studies."

“中国学术界的基督宗教研究是学术、学问、学院和学者型的研究，应更多坚持宗教学的立场和方法”。

This academic, even scholar-type, study of Christianity, according to the author's explanation above, should originally belong to the category of "religious studies." But here, the specific mention that it "should adhere more to the standpoint and method of religious studies" indicates that this "religious studies" belongs to the "narrow sense" of "religious studies" that "provides the standpoint and method" for its "broad sense" of "religious studies." That is, it is the Christian theology inherited by the author from Müller's founding, which connects with Platonic theology. Thus, "religious studies research" becomes research that "adheres to the standpoint and method of religious studies." This also gives rise to the formulation that "contemporary China's religious research is based on the development of its religious studies" — the author, through this conceptual shift between the broad and narrow senses, has completed the transformation of "religious research" into "religious studies research," ultimately realizing the original intention of research that "adheres to the standpoint and method of religious studies."

这个学术以至学者型的基督宗教研究，按作者的以上解释，本来就该属于“宗教学”范畴，但此处却特别提出“应更多坚持宗教学的立场和方法”，则此宗教学当属为其“广义”宗教学“提供立场和方法”的“狭义”宗教学，亦即作者继承缪勒创始，与柏拉图神学接轨的基督教神学。于是，“宗教学研究”变成了“坚持宗教学的立场和方法”的研究，这也有了“当代中国的宗教研究乃基于其宗教学的发展”的提法——作者在广义、狭义上做了这么一番概念转移，完成了将“宗教研究”改造成“宗教学研究”，最终实现了“坚持宗教学的立场和方法”研究的本意。

So what are the standpoint and method of religious studies?

那么什么是宗教学的立场和方法？

"Religious studies research only objectively studies the historical facts of religion. It is descriptive and analytical, not value-judgmental or subjectively selective. This kind of research does not comment on the truth or falsehood, reality or unreality of 'religion' and its 'theology,' nor does it take 'confession of faith' as its premise or purpose... Its research principle is its objectivity, rationality, and scientificity... 'Science' requires 'judgment,' 'characterization,' and 'conclusion,' while religious studies, to a large extent, remains a 'descriptive' discipline. One of its methods has also been 'suspension of judgment.' This is also the reason why religious studies has so far been cautious in using the term 'science' to describe itself..."

“宗教学研究只是客观研究宗教的历史事实。是描写性的、分析性的，而不是价值判断性、主观取舍性的。这种研究并不去评说‘宗教’及其‘神学’的真伪、实虚问题，更不以‘认信’为前提或目的-------其研究原则乃是其客观性、合理性、科学性--------‘科学’乃需要‘判断’‘定性’‘结论’，而宗教学在很大程度上仍是一种‘描述性’学科，其方法之一也曾是‘终止判断’，这也是宗教学迄今仍慎用‘科学’一词来自我表述-------的原因。”

Here the author, on the one hand, indicates that religious studies only has description or depiction, with no judgment or subjective selection, that is, with no standpoint or viewpoint. But on the other hand, he refuses to “comment on the truth or falsehood, the reality or emptiness of ‘religion’ and its ‘theology’,” which displays a very strong subjective selection and a very clear standpoint and viewpoint. This is consistent with the confusion expressed when he says at one moment that religious studies possesses “scientificity,” and at another that one must “use science with caution.” Both stem from a fear of science, a fear of truth, which facilitates resisting and opposing the guidance of Marxism within the Chinese-language “context”—on this point, the author is quite self-aware. For example, the author stated clearly in his early years:

这里作者一方面表明宗教学只有描写或描述，没有判断和主观取舍，也就是没有立场和观点。但另一方面却拒绝“评说‘宗教’及其‘神学’的真伪、实虚问题”，表现的主观取舍非常强烈，立场和观点非常鲜明。这与一会说，宗教学是有“科学性”的，一会又说，要“慎用科学”，其表达的混乱是一致的。都是因为惧怕科学，惧怕真理，便于在汉语“语境”中抵制和反对马克思主义指导——这一点，作者是很自觉的。例如作者早年明确表示：

“Religious studies, originated by the West, has its limitations in terms of its historical background and the cognitive limitations of its subject,” “Today, we use the guidance of Marxism to build and develop our own religious studies in China——”

“由西方首创的宗教学，有着其时代背景和主体认识上的局限”，“今天，我们用马克思主义指导来建设、发展我国自己的宗教学------”

A clear chasm is drawn between “the guidance of Marxism” and “religious studies originated by the West,” with the boundary between right and wrong very clearly demarcated. By another “today” of the present, “the guidance of Marxism” has disappeared, and that “religious studies” which had “limitations in terms of its historical background and the cognitive limitations of its subject” has suddenly become the “standpoint and method” of “contemporary Chinese religious research.” This change indicates that the use of “the study of religious studies” while rejecting “religious research” is not due to the author’s forgetfulness or arbitrariness. If the reader is a bit careful, although the author of “The Article” uses the phrase “the guidance of Marxism,” I have yet to see the formulation “using the Marxist standpoint, viewpoint, and method to conduct scientific research on religious issues.” The subtlety here is obvious: it lies in the fact that the standpoint, viewpoint, and method have all been taken over by his religious studies.

在“马克思主义指导”和“西方首创的宗教学”之间画上了一条鲜明的鸿沟，是非界限非常清楚。到了今天的又一个“今天”，“马克思主义指导”没有了，那个有着“时代背景和主体认识上的局限”的“宗教学”，突然变成了“当代中国的宗教研究”的“立场和方法”。这一变化表明，使用“宗教学的研究”而拒绝“宗教研究”，并非作者的健忘或随意。假若读者细心一点，《文章》作者的话语中虽有“马克思主义指导”的字眼，但我还没有看到“用马克思主义立场、观点、方法对宗教问题进行科学研究”的提法。这其中的奥妙，很明显，就在于立场观点方法都让他的宗教学占去了。

The author says: The purpose of “the study of Christianity” in China is:

作者说：“基督宗教研究”之在中国，目的是：

“To lead people from ‘not understanding’ to ‘understanding,’ from a ‘sensitive’ awareness to a ‘meaningful’ cognition, thereby also transforming this discipline from a perilous ‘dangerous study’ into a peaceful, harmonious research, becoming a ‘prominent study’ known and recognized by the public. The comprehensive development of the study of Christianity, the broad expansion of this discipline, is a historical mission and a requirement of the times.”

“让人们从‘不解’到‘理解’，从一种‘敏感’认识到一种‘意义’认知，从而也使这门学科从充满危险的‘险’学发展到一种平安、和谐之研究，成为大众所认知并认可的‘显’学。基督宗教研究的全面展开，这一学科的广泛发展，是历史的使命和时代的要求”。

Here “the study of Christianity” refers to “the study of religious studies,” that is, Christian missiology or “the science of mission.” As for such a solemn declaration: “the broad expansion of this discipline is a historical mission and a requirement of the times,” it is also worth the reader’s serious consideration—who has entrusted them with this “historical mission,” and what “era” is the present, and what “requirements” does it raise? Of course, one can also ask what forces and social conditions allow what they consider a “dangerous study” to leap into becoming a “prominent study known and recognized by the public”?

此处的“基督宗教研究”指的就是“宗教学研究”，也就是基督教的宣教学或称“宣道学”。至于如此郑重地宣布：“这一学科的广泛发展，是历史的使命和时代的要求”，也值得读者郑重思考——是谁赋予他们的“历史的使命”，当今又是什么“时代”、提出什么“要求”？当然也可以追问一下是什么力量和社会条件，可以让他们自认为的“险学”，一跃而成为“大众所认知并认可的‘显学’”？

Furthermore, the high-profile formulation of “religious studies research” has at least one more reason:

此外，高调“宗教学研究”的提法，至少还有一个原因：

“Contemporary Chinese religious research is based on the development of its religious studies, and this in turn makes ‘theological’ research in Chinese academic circles possible.”

“当代中国的宗教研究乃基于其宗教学的发展，它随之也使中国学术界的‘神学’研究成为可能。”

The key points of this statement are two: 1. “Contemporary Chinese religious research” is “based on the development of religious studies,” and this “based on” undoubtedly includes providing a “standpoint and method” for “religious research”; 2. “makes ‘theological’ research in Chinese academic circles possible”—why does placing contemporary Chinese religious research on the foundation of religious studies “make ‘theological’ research in Chinese academic circles possible”? One reason is that his religious studies and academic theology are synonymous and interactive.

此话的要点有二：1“当代中国的宗教研究”是基于“宗教学的发展”，此“基于”无疑包含有为“宗教研究”提供“立场和方法”；2“使中国学术界的‘神学’研究成为可能”——将当代中国的宗教研究安置在宗教学的基础上，为什么能“使中国学术界的‘神学’研究成为可能”？原因之一，在于他的宗教学和学术神学是同义的，互动的。

Third, on the issue of “criticizing theology”

第三，关于“批判神学”问题

This is the issue I discussed most in the “Interview” (see *Research* pp. 17-23). It is also the point where “The Article” attacks me most fiercely, from which I received the admonition: “If one could carefully study the relevant articles on ‘academic theology,’ one could also avoid this kind of academic naivety.” Below, I will follow this admonition and “carefully study” them once more. But first, I must address some logical issues concerning this passage from “The Article”:

这是我在《访谈》中讨论最多的问题（见《研究》17-23页）。也是《文章》对我痛斥最力的地方，由此我得到的告诫是：“若能对有关‘学术神学’的文章仔细研读，也可避免这种----学术幼稚”。以下，我不妨遵循这一告诫，再“仔细研读”一番。但之前，得先就《文章》的这段话讲点逻辑问题：

1. “The Article” says, “What Chairman Mao meant by ‘criticizing theology’ in his instruction is actually synonymous with ‘studying religion’ as he also mentioned at the same time.” — From an academic perspective, “study” indeed contains the meaning of “criticize”; “criticize” indeed also contains the meaning of “study,” for example, Marx’s *Critique of Political Economy*, *Critique of the Gotha Programme*. But if study and critique are defined as identical concepts, the meaning becomes quite incoherent; try renaming Marx’s two works *Study of Political Economy* and *Study of the Gotha Programme* and see? The article believes that “during the ‘Cultural Revolution,’ engaging in ‘mass criticism’ was used for personal attacks, thereby distorting the original meaning of ‘critique’”—This shows that the connotation of “critique” can be “distorted.” Then, is interpreting “critique” in the instruction as “study” also a kind of distortion? The author of “The Article” once said, “For a long time, the Chinese mainland context and people’s concepts have been influenced by ‘criticizing theology’.” If the “critique” in this sentence should also be synonymous with “study,” would there be any need for such indignation?

1、《文章》说“毛主席在批示中所言‘批判神学’实际上与其同时所言‘研究宗教’同义”。——从学术上看，“研究”确实含有“批判”的意思；“批判”也确实含有“研究”的意思，例如马克思的《政治经济学批判》，《哥达纲领批判》。但若把研究与批判定为同一的概念，意义就大不通了，不妨就把马克思的前两文改称《政治经济学研究》，《哥达纲领研究》试试看？文章认为“‘文革’中以搞‘大批判’来进行人身攻击，由此把‘批判’的原意歪曲了”——这说明，“批判”的内涵是可以被“歪曲”的。那么，对批示中的“批判”做“研究”解，是否也是一种歪曲？《文章》作者曾说“长期以来中国内地语境及其人们的观念有着‘批判神学’的影响”，若这句话中的“批判”也应该与“研究”同义，还有必要那么义愤填膺？

2. The article quotes Comrade Hu Jintao’s words: we must “actively promote the positive content in religious doctrines that is close to the moral requirements of socialist society, such as promoting good and suppressing evil, equality and tolerance, and aiding the poor and distressed.” How can this serve as proof that “our Party and government also encourage academia to participate in and help the theological construction of the Chinese church”? And how can one draw the conclusion that “therefore, theology cannot be negated solely from a negative perspective”? How is a causal relationship established between Hu Jintao’s words and “theological construction”?

2、文章引胡锦涛同志的话，我们要“积极弘扬宗教教义中扬善抑恶、平等宽容、扶贫济困等与社会主义社会道德要求贴近的积极内容”，怎么能成为“我们党和政府同样鼓励学术界参加和帮助中国教会的神学建设”的证明？又怎么能得出“因此，不能仅从负面否定神学”的结论？在胡锦涛的话与“神学建设”之间是怎么建立起因果关系的？

3. The article says: “Theology is the systematic exposition of a religion’s doctrines; from this perspective, it also contains positive content, hence it cannot be completely negated, but can be correspondingly actively promoted.” — From “cannot be completely negated,” how can one deduce “actively promote”? What kind of logic is this?

3、文章说：“神学就是对其宗教教义的系统阐述，由此而论其中亦有积极内容，故而不可全盘否定，却可相应地积极弘扬”。——从“不可全部否定”怎么能演绎出“积极弘扬”来，这属哪门子逻辑？

4. The article says that the view that “‘academic theology’ is necessarily ‘academic proselytization’” is “not understanding” and “ignorant,” etc. Then: what does it mean to say theology can be “actively promoted”? What is the semantic difference between “promote” and “proselytize”?

4、文章说，认为“‘学术神学’就必然是‘学术宣教’的说法”是“不懂”“无知”云云，那么：说神学可以“积极弘扬”是什么意思？“弘扬”与“宣教”在语义上有什么区别？

After the author reasons in this way, “criticizing theology” becomes “studying theology”; after another round of citation and interpretation, “studying theology” becomes “promoting theology.” And then further down:

作者如此推论一番，“批判神学”就变成了“研究神学”；再经过一番引证和阐释，“研究神学”变成了“弘扬神学”。再往下呢：

“An ‘academic theology’ that objectively studies the issue of ‘God’ from an academic perspective can be fully established.”

“从学术角度来客观研究“神”之问题的“学术神学”完全能够成立”。

Thus “promoting theology” becomes “establishing theology”—the author’s logic has such powerful force that it can transform Chairman Mao’s “criticizing theology” into “establishing theology” or “constructing theology.” This can also serve as an example of fitting the author’s lofty views into the framework of the Marxist view of religion.

于是“弘扬神学”变成了“成立神学”——作者的逻辑就有如此强大的力量，能把毛主席的“批判神学”转化为“成立神学”或“构建神学”。这也可以作为用马克思主义宗教观的框架装进作者高见的一例。

Fourth, on the issue of “academic theology”

第四，关于“学术神学”问题

The theology that the author of “The Article” is establishing or has already constructed is called “academic theology.” Let us first look at some of the author’s own definitions:

《文章》作者正在建立或已经构建出来的神学，叫做“学术神学”。先让我们看看作者自己的一些界说：

1. Academic theology is a theology that conducts “‘scientific research’ on Christianity ‘based on the standpoint, viewpoint, method, and research results of religious studies’.” “This kind of ‘theological’ research does indeed exist, although it has the standpoint and method of religious studies.”

1、学术神学是“‘基于宗教学的立场、观点、方法和研究成果’而对基督教进行‘科学研究’”的神学。“这种‘神学’研究确实存在，它虽然有着宗教学的立场和方法”。

2. “Theology,” in a broad sense, is the inquiry into the issue of “God.” The expression “theology” was not invented by Christianity, but originated from the ancient Greek philosopher Plato.

2、“神学”就广义而论则是对“神”这一问题的探究。“神学”这一表述不是基督教的发明，而乃古希腊哲学家柏拉图的原创。

3. “Academic research on ‘God’ includes both Christian and non-Christian academic circles; both ‘theistic’ and ‘atheistic’ perspectives.”

3、对“神”的学术研究既有基督教的，也有教外学术界的；既有“有神论”的，亦有“无神论”的”。

Regarding point 1, this is clearly the answer to the above-mentioned “making ‘theological’ research in Chinese academic circles possible.” Regarding point 2, this has already been addressed above; point 3’s “non-Christian theology” will be discussed separately below; here I will only examine “atheistic theology.”

关于1，这显然是上述“使中国学术界的‘神学’研究成为可能”的答案。关于2，上文已经做了应对；3中的“教外神学”，下文将作专门讨论，此处仅就“无神论的神学”作点考察。

According to the author of the "Article," the subject of "theology" is "God"; without "God," how could there be a "study"? To speak of "an atheist theology" is almost like saying "a round rectangular table." But hold on: when Max Müller discusses "honest atheism and vulgar atheism," he places "honest atheism" within the theology of his religious studies. He highly praises the "atheism" of Indian religions and Buddhism, because they deny that "heavenly gods" possess infinite power and oppose the worship of "heavenly gods." Müller sees this as a ladder leading to monotheism and even to faith in the Christian God. On this basis, he states that this kind of atheism "is the lifeblood of all true faith"; "it is the most genuine faith. Without this atheism, religion would long ago have become a rigid hypocrisy. Without this atheism, no new religion or religious reform would be possible, and none of us could ever be reborn." In other words, his "atheism" is measured by the standard of Christian monotheistic exclusivity. He reviews the killings that the church has historically carried out in the name of "atheism," taking as a typical example the "atheist" Vanini, who was sentenced to having his "tongue cut out" and being "buried alive" in 1619 [1]1 Liu Xiaofeng is a prominent Chinese intellectual and scholar of Christian theology, known for his work on “Sino-Christian theology” (汉语神学), which seeks to articulate Christian thought in the Chinese cultural and linguistic context. — the key points of this person's "atheism" are as follows:

按《文章》作者自说，“神学”的主词是“神”，没有“神”哪里来的“学”？说“无神论的神学”，几乎等于说“长形的圆桌”。但且慢，在缪勒论及“诚实的无神论与庸俗的无神论”时，就把“诚实的无神论”置于他的宗教学的神学之中。他高度赞扬印度宗教和佛教的“无神论”，因为它们否认“天神”具有无限的能力，反对“天神”崇拜，缪勒以为这是通向一神教以至达到对基督教上帝信仰的阶梯。据此他说，这种无神论“是一切真正信仰的生命之血”；“是最真实的信仰。没有这种无神论，宗教早就变成一种僵化的虚伪。没有这种无神论，就不可能有新的宗教或宗教改革，我们任何人都不可能获得新生”。换言之，他的“无神论”是以基督教一神论排他性为标准的。他回顾了教会历来以“无神论”名义所作的诛杀，尤以1619年被处以“割舌”加“活埋”的“无神论者”瓦尼尼为典型——此人的“无神论”要点如次：

"You ask me what God is? If I knew, I would be God. For no one understands God except God himself. Although we can, in some way, discover God through his creation... yet we say that God is the greatest good, the first being, the all, the just, the merciful, the blessed, the peaceful; God is the creator, the preserver, the arbiter, the omniscient; he is the father, the king, the lord, the rewarder, the ruler; he is the beginning, the end, the middle, the eternal; he is authority, the giver of life, the observer, the craftsman, providence, the benefactor. Only God is the all in all."

“你们问我上帝是什么？如果我知道我就是上帝了。因为除了上帝自己之外无人了解上帝。尽管我们可以通过某种方式从上帝的营造物中发现上帝--------但我们要说上帝是最伟大的善，是第一的存在，是全部的、正义的、慈悲的、有福的、平静的；上帝是创造者、保护者、仲裁者、无所不知者；是父、是王、是主、是奖赏者、是统治者；是开始、是结尾、是中间、是永恒；是是权威、赐予生命者、观察者、巧匠、天佑、恩人。唯有上帝才是一切中的一切”。

That a believer so infinitely loyal to God could be branded with the crime of atheism and executed by the most extreme punishment not only lets us understand the harsh religious autocracy of the West and the indiscriminate killing of the innocent under the charge of "atheism," but also helps us understand the truth of so-called "atheist theology."

像这样无限忠诚于上帝的信仰者竟被冠以无神论罪名处以极刑，除了让我们了解西方严酷的宗教专制和以“无神论”罪名滥杀无辜之外，也有助于我们了解所谓“无神论神学”的真相。

Why is the author not broadly discussing Christian culture, but is particularly enamored with theology? Let us look only at his "view of Christianity." He says that his understanding and study of Christianity is not about its origins or history,

作者为什么不是泛谈基督教文化，而是对神学特别钟情？这里只看他的“基督教观”。他说，他了解和研究基督教，不是它的起源和历史，

"but more importantly, it should be about grasping its spiritual essence and the true nature of its thought. Therefore, the exploration of theological thought holds a uniquely significant meaning in the entire cognition and interpretation of Christianity. Theology embodies the activities of the church's thought and its theoretical exploration; it is the soul and essence of Christianity."

“更重要的应是把握其灵性精神和思想本真。因此，神学思想的探究在整个基督教的认知和诠释中有着极为独特的意义。神学体现出教会思想的活动和理论探索，乃基督教的灵魂和精髓之所在。”

That is to say, the author focuses on constructing theology in order to grasp "the soul and essence of Christianity" and to promote the "spiritual essence and the true nature of its thought." As for what exactly "spiritual essence and the true nature of its thought" and "soul and essence" are, he does not discuss them here. Let us see what he says next:

这就是说，作者着力于神学构建，为的是掌握“基督教的灵魂和精髓”，弘扬基督教的“灵性精神和思想本真”。至于何谓“灵性精神和思想本真”，“灵魂和精髓”又是什么，此处不谈。看他继续说：

"How to construct a theological system with Chinese characteristics and develop a Chinese-language Christian theological thought has become an increasingly concerned topic."

“如何构建具有中国特色的神学体系，发展出汉语基督教神学思想，已经成为人们越来越关注的话题”。

This "people" is a formulation that objectifies "us." They are indeed not just one person, but it seems that only the author of the "Article" has publicly declared that he is engaged in theological "construction." This construction is unified with "theological research," and the measures it adopts and the steps it takes are roughly as follows:

这个“人们”是把“我们”客体化的提法。他们确实不是一个人，但公开宣示从事神学“构建”的，好像还只有《文章》作者一人。这种构建与“神学研究”是统一的，其采取的举措和进行的步骤大致如下：

"For Chinese academia, the study of Christian theological thought should probably include two levels: one is to sort out and cognize the theological systems that have already matured within the context of Western culture; the other is to seek or create suitable theological concepts and discourse within the atmosphere of Chinese culture. These two levels complement each other and form an organic whole; neither can be neglected... The efforts of Chinese scholars in recent years have already created good conditions and laid the necessary foundation for this. People are eagerly looking forward to the systematic exposition of Christian theological thought and the construction of its system with Chinese characteristics, waiting for it to be accomplished naturally and ready to emerge."

“对于中国学界而言，基督教神学思想的研究大体似应包括两个层面，一是对在西方文化境遇中已臻成熟的神学体系加以梳理和认知，二是在中国文化氛围中寻找或创立合适的神学构思和话语。这两个层面相辅相成，有机构成，二者不可偏废------中国学者这些年来的努力已为之创立了良好条件，打下了必要基础。对基督教神学思想的系统阐述及其中国特色的体系构设，人们正翘首企足，待其水到渠成、呼之欲出。”

The reason I quote the author's original text word for word is, first, to preserve its "true nature" and avoid the suspicion of taking it out of context; second, to seek clarification, so that readers can interpret it together: 1. "To sort out and cognize the theological systems that have already matured within the context of Western culture": This includes the batch import and translation of Western theological works, the compilation of various theological series, and the publication of countless theological papers. 2. "To seek or create suitable theological concepts and discourse within the atmosphere of Chinese culture": Here, I draw the reader's attention to the fact that the "discourse" of academic theology is deliberately sought and created, and should not be read or heard lightly, including terms like "Marxist view on religion" and "religious studies research." 3. "To construct a theological system with Chinese characteristics": This issue will be introduced in detail below. 4. "The efforts of Chinese scholars in recent years have already created good conditions and laid the necessary foundation for the construction of a system of theology with Chinese characteristics" — What are these good conditions? What is the necessary foundation? The author does not explain, but the relevant institutions should seriously reflect on this. 5. The "construction of a system of Christian theological thought with Chinese characteristics" is "ready to emerge" — Unfortunately, the "Chinese characteristics" are distinct, but the "system construction" does not seem to show any trace of surpassing the Western theological system.

我之所以逐字逐句地引用作者原文，一是存其“本真”，以避断章取义之嫌；一是求解，便于读者共同解读：1、“对在西方文化境遇中已臻成熟的神学体系加以梳理和认知”：这包括成批量地引进和翻译西方神学论著，编著种种神学系列丛书，发表数不尽的神学论文。2、“在中国文化氛围中寻找或创立合适的神学构思和话语”；此处提请读者注意，学术神学的“话语”是用心寻找和创立的，不可等闲听之读之，包括“马克思主义宗教观”、“宗教学研究”之类。3、“构建具有中国特色的神学体系”，这个问题，下面将做具体介绍。4、“中国学者这些年来的努力已为中国特色神学的体系构建创立了良好条件，打下了必要基础”——这良好的条件是什么？必要的基础又是什么？作者没有交代，但有关机构值得认真反省。5、基督教神学思想的“中国特色的体系构设”，“呼之欲出”——很遗憾，“中国特色”是鲜明的，“体系构设”似乎并没有超出西方神学体系的任何痕迹。

Now, let us again use the author's own words from the "Article":

现在仍然用《文章》作者自己的话说：

"In Christian theology, viewing 'theology' as 'the science concerning 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 sort out a line of development starting from Plato, through Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine, Aquinas, Nicholas of Cusa, and up to contemporary theologians like Pannenberg, forming a thread of development."

“在基督教神学中，把‘神学’视为‘关于神的科学’，‘神被看做是神学唯一的和全面的目标’，显然可以追溯到柏拉图思想，由此可以梳理出一条由柏拉图开始，经亚里斯多德、普罗提诺、奥古斯丁、阿奎那、库萨的尼古拉、直至当代潘内柏格等神学家，构成一条发展的线索。”

This is, in fact, the self-proclaimed orthodox lineage of academic theology, because the theologian Pannenberg was the teacher of his systematic theology.

这其实就是学术神学自许的道统，因为潘内伯格这位神学家就是他的系统神学的教师。

The author has drafted an outline for his "academic theology":

作者对于他的“学术神学”拟有一个提纲：

1. "Introduction: Raising the Question," 2. "The 'Academic' Origins of 'Theology'," 3. "The Evolution of 'Theology' in the Christian Tradition," 4. "The 'Openness' of 'Theology' in the Contemporary Era and Its Situation in China," 5. "'Academic Theology' as a New Approach for the Study of Contemporary Christianity in China."

1、“引论：问题的提出”，2、“‘神学’的‘学术’溯源”，3、“‘神学’在基督教传统中的嬗变”，4、“‘神学’在当代的‘开放性’及其在中国的处境”，5、“‘学术神学’作为当代中国基督教研究的新进路”。

The content within is all for creating public opinion for the "construction" of academic theology in China, and can be found scattered throughout his countless papers and speeches. Once he gets to the "system structure" of "academic theology," its Western essence can no longer be concealed. The author says:

其中的内容，都是为在中国“构设”学术神学做舆论的，可以散见于他的数不清的论文和演说中，一旦讲到“学术神学”的“体系结构”，它的西方本色再也掩饰不住了。作者说：

"Within the systemic framework and epistemological meaning of 'systematic theology,' 'academic theology' has specialized research on its related 'theological' propositions."

“在‘系统神学’的体系框架和知识意义上，‘学术神学’有着对其相关‘神学’命题的专门研究。”

Here, only the names of these propositions are listed: 1. "Theology Proper," 2. "Christology," 3. "Pneumatology," 4. "Theological Anthropology," 5. "Soteriology," 6. "Creation Theology," 7. "Eschatology," 8. "Ecclesiology," 9. "Sacramentology." These topics themselves are without exception a direct copy of the theology of the Christian church and Christian faith, even if they come from "systematic theology." Finally, there is a summary:

此处只列举出这些命题的名称：1“神论”，2“基督论”，3“圣灵论”， 4“人性论”，5“救赎论”，6“创世论”，7“末世论”，8“教会论”，9“圣事论”。这些论题本身无例外地照搬基督教教会和基督教信仰的神学，尽管是来自“系统神学”。最后，是个概括：

“‘Academic theology’ takes its ‘theory of the divine’ as its core. But its theory of the divine is not a ‘confessional’ proof or an ‘apologetic’ defense, nor is it meant to address the question of ‘does God exist’ or to distinguish the ‘truth or falsehood’ of belief. Rather, it uses scholarly methods, philosophical analysis, and a hermeneutic attitude to attempt to describe and analyze what people talk about as ‘the divine’—precisely ‘what it is’ or what kind of expression and articulation it is. ‘Academic theology’ does not aim to prove whether ‘the divine’ exists, but rather, through analytical inquiry into the problem of ‘divinity,’ to unfold active dialogue, discussion, and communication. Here, ‘academic theology’ places its emphasis on research into the understanding of ‘God’ within the Christian faith tradition, using this as a basis to unfold comparative research on the theory of ‘the divine,’ introducing the perspective of ‘theories of the divine’ in the sense of world religions. In this sense, [‘academic theology is also a rationalized discourse about the Christian God’; ‘God,’ ‘the divine,’ or the ultimate being is the subject of theology], and when its [discourse about the divine] has already [formed a rationalized system of knowledge], it is naturally justified in [becoming theology].”

“‘学术神学’以其‘神论’为核心。但其神论不是‘认信’式的证明或‘护教性’的捍卫，不是要表明‘神存在么’的问题或辨认信仰的‘真伪’，而是用学问方式、哲学分析、解释学的态度来尝试描述、分析人们所谈论的‘神’--------究竟‘是什么’或究竟是怎样的表达及表述。‘学术神学’不立意于‘神’是否存在的证明，而是旨在通过对‘神明’问题的分析探究，展开积极的对话、讨论和沟通。在此，‘学术神学’将重点放在对基督教信仰传统中‘上帝’理解之研究，以此为基础展开‘神’论上的比较研究，引入世界宗教意义上的‘神论’视阈。从这种意义上来说，【‘学术神学’也是‘关于基督上帝的理性化言说’，‘上帝’‘神’或终极之在是神学的主词】，而当其【关于神的言说】已经【形成一种理性化的知识体系时】，理所当然可以【成其为神学】”。

The quotations in the 【】 brackets above come from Liu Xiaofeng’s “Sino-Christian theology.” [1]1 Liu Xiaofeng is a prominent Chinese intellectual and scholar of Christian theology, known for his work on “Sino-Christian theology” (汉语神学), which seeks to articulate Christian thought in the Chinese cultural and linguistic context. That is to say, even constructing “academic theology” requires citing others’ words to bolster one’s own authority—let us set this aside. That theology takes the theory of the divine as its core simply means that once separated from “the divine,” the so-called “study” cannot be constructed, nor can the “theory” be discussed. “The divine” is so vitally important to “theology” and “the theory of the divine,” yet it absolutely evades “‘the question of does God exist’” and does not distinguish the “truth or falsehood” of belief in the divine. How then can one arrive at the conclusion that the “Christian God” is a “rationalized discourse”? Where does this “rationality” and “discourse” come from? Is it a spiritual revelation or simply the biblical text?—Beginning roughly with Neo-Kantianism, a trend in Western philosophy arose that avoided discussing ontology. [2]2 Neo-Kantianism was a late-19th- and early-20th-century philosophical movement in Germany that revived Kantian themes, often rejecting metaphysical speculation about ultimate reality (ontology) in favor of epistemological and methodological questions. The reason Sino-Christian theology or academic theology does not discuss “whether God exists” and refuses to distinguish the “truth or falsehood” of belief in the divine stems from the dregs of the dregs of this philosophical trend. Yet through such a “hermeneutic attitude,” the “formation” of “a rationalized system of knowledge,” i.e., “academic theology,” is supposedly achieved. This, at least to me, seems very strange. “The divine” as the belief of certain citizens requires no argument, and people cannot directly interfere with it. But if something claims to be “non-confessional,” yet regarding the divine that is its academic subject, it both avoids discussing “existence” and “does not distinguish truth from falsehood,” then it can only be pseudo-academic; all its propositions are false propositions. Is fabricating falsehoods and creating fakes also a kind of “framework planning” for the Marxist view on religion?

上文【】中的引文，来自刘小枫的“汉语神学”，就是说，即使构建“学术神学”也得引用他人的话语为自己壮威，这且不论——神学以神论为核心，这无非表示，一旦离开“神”，所谓“学”不可能构建，“论”也论不起来。“神”之与“神学”和“神论”是如此生死攸关，但却绝对回避“‘神存在么’的问题”，不辨认对神的信仰是“真伪”的问题，那怎么会得出“基督上帝”是“理性化言说”？这“理性”和“言说”是哪里来的？是灵性的神启还就是《圣经》文本？——大约自新康德主义开始，西方哲学界就兴起一股避谈本体论的思潮，汉语神学或学术神学之所以不谈“神是否存在”以及拒绝辨认对神信仰的“真伪”，就是来自这种哲学思潮的末流之末流——然而通过这样的“解释学的态度”就实现了“一种理性化的知识体系”即“学术神学”的“形成”，至少在我看来是很怪异的。“神”之作为某些公民的信仰，无须论证，人们也不能直接干预；但若自称是“非信仰”的，却对其学术主体的神，既避谈“存在”与否，也“不辩真伪”，那只能是伪学术，所有命题都是假命题。造假作伪是否也是马克思主义宗教观的一种“框架规划”？

(To be continued)

（未完，待续）

Online editor: Jia Fei

网络编辑：嘉扉