What Kind of “View of Religion,” What Kind of “Religious Studies”? Also on “Academic Theology” (Part 2)

(Continued from the previous part)

（续上篇）

Fifth, why construct an “academic theology” in contemporary China?

第五为什么要在当代中国构建“学术神学”？

On this question, aside from the reasons already discussed above, two further points can be added:

关于这个问题，除了前面讲过的原因之外，还可以补充两点：

First, it is related to the judgment of the current social and cultural situation in our country: the so-called “crisis of faith” and the need for Christianity and its “spirituality” to “fill the gap.”

其一，与对我国当前社会文化形势的判断有关：所谓“信仰危机”以及需要基督教及其“灵性”的“填补”。

The author of “The Article” says: “The ‘crisis of faith’ experienced by Chinese people today is self-evident.” This “crisis of faith” is a lament voiced by no small number of prominent scholars and senior officials. I myself have always been skeptical: Since when did China have a universal “faith” among the entire people? What is this “faith,” and since when did it suddenly fall into “crisis,” and what are the reasons? It seems everyone sings a different tune. It is rare that the author of “The Article” offers an “analysis”:

《文章》作者说：“当前中国人经历的‘信仰危机’是不言而喻的”。这个“信仰危机”是不少大牌学者和高级官员发出的哀叹，本人始终持怀疑态度：中国从什么时候有了全民的“信仰”？这“信仰”是什么，又从什么时候就突然“危机”了，原因何在？似乎是各唱各的调。难得《文章》作者有个“分析”：

“In contemporary China proper, Christianity has also developed rapidly. Analyzing the reasons, on the one hand, it may lie in the fact that traditional Chinese culture and its religious ecology have been severely damaged, and the ‘wasteland’ or ‘vacuum’ thus created will naturally be filled and overgrown by new spiritual life; on the other hand, it may be that Chinese people who have suffered deep physical and mental trauma in the past will have ‘another choice’ in their spiritual thirst, looking forward to ‘a way out of the dark and into the bright’?!”

“在当代中国本土，基督教亦得到了迅猛发展。分析其原因，一方面可能就在于这种传统中国文化及其宗教生态遭到了严重破坏，其造成的‘荒地’或‘真空’自然会有新的灵性生命来填补、滋蔓；而另一方面，则或许是以往身心受到深重创伤的中国人会在灵性渴求上有‘另一种选择’，期待着‘柳暗花明’？！”

This “analysis” itself requires analysis. Limited by space, I will not discuss it in detail here; I need only point out: the judgment that “in contemporary China proper, Christianity has also developed rapidly” is based on two reasons, neither of which stands up to scrutiny: 1. Saying that “traditional Chinese culture and its religious ecology have been severely damaged” is a conclusion drawn from parroting the slanders of those who lament the decline of traditional Chinese culture and from an improper attitude toward traditional culture. It reflects a basic ignorance of the tradition of “renewing daily, renewing day by day” [1]1 “Renewing daily, renewing day by day” (苟日新，日日新，又日新) is a classical phrase from the *Great Learning* (《大学》), one of the Four Books of Confucianism, emphasizing continuous self-renewal and progress. and “the revolution of Tang and Wu, following Heaven and responding to the people” [2]2 “The revolution of Tang and Wu, following Heaven and responding to the people” (汤武革命，顺乎天而应乎人) is a phrase from the *Book of Changes* (《易经》), referring to the overthrow of the Xia and Shang dynasties by Tang and King Wu, respectively, as justified by heavenly mandate and popular will., as well as the dialectical relationship of sublation and development. 2. Saying that “it may be that Chinese people who have suffered deep physical and mental trauma in the past” — here “Chinese people” is an abstraction; one must see which “Chinese people,” under what conditions of time, place, and circumstances, are being referred to. From when does “in the past” begin? For what reasons, and from which forces, did the deep trauma to “body and mind,” or even to life and property, come? This must be clear. For example, the inscription on the Monument to the People’s Heroes in Tiananmen Square [3]3 The Monument to the People’s Heroes (人民英雄纪念碑) is a national monument in Tiananmen Square, Beijing, erected in 1958 to commemorate those who died in revolutionary struggles from the Opium Wars to the founding of the People’s Republic. Its inscription, written by Mao Zedong, reads: “Eternal glory to the people’s heroes!” has an expression recognized by “Chinese people.”

对这一“分析”须要分析，限于篇幅，此处不拟细谈，只须指出：“在当代中国本土，基督教亦得到了迅猛发展”的判断所依据的两方面原因，均经不住推敲：1、说“传统中国文化及其宗教生态遭到了严重破坏”，这是沿袭那些哀叹中国传统文化衰败者的谰言和对待传统文化的态度不正导出的结论，是基本上不懂“日新日日新”、“汤武革命，顺乎天而应乎人”的传统，以及扬弃和发展之辩证关系的反映。2、说“或许是以往身心受到深重创伤的中国人------”这里的“中国人”是个抽象，必须看在什么时间地点条件下的是哪些“中国人”；“以往”到从什么时候算起？“身心”甚或生命财产，是因为什么，以及来自哪些势力给予的深重创伤？这个一定要清楚。譬如，天安门广场上的人民英雄纪念碑碑文就有个为“中国人”公认的表述。

I believe that the concepts used in discourse should be clear and not leave people bewildered; “scholarship” is not about setting riddles for guessing, leaving people unable to understand what is being said; “scholars” should speak with evidence and not act like fortune-tellers, projecting their own predictions onto the future — even if today’s China truly has a faith “vacuum,” must it necessarily be “filled” by “new spiritual life”? Even if it has indeed become a faith “wasteland,” must it be “overgrown” by Christianity? Furthermore, how does the author calculate that “Chinese people who have suffered deep physical and mental trauma will have a spiritual thirst”? What “choice” is “another choice”? What is the non-other choice? What kind of realm is the “way out of the dark and into the bright” that is “looked forward to,” and whose expectation is it? — And so on. At the very least, it gives me the impression that this has nothing to do with Plato’s theology, but rather bears some resemblance to the practices of Chinese shamans.

我以为，话语使用的概念应该清晰，不能让人懵懂；“学术”不是出题猜谜，令人不知所云；“学者”应该言之有据，不能做算卦先生，把自己的预言加到未来的身上——即使今天的中国当真出现了信仰“真空”，就一定要“新的灵性生命”去“填补”？即使确实已经变成信仰“荒地”，就必须由基督教“滋蔓”？又，作者是怎样算出“受到身心深重创伤的中国人会存在灵性渴求”的？“另一种选择”是什么选择？非另一种选择又是什么？“期待着”的“柳暗花明”是种什么境界，又是谁人的期待？——如此等等，至少给我的印象，这与柏拉图的神学无关，倒是与中国巫觋的作为有些相似。

Please forgive my “ignorance”: does “new spiritual life” belong to some new discovery in biology? Furthermore, “its mystery and transcendence make the study of Christian culture a kind of exploration of the profound and hidden in the spiritual world” — where in the universe is this “spiritual world” located? Again, “this series of books aims to display the beauty, charm, and verve contained in Christian culture, to reproduce the inspiration and infection of its spirituality, spiritual energy, and spiritual cultivation on the development of world culture” — what “inspiration and infection” have this “spirituality, spiritual energy, and spiritual cultivation” given to the development of world culture? If I have the opportunity, I might follow the author’s discourse and take a look.

请恕本人“无知”，“新的灵性生命”属于生物学上哪类新发现？又，“其神秘性和超然性使基督教文化研究乃成为一种灵性世界中的探奥洞幽”——这“灵性世界”处在宇宙的何处？又，“这套丛书旨在展示基督教文化蕴涵的美感、魅力和神韵，再现其灵性、灵气和灵修对世界文化发展的启迪及感染”——这“灵性、灵气和灵修”对世界文化发展给了些什么“启迪及感染”？有机会本人或许再沿着作者的话语去转转。

Second, it arises from a sense of urgency in resolving “Chinese contextual theology.” The author says:

其二，出于解决“中国处境神学”中的迫切感。作者说：

“More important, and more urgent, is how Christian faith might achieve a ‘coherence’ with the new comprehensive cultural system that is currently taking shape in contemporary China, and play a more active and more proactive role in its construction. … Thinkers in Chinese academic circles are also forming a meaningful ‘academic theology’ or Christian academic reflection.”

“更为重要，更加迫切的是，基督教信仰如何可能与当代正在形成中的中国全新文化体系达到一种‘融贯’，在其构建中有更积极、更主动的参与-------中国学术界的思想家们，亦正在形成一种意味深长的‘学术神学’或基督教学术之思”。

The premise of this statement is “the new comprehensive cultural system that is currently taking shape in contemporary China”; the thesis is “how Christian faith might” “more actively and more proactively participate” in this “new comprehensive cultural system”; the concrete action is “thinkers in Chinese academic circles are also forming a meaningful ‘academic theology’ or Christian academic reflection” — see, here the “crisis,” “wasteland,” and “vacuum” have all disappeared, and suddenly a “new comprehensive cultural system that is currently taking shape in contemporary China” emerges, so the spiritual “filling” and “overgrowing” have also transformed into the more active and proactive participation of “Christian academic reflection” or “academic theology.” As for these “thinkers in Chinese academic circles,” aside from the author’s self-aggrandizement, readers can observe how large the scope of the “-s” actually is, but it is certainly not an isolated case. What are these “participation” activities? The author says:

此话的前提是“当代正在形成中国全新文化体系”；论题是“基督教信仰如何可能”“更积极更主动的参与”这一“全新的文化体系”；具体的行动是“中国学术界的思想家们，亦正在形成一种意味深长的‘学术神学’或基督教学术之思”——看，这里“危机”‘“荒漠”、“真空”全没有了，突然冒出个“正在形成中国全新文化体系”来，于是灵性的“填补”和“滋蔓”也变成了“基督教学术之思”或“学术神学”的更积极更主动的参与——这个“中国学术界的思想家们”，除了作者的自抬身价之外，“们”的范围实际有多大，读者可以观察，但绝非个例是可以肯定的。这“参与”的活动都是什么？作者说：

“We aim to deepen theoretically our understanding of current world religious theology and philosophy, to capture, outline, summarize, and synthesize the depth, breadth, and latest trends in the development of Christian thought; in practice, to clearly recognize the role played by Christianity in various aspects of contemporary world society and culture, as well as its impact on current Chinese social development, thereby preparing us ideologically and theoretically to meet the renewal of the times and the challenges of the 21st century.”

“我们旨在理论上深化对当前世界宗教神学、哲学的了解，对基督宗教之思想发展所达到的深度、广度及其最新动向加以扑捉、勾勒和概括、总结；在实践上则能认清基督宗教在当代世界社会文化各层面所发挥的作用，以及对目前中国社会发展的影响，从而为我们迎接时代更新和21世纪的挑战做好思想及理论准备”。

The “understanding,” “capturing,” “outlining,” “summarizing,” and “synthesizing” mentioned here are not empty words; behind them lie a large number of related activities. Interested friends might do some understanding and capturing. As for the demand to “clearly recognize” the “role” and “impact” of Christianity in “the contemporary world” and “Chinese social development” in practice, I am sorry, but these are two empty judgments: that Christianity has become a “universal religion” in global development, and that in China it is “developing rapidly,” are both nearly bluffs that cannot withstand serious scrutiny. As for the comprehensive decline of Christianity brought about by the popularization of Western science and secularization, and the growth of humanism and atheist thought, they turn a blind eye. They do not even have a trace of the perspective found in Jin Yijiu’s edited volume *Contemporary Religion and Extremism* [4]4 Jin Yijiu (金宜久) is a Chinese scholar of religion. *Contemporary Religion and Extremism* (《当代宗教与极端主义》) is a work analyzing the relationship between religion and extremism in the modern world.. To claim that they are “preparing ideologically and theoretically to meet the renewal of the times and the challenges of the 21st century” is far too selective and tendentious, is it not? — Here I will take the opportunity to explain the issue of the author of “The Article” accusing me of “raising the charges to a higher level.”

此中所称的“了解”、“扑捉”、“勾勒”、“概括”、“总结”，并非空话，背后有大量的相关活动，有兴趣的朋友不妨做些了解、扑捉。至于要求实践上“能认清基督宗教在当代世界”和“中国社会发展”中的“作用”和“影响”，对不起，却是两个空洞的判断：基督教在全球发展，已经成为“普世宗教”，在中国，更是“迅猛发展”，都近乎虚张声势，经不住认真的审视。至于对西方科学普及与世俗化带来的基督教全面衰退和人文主义及无神论思潮的成长，视若无睹；连金宜久主编的《当代宗教与极端主义》那样的视野也没有一丁点，就要为你们“迎接时代更新和21世纪的挑战做好思想及理论准备”，未免太有选择性和倾向性了吧——此处顺便解释一下《文章》指责我对作者“上纲上线”的问题。

This is related to one of my papers titled “What Shall Determine China’s Destiny: Belief in Ghosts and Gods or Scientific Rationality?” [5]5 The paper title is translated from the Chinese: 《让什么主宰中国命运：是鬼神信仰还是科学理性》.. Shanghai’s *Faith China* and Tianjin’s *Bohai Initiative* [6]6 *Faith China* (《信仰中国》) and the *Bohai Initiative* (《渤海倡议书》) are references to documents or statements that, according to Du Jiwen, advocated for making China a religious state and downplaying the role of science and technology. successively declared to the whole country that “China’s national development goal of achieving prosperity and strength” has shown obvious “limitations,” and that it is necessary to “abandon” the “excessive esteem for the spirit of science and technology,” with the common goal of transforming contemporary China into a religious state. In contrast, the anti-China forces in the West have two tactics: one is to export religion to us by any means, and the other is to do their utmost to impose a high-tech blockade, with the current goal of trying to curb China’s continued prosperity and strength. Based on this, my paper raised the question: “What kind of phenomenon are the above-mentioned *Faith* and *Initiative*? Are they resonating with the same spirit, echoing each other internally and externally?” (*Science and Atheism*, Issue 1, 2013) [7]7 *Science and Atheism* (《科学与无神论》) is a Chinese academic journal focusing on scientific and atheist perspectives. NOTES: none. Is this stating the facts as they are, or is it “raising the charges to a higher level”?

这与我的一篇题为《让什么主宰中国命运：是鬼神信仰还是科学理性》的论文有关。上海的《信仰中国》和天津的《渤海倡议书》，先后向全国宣示，“中国以富强为依归的国家发展目标”已呈现出明显的“局限性”，必须“放弃”对“科学技术精神的过度推崇”，共同的目标是变当代中国为宗教国家。对照西方反华势力的两手，一手是不择手段地向我们输出宗教，一手是竭尽其力地实行高科技封锁，当前的目标是想方设法遏制中国的持续富强。据此，我的论文提出质疑，上述的《信仰》《倡议》“算是什么现象，是同气相应，内外呼应么？”（《科学与无神论》2013年第1期）这是实事实说，还是“上纲上线”？

Sixth, on the question of the “extra-ecclesiastical” nature of academic theology

第六关于学术神学的“教外”性质问题

“The Article” says:

《文章》说：

“Academic research on ‘God’ exists both within Christianity and in extra-ecclesiastical academic circles. … Therefore, an ‘academic theology’ that objectively studies the question of ‘God’ from an academic perspective can be fully established. The view that ‘academic theology’ must necessarily be ‘academic proselytizing’ is either a fundamental misunderstanding of this research or ignorance of the history of the term ‘theology.’”

对“神”的学术研究既有基督教的，也有教外学术界的----，因此，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。那种认为“学术神学”就必然是“学术宣教”的说法要么是对这一研究根本不懂，要么就是对“神学”术语历史的无知”

Here I will focus on analyzing the first sentence. On the surface, the impression given is that “outside the church” refers to “outside Christianity.” In fact, it is not so. Its formal proposition is “there is theology outside the church,” that is, “outside the church,” and specifically outside the China Christian Council and the Three-Self Patriotic Movement. So what characteristics does China’s church theology have? From my rough understanding, on the whole, it aims to remove the label of “foreign religion,” to become genuinely Chinese, a religion belonging to the Chinese people — this is called “patriotic and loving the church”; in terms of content, it strives to identify with China’s native culture, that is, the Sinicization of Christianity. Ultimately, it seeks to resolve the situation of “dividing people by ‘believer versus non-believer,’” so that “Christians return to the embrace of the Chinese people, and the saying ‘one more Christian, one less Chinese’ will no longer be heard.”

此处着重对第一句话做点分析。字面上给人的印象，这“教外”是指“基督教之外”。实际不然。它的正式命题是“教会之外有神学”，即“教会之外”，而且是特指中国基督教两会之外。那么中国的教会神学有什么特点？据我的粗浅的了解，在整体上，是要摘掉“洋教”的帽子，名副其实的成为中国的，属于中国人的宗教，是谓“爱国爱教”；在内容上争取与中国本色文化认同，即基督教的中国化。最终要解决“以‘信与不信’来划分人群”的状况，使“信基督教的人回归到中国人民的怀抱之中，‘多一个基督徒，少一个中国人’的说法，不再听到”。

“Extracurricular theology” [n] is completely different:

“教外神学”则迥然不同：

“Under the impact of the ‘globalization’ tide in politics, economy, and culture, the ‘Chinese’ identity is becoming increasingly complex and pluralistic. On the one hand, the great transformation of ‘globalization’ has already blurred the traditional ‘national borders’ of many nation-states and weakened their ‘sovereignty’; contemporary China cannot avoid such changes in many areas either.”

“在‘全球化’政治、经济、文化大潮的冲击下，‘中国人’的身份认同日趋复杂和多元。一方面，‘全球化’大变革实际上已造成了许多民族国家传统意义上‘国界’的淡化及‘主权’的弱化，当今中国在不少领域同样不可能避免这种变化”。

Within the Chinese theological circle, “globalization” is a general assessment of the world situation, especially in the 21st century: the blurring of national borders, the weakening of sovereignty, and the pluralization of Chinese people’s national identity or citizenship. Whether this is factually true, I will not comment for now. But it is crucial for understanding the nature of “extracurricular theology.” Next:

在汉语神学圈内，“全球化”是对世界，尤其是21世纪的世界形势所作的总评估，即国界淡化、主权弱化、中国人的国籍或国家认同多元化。事实是否如此，暂不置评。但对认识“教外神学”的性质却至关重要。接下来看：

“In the trend of globalization, overseas Chinese ‘converting to’ Christianity may on the surface seem to ‘reduce’ the number of ‘Chinese,’ but in a positive sense, it can also be found that more Chinese are becoming ‘cosmopolitans’ or ‘global citizens,’ possessing a ‘universal’ consciousness and ‘worldwide’ participation. This ‘consciousness’ and ‘participation’ are full of ‘modernity’ and have their inevitability and necessity. This is the call and demand of contemporary development; it may cause ‘more’ Chinese to throw themselves into it. And this is also the ‘process of changing from localization to universality.’”

“在全球化发展的态势中，海外华人‘皈信’基督教，表面上看似乎‘少’了‘中国人’，但实际上也可从积极意义上发现有更多的中国人成为‘世界主义者’或‘世界公民’，有着‘普世’意识和‘世界性’参与，而这种‘意识’和‘参与’乃充满‘现代性’、并有其必然性和必要性。此即当代时代发展的呼唤和要求，它可能会让‘更多’的中国人投身于其中。而这也是使其‘从地域化向普世性变化的过程’。”

There is also a logical problem here. It originally spoke of “overseas Chinese,” but with the turn of the word “but,” it became “more Chinese.” All this verbosity boils down to explaining that “in the trend of globalization,” it seems there are fewer Chinese, but there are more cosmopolitans or global citizens, who “possess a ‘universal’ consciousness and ‘worldwide’ participation” — does this “universal consciousness” of such “cosmopolitans” or “global citizens” refer to “universal value” consciousness or “universal religion” consciousness? This is not clarified; perhaps the two are merged into one. In any case, it forcefully makes Chinese people no longer “Chinese,” replacing “patriots” with “cosmopolitans” — this is clear and certain. And “extracurricular theology” bears the heavy responsibility of making Chinese people “change from localization to universality.” According to this, this is precisely China’s “modernity,” the “call and demand of contemporary development,” and “has its inevitability and necessity.”

这里也有个逻辑问题。原初说的是“海外华人”，“但”字一转，变成了“更多的中国人”。啰嗦了这么多，要点只在说明，“在全球化发展的态势中”，似乎是少了中国人，但增多了世界主义者或世界公民，并“有着‘普世’意识和‘世界性’参与”——这类“世界主义者”或“世界公民”具有的“普世意识”是“普世价值”意识还是“普世宗教”意识？没有交代，或者合二而一，总之，力令中国人不再是“中国人”，用“世界主义者”替代“爱国主义者”，则是明确的，肯定的。而“教外神学”就承担着使中国人“从地域化向普世性变化”的重任。据称，此即是中国的“现代性”，是“当代时代发展的呼唤和要求”，“并有其必然性和必要性”。

As everyone knows, “patriotic and loving the church” is the foundation of the Chinese church’s existence. It is also the starting point and endpoint of church theology. “Extracurricular theology” is also completely different from this. The author of the “Article” [n] has a clear discussion, which I quoted in my “Interview”:

众所周知，“爱国爱教”是中国教会的立教之本。也是教会神学的出发点和落脚点。“教外神学”也与之迥然有异，《文章》作者有明确论述，我在《访谈》中曾引用：

“‘Patriotic and loving the church,’ with ‘patriotic’ first and ‘loving the church’ second, has become a fixed pattern for the existence and development of religion in mainland China for decades. In today’s ‘globalized’ religious demands for cross-national, cross-ethnic, and cross-regional universality, although many countries and regions still rely on their religions to maintain and protect the survival and development of their ‘nation,’ there are also many countries and regions where ‘loving the church’ supported by ‘universal faith’ shows signs and trends of weakening, bypassing, or abandoning ‘patriotism.’ Therefore, relying on ‘politics’ to support or sustain ‘religion’ has its relativity and possibility of failure; conversely, using ‘religion’ to maintain and assist ‘politics’ will also have its shortcomings or even produce the opposite result.”

“‘爱国爱教’且‘爱国’在先、‘爱教’在后乃成为中国内地几十年来宗教存在与发展的一种定式。在今天‘全球化’宗教跨国际、跨民族、跨地域的普世性诉求中，虽然不少国家和地区仍会靠其宗教来维系、保护其‘国’之生存和发展，但同样也有不少国家和地区出现了以‘普世信仰’支撑的‘爱教’淡化、架空或放弃‘爱国’的迹象和动向。所以，靠‘政治’来支持或支撑‘宗教’有其相对性和失效的可能性；反之亦然，若用‘宗教’来维护和帮助‘政治’，同样会出现其缺漏甚至适得其反的结果。”

Here again, there are many logical errors. The original intention of “patriotic and loving the church” is to realize the Sinicization of Christianity and to shake off the control of foreign forces; the author shifts the topic to whether Christianity and politics must depend on each other for survival. In fact, what he wants to express is that “globalization” has brought “universal faith,” that is, Christian faith, which “inevitably” must “weaken ‘loving the church,’ bypass or abandon ‘patriotism.’” This is also pointing out the “necessary” path for the Chinese church. I am sorry, but at this point I have to say that this kind of discourse echoes the movements of certain foreign forces to promote Christianity’s conquest of the world and occupation of China. Is this a description of facts, or is it taking things out of context and exaggerating them?

此处又犯了不少逻辑错误。爱国爱教的本意，是实现基督教的中国化，摆脱外国势力的控制；作者则把论题转移到基督教与政治是否要相依为命上。实际上他要表达的是，“全球化”带来了“普世信仰”，即基督教信仰，“必然“要“淡化‘爱教’，架空或放弃‘爱国’”。这也算是给中国教会指出“必须”走的道路。很抱歉，至此不得不说，这番言论与国外某些势力推动基督教征服世界和占领中国的运动又呼应起来了。这是事实的描述，还是上纲上线？

Finally, what is the particular difference between the theology of “extracurricular theology” and other theologies?

最后，“教外神学”的神学与其他神学有什么特别的差别？

“With the global spread and influence of Christianity as a ‘universal religion,’ it has gained greater openness and inclusiveness. The saying ‘outside the church there is no salvation’ has thus come to an end. ‘Christian theologians can constructively and interpretively explain the truth of their faith, the ‘meaning’ of ‘God,’ and firmly believe that ‘the truth proclaimed by Christianity is meaningful and real.’” “‘Academic theology,’ as a non-‘confessional,’ ‘church’-external research discipline, emerged as the times required, and there also appeared ‘humanistic theologians’ who use various methods from the humanities and social sciences to conduct objective, independent, and scientific research on Christianity.”

“随着基督教作为一种‘普世宗教’在全球范围的传播、影响，使之有了更大的开放性和包容性。‘教会之外无拯救’”之说也就结束了。“基督教神学家可以对其信仰真理、对‘上帝’的‘意义’加以建构性、诠释性积极解释，并坚信‘基督教所宣称的真理是有意义的和真实的’。”“‘学术神学’作为一门非‘认信’性质的、‘教会’之外的研究学科乃应运而生，并且也有了运用各种人文学科和社会科学方法来对基督教展开客观、独立、科学研究的‘人文神学家’”。

Among the world’s three major religions, academic theology alone calls Christianity the “universal religion,” which is a faithful reflection of Christianity’s “tension,” “exclusivity,” i.e., its aggressive nature; the end of the papal rule of “outside the church there is no salvation” has the historical background of the rise of Protestantism and free missionary work — these are not topics we need to discuss. The author’s meaning is to show that no matter what kind of Christian theologian, they all have the right to make “constructive and interpretive explanations” of their “truth of faith” and “meaning of God,” and to “firmly believe that ‘the truth proclaimed by Christianity is meaningful and real.’” It is precisely under this major premise that “academic theology” “emerged as the times required,” and “humanistic theologians” stood out. In short, the academic theology constructed by humanistic theologians has no difference from “church theology,” and of course bears the same salvific mission. The difference is only in “using various methods from the humanities and social sciences,” presenting a form of “objective, independent, scientific research.”

在世界三大宗教中，学术神学唯称基督教为“普世宗教”，乃是对基督教的“张力”、“排他性”亦即侵略性的如实反映；结束“教会之外无拯救”的教皇统治则有新教得以兴起和自由传教的历史背景，这都不是我们要讨论的话题。作者的意思在表明，不论属哪类基督教神学家，都有权对其“信仰真理”、“上帝的意义”作“建构性、诠释性积极解释，并坚信‘基督教所宣称的真理是有意义的和真实的’”。正是在这个大前提下，“学术神学”得以“应运而生”，“人文神学家”也就脱颖而出。简言之，人文神学家建构的学术神学，与“教会神学”，没有任何差别，当然也负有同样的拯救使命。所不同是“运用各种人文学科和社会科学方法”，显示出一种“客观、独立、科学研究”的形态。

III. Remarks Beyond the “Article”

三《文章》之外的话

The “Article” touches on many issues. My response focuses on its views on religion, religious studies, and academic theology. As for the remaining issues, I may or may not discuss them separately. But even on these three issues, one can roughly see the image of a “thinker” that the author of the “Article” has crafted for himself — sometimes “Marxism” with great righteousness; sometimes “Christian theology” with spiritual inspiration; sometimes wanting to participate in China’s current cultural construction, sometimes calling for “‘universal’ consciousness and ‘worldwide’ participation.” Where does this multiple personality come from? His dual identity as a CPC member and a humanistic theologian is handled so adeptly — what is the secret? This is also worth exploring. Here I will only introduce some of his suggestions advocating that the CPC should open its doors to religion:

《文章》涉及的问题颇多，我集中回应的是它有关宗教观、宗教学和学术神学的问题。剩下的问题，谈或不谈另说。但即使在这三个问题上，大体也可以看出《文章》作者为他本人塑造的“思想家”形象——一会儿“马克思主义”大义凛然；一会儿“基督教神学”灵性并发；一会儿要参与中国当前的文化构建，一会儿号召“‘普世’意识和‘世界性’参与”，这种多重人格哪里来的？其作为中共党员并兼人文神学家的双重身份做的是那么得心应手，奥妙在哪里？也值得探讨。此处仅就介绍点他在力主中国共产党应该为宗教敞开大门所做的若干建言：

First, the claim that “the Communist Party has always had a ‘dualistic structure’ of ‘religious belief’ and ‘political belief,’ and that this is not contradictory in theory either”—whether this “dualistic structure” has always existed and whether it is indeed not contradictory in theory I will not discuss here, but to characterize Marxism as a “political belief” and pair it with “religious belief” as a “duality” is quite novel—where does this formulation come from? The author of the “Article” mentions Russell. Russell wrote *Why I Am Not a Christian*, expressing his extreme contempt for Christianity; his *History of Western Philosophy* is also broadly permeated with this contempt. In it he says: “The Jewish mode of understanding past and future history was at all times strongly appealing to the oppressed and unfortunate in general; St. Augustine applied this mode to Christianity, and Marx applied it to socialism.” On this basis he compares certain terms from the scientific socialist movement with Augustine’s theological vocabulary, and adds two particular sentences: “Marxist eschatology acquired the value of a faith”; “A similar dictionary could be made for the Nazis.” That is to say, characterizing Marxism as a “faith” and placing it on a par with Christian faith stems from contempt for Marxism, and this is also a tactic commonly used by some anti-communist Western scholars; but within theological circles that treat attaching themselves to Marxism as a way of preaching, such discourse is often regarded as a glory for their own faith—for example, some Western theologians believe that *Capital* is a theological work because it proves the Christian doctrine of original sin. Seen in this light, what the author calls the “dualistic structure” is in fact transformed into a “dualistic unity.” But from the perspective of Marxism, this is nonsense.

第一，说“共产党一直存在‘宗教信仰’与‘政治信仰’的‘二元化结构’，在理论上也不矛盾”——这“二元结构”是否一直存在，以及理论上是否也不矛盾，这里不谈，但将马克思主义定性为“政治信仰”，与“宗教信仰”并称“二元”，却很新奇——这种提法来自何处？《文章》作者提到了罗素。罗素撰《为什么我不是基督徒》，表明他对基督教的极度鄙视；他的《西方哲学史》大体也贯穿着这种鄙视。其中有言：“犹太人对于过去和未来历史的理解方式，在任何时期都会强烈地投合一般被压迫者与不幸者，圣奥古斯丁把这种方式应用于基督教，马克思则将其应用于社会主义”。据此他将科学社会主义运动中的一些词汇与奥古斯丁的神学用语做了比较，而且特别加上两句：“马克思主义的末世论有了信仰的价值”：“对于纳粹也可作一类似的词典”。就是说，把马克思主义称之为“信仰”并与基督教信仰相提并论，是出于对马克思主义的鄙视，这也是西方的一些有反共情绪的学者惯用的手法；但在把贴靠马克思主义作为布道一种方式的神学圈内，却往往把此类话语当作对其信仰的荣光，例如有西方神学家认为，《资本论》就是神学著作，因为它证明了基督教的原罪论。如此看来，作者所谓的“二元结构”，实际上是被化作“二元一体”。但从马克思主义来看，这是胡说。

Second, the reason the “dualistic structure” can exist is that “the opposition between atheism and theism no longer exists,” and “the dispute between theism and atheism is a ‘false question.’” The full expression of this claim is:

第二，“二元结构”之所以能够存在，在于“无神与有神”的对立已不复存在，“有神、无神之争”是个“假问题”。这一说法的完整表达是：

“In the past people were entangled in false questions such as whether something was ‘capitalist’ or ‘socialist,’ ‘public’ or ‘private,’ and today they are about to turn the dispute between ‘theism’ and ‘atheism’ into a false question, while showing no genuine interest in what the ‘sacred’ actually points to.”

“人们过去曾纠缠于姓‘资’姓‘社’，为‘公’为‘私’等假问题，今天又快要把‘有神’‘无神’之争变成假问题，而对‘神圣’所致究竟为何却并不真感兴趣。”

This is very interesting. From the perspective of “Marxism,” questions such as “whether something is ‘capitalist’ or ‘socialist,’ ‘public’ or ‘private’” are matters of principle; otherwise, socialism with Chinese characteristics could not be established, and the ruling party would lose its reason for existence. Under the “guidance of the Marxist view of religion,” this matter of principle is turned into a “false question,” in order to make “people” “show genuine interest in what the ‘sacred’ points to”—where does this “sacred” come from? What does it “point to”? Readers can savor this from his “extracurricular theology.”

这很有意思。从“马克思主义”看来，“姓‘资’姓‘社’，为‘公’为‘私’等”是原则问题，否则，中国特色社会主义就不能成立，执政党也就失去了存在的理由；在“马克思主义宗教观指导”下，这个原则问题被转化成“假问题”，为的是令“人们”“对‘神圣’所致------真感兴趣”——这“神圣”来自何方？要“所致”什么？读者可以从他的“教外神学”中品味。

The above two points are the main basis for supporting the idea that a Communist Party member and a religious believer can be combined in one person. What follows is a concrete depiction of this “dualistic structure”:

以上两点是支持关于共产党员与教徒可以合为一身的主要依据。以下是对这“二元结构”的具体描绘：

“In most cases, the dimension of religious belief pertains to the afterlife, the other shore, the transcendent, and the ultimate, while the communist faith ideal pertains to this life, this shore, reality, and practice, and they are not on the same level and do not share the same dimension. These different levels of pursuit and different value dimensions of belief should, in actual existence, be able to coexist peacefully, harmoniously yet differently.” “One concerns the other shore and the afterlife, being a concern for after death or the ultimate; the other targets this shore and this life, being a concern for before death or for reality—the same person can maintain these two dimensions, pursuing different goals at different levels and reaching different realms.”

“在大多数情况之下宗教信仰之维是来世的、彼岸的、超越的、终极的，而与共产主义信仰理想的今世性、此岸性、现实性和实践性并不在同一层面，不具有同一纬度。这种不同追求层次、不同价值维度的信仰在实际存在中应该可以和平共处，和而不同。”“一种关涉彼岸与来世，为身（死）后或终极关切，另一种针对此岸与今世，为生前或现实关切-----同一个人可以保持这两个纬度，在不同层面追求不同的目标，达到不同的境界。”

If a cartoonist were to sketch this “dualistic structure,” i.e., these “two dimensions” or “levels,” I think it would be entirely possible, and it would certainly produce a highly satirical social effect.

如果漫画家将这“二元结构”即“两个维度”或“层面”勾画出来，我认为是完全可能的，而且一定会产生极具讽刺性的社会效用。

Finally, I must state: I respect freedom of religious belief, and I am happy to see the Chinese church building its own theological system. This article is entirely directed at what calls itself “non-ecclesiastical” and “non-faith” academic theology; the reason I question it is that this “Marxist view of religion” deviates from Marxism, and the construction site of its “academic theology” is placed within the national education and scientific research system, violating the national law of “separation of education from religion.” There is neither personal prejudice nor any connection with religious circles.

最后，必须说明：我尊重宗教信仰自由，对于中国教会建设自己的神学体系，乐观其成。本文所论，完全是针对自称“非教会”、“非信仰”的学术神学的；而所以对其质疑，是因为这种“马克思主义宗教观”背离了马克思主义，其“学术神学”的构建场合放置在国家教育和科研系统，违背了“教育与宗教相分离”的国家法律。既没有个人的成见，更与宗教所无关。

Online editor: Jia Fei

网络编辑：嘉扉