1Spring, 2001

Spring 2001Vol. 3 No. 1

Pers

pect

ives

an

d a

naly

sis

for

tho

se w

ho

serv

e C

hin

a

A recent visitor to the Mu’en Three Selfchurch of Shanghai confided, “Gosh, Ididn’t expect it to be so Western—not af-

ter hearing them say they were an indigenouschurch.” A choir in red robes, clergy in white,hymns like “Onward Christian Soldiers” and a ser-mon out of a book of Campbell Morgan, all com-bined to give the impression to the visitor he hadstepped back in time. He said, “It reminded meof London in the 1930’s, when I used to go toWestminster Chapel.”

The experience is little different among manyhouse churches. Favorite reading fare is Streamsin the Desert and My Utmost for His Highest-—twosturdy pillars of evangelical devotion. Much oftheir theology is drenched inDispensationalism and garnished with Cre-ationism and Inerrancy—all theological ex-ports from Europe and North America.Their style of preaching is old-hat evangelical,full of task lists about how to earn the blessingof God—holiness teaching with a Chinese ac-cent.

But is that all there is to the Chinesechurch? Is it really just a Western church un-derneath, with its theology, hymnology, andecclesiology borrowed from abroad? Is there aChinese theology? Has Christianity taken atruly indigenous form in China today? Is theChinese church Chinese enough?

These concerns have recently coalescedaround the issue of theology, which is seen asfoundational to everything else. And the lan-guage of crisis is beginning to be used. Longtime leader of the TSPM, Bishop K. H. Ting(Ding Guangxin) declared at the recent 50th an-niversary of the Three Self that “the crucial andmost important step for successful church admin-istration is the development of a genuine Chinese

The Roots ofBishop K.H. Ting’sTheology . . . . 4

Into the Future:Ding’s Theologyand China’s Church . . . . 7

“Cultural Christians”and ChineseTheology . . . . 10

Converging Agendas:Religion, Socialism,and TheologicalConstruction . . . . 12

Inside:

Alex Buchan

The Search for a moreChinese Theology

If we do not developa better Chinese theology,

then the church will be irrelevantto the massive social changes

sweeping China today.

Is the Chinese churchChinese enough?

❝

❞

2

Never Ends, are being foisted uponmany of China’s 18 seminaries as amodel for bringing this new theologyabout. But Ting is not alone. Accord-ing to the Rev. Baoping Kan, Vice Presi-dent of Beijing Theological Seminary,“Our present day theology is too West-ern, too outdated, and if we do not de-velop a better Chinese theology, thenthe church will be irrelevant to themassive social changes sweeping Chinatoday.”

The house churches are more san-guine, though that may be more due tothe fact that very little theological re-flection goes on at all. Yet among theyounger, better educated house churchleaders of the cities there is a growingunease. Said a Xian based Bibleteacher who had studied theologyabroad, “Older converts wereequipped to deal with Communismand resisted heroically; but today theconverts must cope with Consumerism,and they do not know how. We musthave a better theology or our faith willnot connect to this disturbing, bewil-dering society we find ourselves in.”

What is the nature of this theologi-cal crisis in China’s church today? Weassess this first in the official Three Selfchurch, and secondly among the housechurches, where the problems take adifferent form.

A. The search for a Chinesetheology in the Three SelfThat there is a search is shown by thefrequency of writing on the topic in theofficial Three Self theology magazine,Tianfeng, and in the Amity News Ser-vice, particularly over the past threeyears. The arguments for a new theol-ogy can be examined in four areas of

crisis: historical, intellectual, social andecclesiological.

1. Historical crisis. The argumentfrom Ting et al is that the problem be-gan when Western missionaries insistedon planting Christianity in such a waythat new converts had to repudiateConfucian culture to become Chris-tians, with the result that to be moreChristian, one has to be less Chinese.Baoping Kan, writing in Word and Worldin 1997 complains that the Westernmissionaries brought the most extremeform of Calvinism (TULIP), with theresult that “Chinese Christians cannotremain an integral part of their own so-ciety.” Thus there is a culture vs Chris-tian divide that needs to be dis-mantled—the legacy of the colonialmissionary.

2. Intellectual crisis. The problemhere is that very few have the time toactually do any theology thinking inpresent day China. Kan in the same ar-ticle reckons a genuine Chinese theol-ogy was getting underway in the fiftieswith thinkers like T. C. Chao and Y. T.Wu, but their project was derailed dur-ing the Cultural Revolution. The eight-ies and nineties have seen churches re-opening at such a rapid rate that it is allthe Three Self can do to train youngpastors for all the new congregations.The pastoral crisis has overshadowedthe theological crisis. Even in the semi-naries—the normal place for theologi-cal reflection—the candidates are tooyoung, and too poorly educated, to at-tempt theological reflection. As theVice President of Wuhan Seminary con-fided with a smile, “All we can do isturn out preaching machines, for that’swhat our graduates have to do.”

And if few have the time, still fewer

have the inclination. Writes Mr. Ji Tai,former associate dean of studies atNanjing Theological Seminary,“...there exists in the church a preva-lent thinking that ‘to despise rationalityis equivalent to richness in one’s spiri-tual life.’” Some Three Self lecturerscomplain that the fundamentalist na-ture of the old theology has resulted inan anti-intellectualism among China’sChristians.

3. Social crisis. “China is developing.The Chinese church is growing. Un-der the surface, however, these two sig-nificant movements are not inte-grated.” So wrote Baoping Kan in1997. He explains further in May 2000,“Chinese society is full of new prob-lems, massive corruption, drugs, unem-ployment, and it needs ethical guid-ance, but because the church is sofundamentalist in its theology, it takesno interest in the social system, andtherefore gives no lead.” It is the es-sential pietism of the old theology thatgalls these new theologians, since it re-fuses to engage with the world at large,and Christianity is perceived as some-thing you do privately, but has no rel-evance to the public sphere. ThusChina’s social crisis goes unaddressedby the very people that could help themost—the Christians.

4. Ecclesiastical crisis. According toBishop Ting et al, a new theology isneeded to “safeguard Christian unity.”Writes Kan, “One of the reasons peopleare attracted to heretical groups is thatso often the theology taught in theirown churches is antiquated.” Predict-ably, heresies are said to be mainly theproduct of outsiders interfering withthe church, but the need for a coher-ent theology is to ensure that the

Copyright © 2001 by ChinaSource. ChinaSource is published quarterly by ChinaSource, a cooperativeeffort of Evangelical Fellowship of Mission Agencies, the Interdenominational Foreign Mission Associa-tion, World Evangelical Fellowship, and the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton College. Its purpose is toprovide up-to-date and accurate analysis of the issues and opportunities facing Christians involved inChina service and to provide a forum for exchanging viewpoints and discussing strategies. The viewsexpressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of ChinaSource or its cooperating agencies.

Brent Fulton, Editor ● Julia Grosser, Managing Editor ● Dona Diehl, Layout and Design

ChinaSource may be requested from ChinaSource, P.O. Box 4343, Fullerton, CA 92834 (china@xc.org or 714-449-0611). Subscription rates:USA: $24/yr., $44/2 yrs., $60/3 yrs.; International : $28/yr. , $52/2 yrs., $72/3 yrs. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may bereproduced or transmitted without prior written permission of the publisher.

Wheaton CollegeWheaton CollegeBILLYILLY G GRAHAMRAHAM C CENTERENTER

3Spring, 2001

higher echelons of the Three Self giveclear guidelines on what kind ofchurch each congregation should be.At the moment there is no such guid-ance, and local groups must decide bythemselves. It is this vacuum of leader-ship that worries Three Self leadership,fearing that it will surely lead to thatgreat Western evil—denominational-ism. Thus, they need a new cuttingedge theology around which to buildthe new 21st century church, lest eachcongregation or province goes its ownmerry way and there is a loss of unityand uniformity.

One can see the stakes are high. Forthese thinkers, a new theology is ur-gently needed for China to have achurch capable of combating heresyand staying unified, and reaching outto Chinese society and staying relevant.Galloping growth is not enough. SaysRev. Kan, “People are running to Chris-tianity now because it is so self-confi-dent, full of certainties, but this sure-ness is not well based, and will wither,and then where will they be?”

Only a brief critique of the above ar-gument can be attempted here. Whileall agree that more theological reflec-tion is needed (who wouldn’t?), manyobject to the model of theological re-flection Ting and his circle insist upon.Obviously any theology seeks a correla-tion between word and context, but thefear is that Ting’s wish is to begin fromcontext, rather than from revelation.Following the context-driven theolo-gians such as Hick, Kaufman andTillich represents a form of liberal ac-commodation to the culture that dis-tresses many more conservative think-ers in China, especially when the likesof T. C. Chao and Y. T. Wu are quotedso approvingly. Chao, for example, be-lieved that the Confucian belief in theinnate ability of humans to be good re-futed the Calvinist view that humanswould always fail to attain God’s lovethrough their own efforts. And Wu be-gan to recast the faith in the light ofMarxist-Maoist teachings in the fifties.When Ting talks of “making theologycompatible with socialism,” alarm bellsare rung in the minds of evangelicals,including some not quite so conserva-

tive ones. The concern is that the newtheology called for is not new in theleast, but is rather a dated and warmed-over Social Gospel theology, which failsto understand that not all evangelicaltheology is fundamentalist in tone ornature. As a student at Nanjing Theo-logical Seminary said after hearingTing preach that Christ was not physi-cally resurrected because modern sci-ence made such a notion absurd, “Hisviews reflect the narrow theological ex-perience of his own liberal educationrather than the theological diversity ofEvangelicalism.”

Another objection to the new theol-ogy recommended is that it smacks ofelitism. If the culture is the new start-ing point for theology, which cultureare you talking about? Is it the cultureof intellectuals, of Confucianism and ofSocialism? Or is it the ancient cultureof the land, spirit worship, ancestorworship and spells? In most cases thenew theology envisaged would dealwith modernity, science and ethics—is-sues of the city—but perhaps the reallyimportant engagement with folk cul-ture is being neglected—issues of thevillage!

A third objection has to do with thesheer vagueness of it all. Said a lec-turer in a northern Chinese seminary,

“They keep telling us the old theologyis bad, but they don’t really tell us whatthe new theology is.” It is true thatmost of the writing thus far from thenew theologians majors on critiquerather than construction, though intheir defense it might be said that onehas to be done before the other. Butcritics surely have a point. Ji Tai in anarticle entitled “Is there a Chinese The-ology?” spends three pages saying whatis wrong with the old theology, then fin-ishes up thus: “We need to probedeeply, using our reasoning and devel-oping our own theories systematically.This is the kind of theology that theChinese church needs. Together we tryto learn God’s will for our age andtime. The Chinese church needs theol-ogy. The construction of Chinese the-ology needs the participation of every-one of us.”

Beneath these bromides very fewspecifics are offered, though as we shallshortly see, it may be that Ji Tai’s heartwas not in it. The clichés hide the factthat although everyone is bidden to dothe new theology, very few actuallyseem to be producing it.

A final objection is to do with trust.The fact is that Ting and those hehandpicks to spread his message are al-

China’ social crisis goes unaddressed by the verypeople who could help them most —the Christians.

Continued on page 8

4

aroused strong opposition fromevangelicals in China and serious con-cern overseas.

It is helpful, therefore, to under-stand the background to Bishop Ting’slong career and his developing theol-ogy. Although retired from his posts ashead of the TSPM and CCC, BishopTing clearly retains a significant influ-ence and appears bent on making apermanent mark on Chinese theology.

Bishop Ting was born in Shanghaion September 20, 1915. This was onlyfour years after the overthrow of theQing dynasty by Sun Yat-sen but al-ready China was sliding into the chaosand misery of the Warlord era. His fa-ther was a banker, and both parentswere Christians. Ting’s maternal grand-father had been an Anglican minister.The boy was sent to St John’s University

in Shanghai, which was run by theAmerican Episcopal Church, to studyengineering, but later changed to the-ology at the urging of his mother whoprayed that her son, too, would be-come an Anglican minister.

During the thirties Ting first cameinto contact with Wu Yaozong, wholater became the first leader of theThree Self movement. By his own ac-count, Ting was greatly impressed byWu’s radical theology that encouragedhim to sideline his Greek textbooksand the evangelical “Thirty-Nine Ar-ticles” of the Church of England in fa-vor of the “question of national salva-tion.” Wu told him that “only after thesocial system in China underwent a ba-sic change would objective conditionsemerge to make personal transforma-tion possible.” Thus, from his youth,

Ting appears to have chosen a theologyof political liberation in preference tothe evangelical Gospel that stresses per-sonal transformation through faith inChrist.

Wu was influential in the YMCA inShanghai and between 1938-1943 Tingwas active as Student Secretary of theShanghai “Y.” This was during the diffi-cult years of the Japanese occupation.Ting encouraged young Christians andnon-Christians to meet together to dis-cuss social and political questions, andhold Bible studies.

In 1979 Ting related to a visiting Ca-nadian, Dr Gardner, his “conversion ex-perience” from orthodox Christianfaith to a political social Gospel: “Therewas one type of Christian belief whichwe felt to be irrelevant and we, or manyof us gave it up. The type which saidthat all the trouble in China was due tosomething wrong in the hearts of hu-man beings and therefore the firstthing that Christians wanted to do wasto change people’s hearts.... We movedto a Christian faith which has some-thing to say about the transformationof the social system.”3

In 1942 Ting was ordained as apriest in the Sheng Gong Hui (AnglicanChurch of China). In the same year hemarried Kuo Siu May from Wuhan whohad studied at St Mary’s Hall, an Angli-can high school in Shanghai and atBeijing (then Yenching) University.For the next three years he served aspastor of the International Church inShanghai. However, in 1946 he movedto Canada to become the Missions Sec-retary of the Student Christian Move-ment. After a year, they moved to NewYork where Ting completed a Master’sDegree at Union Theological Seminary,then, as now, a bastion of “progressive”theology.

In China the savage civil war be-tween Communists and Nationalists wasfast reaching a decisive conclusion. InMay 1949, Ting went to Prague to at-tend the Stalinist-dominated World

Tony Lambert

The 1930s up to the Cultural Revolution

he last year has seen the pro-motion by Bishop K. H. Ting(Ding Guangxin), former head

of both the China Christian Council(CCC) and the Three Self PatrioticMovement (TSPM), of a campaign for“theological construction” that is “com-patible with socialism.” Pastors andseminary students in many placesacross China have been encouraged toattend meetings to study Ting’s SelectWorks that was first published in 1998.Ting has strongly attacked evangelicals(whom he admits are the overwhelm-ing majority in the Chinese Protestantchurch). In the preface to a new book,Love Never Ends, published in Septem-ber 2000, he has also attacked the cen-trality of justification by faith, the reli-

ability and inerrancy of the Bible andthe necessity for faith in Christ,downplaying the difference betweenfaith and unbelief.1 Nanjing Semi-nary, the most prestigious in the coun-try, has been purged of evangelicals,first, in 1999 when three students weredismissed ostensibly for refusing to singCommunist Party anthems in the semi-nary chapel: three prominent gradu-ates then resigned in protest. In 2000,various members of the faculty were re-moved or sidelined. The most promi-nent was a promising young evangelicaltheological teacher, Ji Tai, who was dis-missed last June.2 This politicizedcampaign for “theological construc-tion” can therefore not be dismissed asa gentlemanly theological debate. Ithas already seriously impacted people’slives. Ting’s theology and actions have

T

Although retired from his posts as head ofthe TSPM and CCC, Bishop Ting clearly remains asignificant influence and appears bent on making a

permanent mark on Chinese theology.

The Roots of Bishop K.H. Ting’s Theology

5Spring, 2001

Peace Council where he again met WuYaozong. Wu, Ting later said, talked tohim at length about the role of thechurch in the new Communist societyand the important place of the Com-munist Party’s “United Front” policy.Wu also told him that there would haveto be “extensive and intensive educa-tion” about the new religious policyamong all religious believers, the gen-eral public and Party cadres.4

In 1950 the Korean War broke out.Ting and his family returned to Genevawhere they had been living previously,for a further year. Despite the warningsof some Western friends, they flew toHong Kong and arrived back in Shang-hai in late August 1951.

In February 1952 Ting published hisfirst theological article in Tianfeng, themouthpiece of the TSPM. In this hedrew a political meaning from God’squestion to Adam in the Garden ofEden after the fall: “Adam, where areyou?” (Genesis 3:6-13). According toTing, this was a call for political partici-pation by Chinese Christians in theCommunist Party’s mass political cam-paigns that caused immense sufferingin the fifties and sixties. “Today we aresurrounded on all sides by the hightide of the (Party’s) ‘Three Antis Cam-paign.’ If we Christians confess and re-pent before God and before the Peopleour own heavy burden will be castaside. Then we can throw ourselvesbravely into this movement of the en-tire People.” Ting stated enthusiasti-cally that the church had failed, butthe Party had succeeded under thebanner of Mao. “In the era when dark-ness ruled (i.e. pre-1949) not a fewChristians shone like ‘candles in a darkroom.’ But today when ‘The east is redand the sun rises’ (a clear reference toChairman Mao taken from the popularCommunist anthem) we have no causefor self-congratulation. In the radianceof the People’s high morality our(Christian) ‘bright lamps’ are luster-less. Faced with the manifestation oftheir high morals and their vast move-ment opposing every kind of crime weare like Adam, having no way of escap-ing God’s searching question: ‘Whereare you?’”

Ting also extolled revolutionaryMarxist heroes: “Today in farms, in fac-tories and in armed resistance on thefront-line (against the UN forces in Ko-rea) ordinary people are producing ex-traordinary results every moment.Nourished by patriotism ‘they out ofweakness were made strong and waxedvaliant in fight’ (Hebrews 11:34). Theywere those of whom the world was notworthy (v. 38). Inspired by the greatspirit of the new democratic nationthey have simply become a new kind ofpeople in the world.” Although therhetoric has been downplayed since,this train of thought in which Commu-nist heroes set an example for thechurch is one which can be found inmany of Ting’s essays down to thepresent.

From the middle fifties to themiddle sixties Ting often visited WuYaozong who had by then become theleading figure in the nascent TSPM.Ting was one of the youngest of a coreof generally theologically-liberal churchleaders who rallied to the Party underWu’s leadership.5

In April 1952, he published a furtherarticle in Tianfeng comparing the deathof Christ to the deaths of revolutionarymartyrs: “Whether in German concen-tration camps, Turkish prisons, villagesin old China or on Golgotha’s cross‘those of whom the world was not wor-thy all having obtained a good reportthrough faith received not the prom-ise....’ The distant prospect which theyviewed from afar by faith has become areality which we can see with our eyesand touch with our hands in today’snew world. Today those who have anew consciousness and new couragemarch forward in the mainstream ofhistory, causing all the forces of dark-ness to reel back in panic.”

To facilitate the dismantling of thedenominational structures, the TSPMheld a meeting in Shanghai in August

1952 at which it was decided to closedown eleven theological colleges andamalgamate them into the existingNanjing Jinling Theological Seminary.The TSPM chose the board of directorsand Ting was appointed the new prin-cipal. Thus began his long associationwith Jinling that has lasted (with abreak during the Cultural Revolution)for over 45 years until the present day.

In the fifties, the students were ex-pected to spend at least two days perweek in political studies. In early 1953,Ting reportedly told them that full aca-demic freedom prevailed but it was not“freedom to pervert the scriptures,spread rumors, oppose those fightingfor right, or to uphold imperialism.”6

In 1955, although still only aged 40,Ting was consecrated as a bishop of the

Anglican Church for the diocese ofZhejiang near Shanghai. It should benoted that by that time the Anglicanchurch, as all other church denomina-tions, was virtually defunct as an inde-pendent organization.

In 1955 Ting crossed swords withthe redoubtable Wang Mingdao, leaderof China’s independent evangelicals.In a pamphlet, “We, Because of Faith,”published in June of that year, Wang at-tacked the liberal theology of both WuYaozong and Ting, quoting their writ-ings extensively to prove his point thatthere could be no compromise with aliberal theology which denied the basictenets of the Gospel. A series of ar-ticles was then published in Tianfeng aspart of an orchestrated national cam-paign to defame Wang Mingdao. Inmid-August, Ting published a long ar-ticle attacking Wang in Tianfeng en-titled “A Stern Warning to WangMingdao.” One week earlier, on thenight of August 7, Wang and his wifehad already been arrested and disap-peared into prison and labor camp fora total of 23 years.

In 1956, a brief relaxation in repres-

Ting was one of the youngest of a core ofgenerally theologically-liberal church leaders who

rallied to the Party under Wu’s leadership.

6

sion occurred during the famous “Hun-dred Flowers” Campaign, when Mao atfirst encouraged people, especially in-tellectuals, to criticize the Party. ManyChristians responded, complaining ofdiscrimination, that children of believ-ers were sometimes expelled fromschool, that atheistic propaganda wasfull of abuse against Christianity and soon. A provincial Chairman of the TSPMeven opposed the control of religiousaffairs by the government and saidopenly that the RAB was bureaucraticand had “restricted religious affairs.”

Ting delivered a lecture to his stu-dents in June 1957 just as the “Hun-dred Flowers” campaign was beingphased out. He challenged the Com-munist stereotyped classification of allideology and religion as either materi-alistic or idealistic and attacked theMarxist view that Christianity is an opi-ate. Despite these forthright criticisms,Ding surprisingly emerged unscathedwhen Mao unleashed the “Anti-Right-ist” campaign soon after.7 Most otherChristians were not so fortunate.

From the middle-fifties an ominoustwilight had fallen across the church inChina. Church membership, withsome exceptions, dwindled. Manyyoung people, brought up in Christianfamilies, joined the Party. Thereseemed little future for the church. In1966, the catastrophe of the CulturalRevolution erupted closing down thelast few churches. Pastors and religiousleaders were beaten, imprisoned andsent to labor camps or to work in facto-ries or in the countryside.

However, Bishop Ting again escapedsurprisingly unscathed from the Cul-tural Revolution. According to his ownaccount, the Nanjing Seminary wasclosed down and became the headquar-ters of the Red Guards in that city.Ting was given exceptional preferentialtreatment in that he was permitted dur-ing the latter period of the CulturalRevolution to receive foreign visitors inNanjing. He was allowed to speak tothem as a quasi-government spokesmanjustifying Maoist policies that had oblit-erated the institutional church.

In an interview with E. H. Johnsonin March 1973, Ting stated that the Red

Guards in 1966 entered his home andchurch and took books, the cross, andthe candlesticks but in a few months itwas agreed that religion was to be re-spected and the books and religiousobjects were returned. He further toldJohnson that ordained professionalministers and church buildings wereconsidered “non-essential” to Christianministry, (both, of course, had beenruthlessly banned since 1966 at the out-break of the Cultural Revolution.)

On October 22, 1976, Ting met withEugene Stockwell at the Nanjing Semi-nary soon after the death of Mao andthe downfall of the leftist “Gang ofFour.” Ting stated bluntly that “mis-sionaries were tools of imperialist ag-gression.” He also stated that: “withthe new position and esteem of labor,many of our ministers wanted to iden-tify themselves with the people aroundthem in mental and manual labor.They feel they do not want to be full-time ministers.” He also stressed how“there is a constant decrease in thenumber of Christians.... With the impe-rialist background it is understandablethat the number of believers would de-cline.” Because of this “it is unthink-able to maintain a five-year (theologi-cal) course for students to educatethem in an ivory tower to be a newelite. Christians will not support themanyway.” When asked by Stockwellwhether he would agree that Christian-ity would die out in China Ting stated:“I would not be surprised if that wouldbe the case.”

In 1978, when Deng Xiaoping wasbeginning to rise to power and “leftist”influence was well on the wane, Tingmet with Howard Hyman in Nanjing.He told Hyman that “Chinese Chris-tians today are not eager to hold meet-ings in church buildings.... The theo-logical and liturgical concepts ofbuilding those churches was entirelyWestern.” Ting also opposed the ideaof evangelism of the vast Chinese popu-lation: “As far as I can see very few Chi-nese Christians today think that he orshe has a call to evangelize China.... Itwould not be fruitful, to say the least,for us to talk too much about evange-lism, because we would be promoting a

Western commodity.”8

Ting admitted to his visitors duringthe seventies that small numbers ofChristians in Nanjing were meeting inhomes, but the above comments showclearly that as late as the late seventieshe saw no real future for Christianity.His comments read strangely in view ofthe subsequent massive growth of theGospel over the past two decades and ofthe vast building program of churchesand seminaries across China which hehimself headed in the eighties andnineties.

(Editor’s note: The remainder ofBishop Ding’s life and thought will becovered in a later issue of ChinaSource.)

NOTES1. “Zhongguo Jidujiao Shengjingguan

Xueshu Yantao Hui Lunwenji” (“Essays fromthe Conference on Views of the Bible of theChinese Christian Church”), TSPM/CCC,Sept 2000, pp.1-4.

2. The statements and letters of the stu-dents, graduates and Ji Tai have been widelycirculated in Chinese on the Internet. Seealso South China Morning Post (Hong Kong),28 June 1999.

3. China and Ourselves, May 1980, Inter-view of Bishop Ting by Dr. Gardner inCanada.

4. No Longer Strangers: Selected Writing ofK.H. Ting, p.155.

5. No Longer Strangers, p.10.6. Religion in Communist China, R. Bush,

pp.87-88.7. The Church in Communist China, Francis

P. Jones, p.139.8. New China magazine, Summer 1979.

SOURCESBush, Richard C. Religion in Communist

China. Nashville & New York: AbingdonPress, 1970.

“Ding Guangxun’s Earliest Statements inTianfeng.” Research Paper, Christian Com-munications Ltd, Hong Kong, March 1983.

Ding Guangxun Wenji, Select Works ofDing Guangxun. Nanjing: Yilin Publishers,1999.

Jones, Francis P. The Church in CommunistChina. New York: Friendship Press, 1962.

Tianfeng, August 15 1955.Wang Mingdao, Wushi Nian Lai (These

Fifty Years), Bellman House, Hong Kong,1967.

Whitehead, R. L. ed. No Longer Strangers:Selected Writings of K.H. Ting. New York:Orbis, 1989.

Wickeri, Philip L. Seeking the CommonGround. New York: Orbis, 1988.

Tony Lambert is the director of China researchfor OMF International and the author ofChina’s Christian Millions.

7Spring, 2001

D

A

Uishop Ding Guangxun’s LoveNever Ends, which has becomerequired reading in China’sThree Self seminaries and

Bible schools, has created quite a stirboth in China and among Christiansoutside of China. Western evangelicalcomments on Ding that I have read orheard, especially as regards his theologyand promotion of “theological con-struction” in China’s seminaries, aremainly negative. While Westernevangelicals have had difficulty withsome of the liberal theological posi-

tions Ding has espoused over the years,I, as an evangelical, believe his recentbook brings out some significantthemes that deserve serious consider-ation by those who are concernedabout the state of Christianity in China.

A Theological Time WarpIn his book, Ding speaks to a basic issueconcerning the future of the ChineseChurch: China’s church is theologicallyweak. It is stuck in a turn-of- the-cen-tury fundamentalist theology that isconfused with evangelicalism. To un-derstand the Chinese view of evangel-icals we must recognize that in 1949China’s church lapsed into a sort oftheological time warp. Because China’sdoor closed to new theological ideas in1949, the church’s theology remainedas it was since the beginning of the cen-tury. Meanwhile, the church in otherparts of the globe advanced in its think-ing and theological method, and mod-ern evangelicalism, as we in the Westnow understand it, came into being.

Christians in China, therefore, arenot evangelical in the same sense that

the West understands the evangelicalchurch. Because fundamentalistthought was the dominant theologicalthought before 1949, Chinese Chris-tians are more fundamentalist in theirtheological outlook. Conversely, whenChina’s church leaders think and speakabout Western evangelicals, they equateevangelicals with fundamentalists. Thisproblem is exacerbated by the fact thatnearly all of China’s understanding ofWestern evangelicals comes from thenegative reports Western evangelicalsput out concerning China and the offi-cial church.

China’s church leaders see this theo-

logical time warp as a major challengethat threatens the future of the Chinesechurch. The church’s theological back-wardness creates a number of seriousproblems, especially hermeneutical.Theological beliefs and church prac-tices are created from a passage ofScripture without sound exegesis. Someleaders extract theocratic ideas fromthe Scripture concerning leadership,which leads to autocratic styles. Re-lated to this is the severe lack of ac-countability and abuses of spiritual au-thority in the local church structures.In other instances, church leaders com-plain that sermons are made by “break-ing down” a Chinese word in a Biblepassage and attaching significance toinsignificant words simply to impressthe listeners. For example, a popularevangelistic message in China comesfrom the Chinese characters for thename of Jesus. Since there are twocomponents, one meaning “two ears”and the other meaning “fish and rice,”the message proclaims that if you listento Jesus with your ears, your stomachwill be filled with fish and rice.

Unhealthy TeachingThe Chinese Church also has a very un-healthy teaching about stewardship.Consequently, the church is strapped fi-nancially and lags behind in many of itsministry undertakings and opportuni-ties. In the Chinese Church, it is consid-ered unspiritual to teach about tithing.

There are further and unfortunateapplications of this theology in thepresent Chinese Church. For one, agood Christian should not be a goodbusinessman. A successful businessmanis not a practicing Christian. Moreover,a good pastor should be poor while anadequately paid pastor is thought of asnot suffering for the Lord.

Another component of this turn-of-the-century theology is the church’smonastic stance towards social action.In the West, at the turn of the centuryand before 1949, there was a popular

distaste for what was called the “socialgospel.” At times, it struck a raw nervein the church, which often resulted inthe rejection of good works, even goodworks done in biblical Christian love.

While much of the Western churchand missions community has embracedsocial action as a viable outreach overthe last several decades, the church inChina is stuck trying to separate thespirit from the mind and body. Theirmindset has remained the same as itwas prior to 1949, so much so that theAmity Foundation needed to look out-side the church when it began its socialwork. As China evolves rapidly towardsa 21st century economy, the ChineseChurch finds itself in an embarrassingposition of embracing an “anti- intellec-tual and separate-from-society” culture.

Ding’s ResponseIt is to this fundamentalist state of

the church that Bishop Ding speaks. Ibelieve he has three immediate con-cerns in mind.

First, cults threaten the existence ofthe church. That the TSPM is an orga-

Into the FutureDing’s Theology and China’s Church

TO UNDERSTAND THE CHINESE VIEW OF EVANGELICALS we must recognize that in 1949 China’s church lapsed into a sort of theological time warp.

Danny Yu with Joshua Snyder

B

8

C

nized, structured, unified, marching-in-unison body is a myth. There is muchautonomy on the local level. For thisreason, it is susceptible to cultic influ-ences. The ominous presence of cultsdemand much greater theological rigoron the part of the Chinese Church.

Second, as China opens up evenmore, intellectuals flock to the churchin increasing numbers. But the churchis not ready for them. The backgroundof the rural church and the training ofthe pastors, along with the spiritualisticand anti-intellectual bias, create an ob-stacle to embracing Christianity formany intellectuals.

Third, Ding sees the church’s contin-ued resistance to social action as “badtiming.” For the last several decades,he has worked towards legitimizing thechurch in society. Indeed, he believesthat the church can have a strategicrole in the transformation of Chinesesociety if only it will embrace its socialresponsibility. If the church does notinvolve itself in society, it will remain atthe lower end of the social and politicaltotem pole. Thus, he wants a Christianlabel on good works done in China.

Consider, for example, the church’spotential to speak to this society edu-cated in an atheistic environment. To itthe doctrines of original sin, justifica-tion by faith, redemption and predesti-nation are foreign. However, Chineseculture has historically valued highmorals and good deeds. And thechurch can easily relate to that. There-fore, Ding says, “Given the state of theChurch in our country, the startingpoint for contextualization seems to bethe restoration of the ethical and moralcontent of Christianity.”1

Church and Societyin Communist China

I believe Bishop Ding’s goal in writ-ing his book is to shape the ChineseChurch so it can speak and minister tothe Chinese society under a communistregime. For over 50 years Ding’s em-phasis has been on making the churchChinese. While Western evangelicalsmay not appreciate the anti-Westernmission rhetoric and condone the pro-cess by which this transformation was

achieved, the TSPM can, however,claim at least some success in this areaand has become a viable and signifi-cant entity in China. Ding’s new bookmoves on a new plane: make thechurch thrive in a communist society.

As one who has been thinkingabout the relationship of Christianityand communism for over 20 years andwho has tried to work through the is-sues on a daily basis with our own min-istry in China, I am very excited aboutBishop Ding’s perspective. Despite thedifference in theological orientation, Isubscribe to his presupposition: wemust find ways to relate the Gospel tothe present situation. I grew up in the50s and 60s believing that the politicalregime in China would one day bechanged; then China would be evange-lized. Obviously I no longer hold thatview. Twenty years ago I was called toministry in China and resolved to findways to work with the existing reality.After two decades of involvement andobservation, I am glad to be able to saythat it is possible to do so.

It is easy for Western evangelicals toget agitated about Ding’s differenttheological and political persuasions.Without downplaying these significantdifferences, I would nonetheless liketo suggest it is possible to view Ding asa missiological pioneer, for he is in-deed helping us chart new territory inthe construction of the Christianchurch in communist China. His bookhas raised a valid issue regardingChristianity’s future in China. For 50years, Ding’s idea of “selfhood” for theChinese Church has not seated wellwith Western evangelicals, who havefound themselves at odds with theTSPM. But will we again miss a divineopportunity as the Chinese Church en-ters a new era and a new missiologicalfrontier?

Danny Yu is president of Christian Leader-ship Exchange and Educational ServicesExchange with China. Joshua Snyder is aresearch assistant with ChinaSource.

End Note1. Bishop Ding Guangxum, Love Never Ends, YilinPress, April 2000, p. 334.

ways suspect in the eyes of most ofChina’s Christians, and that includesThree Self lecturers, many of whom re-sent recent injunctions to study Ting’sthought. It is a mistrust that goes allthe way back to the 1950’s, and con-stantly resurfaces in ways that baffleWestern observers. When Ting visitedFuller Seminary in November 1994 hewas challenged by Chinese students toexplain why he had written vituperativearticles in the fifties against Wang MingDao, the independent churchman whorefused to join the Three Self. Hemerely smiled and said, “Well, it wasn’tthat bad, and anyway, those were thetimes”—a defense that incensed thestudents, and some of the more know-ing faculty. Said Dr. Tan Che Bin, “Hecalled Wang Mingdao a lackey of Japa-nese imperialism, which was a chargethat meant the death penalty then, soits very inadequate to brush it all off asa little bit of youthful exuberance.”Most of China’s Christians wait forTing to repent more fully of past ac-tions before any of his statements willbe studied seriously.

Recent controversies seem to indi-cate there is a political agenda behindthe theological wrangling. Three stu-dents were forced to leave NanjingTheological Seminary in May 1999 forrefusing to sing Communist Partysongs at a chapel ceremony. Threemore graduate students resigned inprotest a month later, and last year, JiTai, handpicked by Ting in 1995 tohead up a theological research insti-tute, was unceremoniously sacked fromNanjing Seminary. In an open letterdated July 2000, Ji Tai claimed it wasbecause he did not share Ting’s ultra-modernist perspective. After seeing aspeech of Ting’s he wrote, “He at-tacked the very heart of the Christianfaith—justification by faith. He sug-gested we should promote moralityand not preach about faith and unbe-lief.” One has to wonder whether thiscampaign is really about theology atall, or whether the theological contro-versy is the smokescreen for a more so-phisticated reassertion of government

Is the Chinese church Chinese enoughContinued from page 3

9Spring, 2001

control over the Three Self.All in all, there are probably two

theological battles being fought withinthe Three Self. Some, like Ji Tai, dowant to rescue evangelical theologyfrom the dead hand of Fundamental-ism. But that is an entirely differentproject to Ting’s, which seeks a moreradical replacement of Fundamental-ism with an ultra-modernist theology.The headlines are being dominated bythe latter project, especially because ofthe strong-arm tactics. But the more im-portant project may be the former—that of rehabilitating the evangelicalfaith to give the church a greater cut-ting edge in a chaotic society.

B. The search for a Chinesetheology in the house churchesTheological concerns of a different na-ture are exercising some younger lead-ers of the house churches, especiallythat handful who have managed tostudy abroad. Their concerns centernot around what model of theology isrequired—they operate quite content-edly within an evangelical framework—but around how to make the faith morerelevant in the face of three major chal-lenges, which are extremely recent.

1. Generational Challenges. Many ofthe new urban generation of Christiansin the house churches are largely igno-rant of the testimonies of the older gen-eration. Heroes of the faith such asWang Mingdao, Watchman Nee, andJohn Sung are sometimes better knownoutside China than inside it. Accordingto a Bible teacher in Xian, “...this is thehuge question now... it’s to teach youngChristians the spiritual story and tradi-tion of the older generation, but wehave to make this story relevant.” Thisstory has to be applied to the differentcircumstances of the younger genera-tion. He elaborated, “We can’t just givethe testimonies of the old men. Theyoung don’t know what to make ofthem. The older teachers harp onthemes about suffering, but the youngdon’t face so much suffering... they facedifferent challenges, like money issues,consumerism, marriage questions anddealing with stress, so we have to trans-late the spiritual lessons of the older

generation and make them relevant tothe present day—that requires theol-ogy.”

Matters are not helped by the factthat many of these older heroes of thefaith have produced little by way ofwriting, so the danger is they die offwithout their stories being preservedand becoming the basis of theologicalreflection.

2. Social challenges. The housechurches are not as isolated from theneeds of Chinese society as their de-tractors maintain, but as a pastor inLanzhou discovered, “Its one thinghelping a single drug addict, befriend-ing them and supporting them; itsquite another to try to stop the causesof drug abuse in the city.” To do thelatter requires organization, planning,and a whole new level of negotiatingwith authorities and outside founda-tions. This led the church into hugefights over whether it was right theo-logically to engage with government,and over whether they should form amedical company to help AIDS suffer-ers that the government ignored. Thussome house churches —who see thatthe social problems of China cannot besolved by mere individual acts of kind-ness—need a whole new theologicalbasis for engagement at this more po-litical level.

Again, this is something the Westernevangelical movement has had to un-dergo also. I well remember the sharp

intake of breath among British evan-gelicals in 1984 when the well-knownAnglican churchman John Stott, wroteIssues Facing Christians Today. He re-vealed that it was only since the earlyseventies that the case for social en-gagement had begun on the part ofevangelicals who, until then, tended tosee direct evangelism as the mainmeans of combating society’s ills. Stottdid manage to change that mindset,but someone has to do it for the Chi-nese house church. Needless to say,that someone will have to be Chinese.

3. Sociological challenges. “Lord, saveus from going the way of Taiwan,”prayed the young house church leaderin Wenzhou, Zheijiang. He was notmaking a political statement, but ex-pressing a fear that the revival mightdissipate in China today as it did in Tai-wan in the 1930’s. He explains, “Therewas a great revival there among the hillpeople, but it disappeared when theyounger generation left the hills andwent into the cities. They didn’t take itwith them. The city killed it off.”

His fears are well founded, thoughsome dismiss them as “lack of faith.”China’s huge revival—from a standingstart of around one to two million inthe seventies to over 60 million now—has taken place primarily in rural areas;however, this rural population is nowmigrating to the towns in what mustconstitute the largest social dislocationin industrial history. China was 15%

If the culture is the new starting pointfor theology, which culture are you talking about?

10

urbanized in 1980. Now it is 35% ur-banized and that is likely to rise an-other 5% in the next decade. There isno telling how many of the 150 millioncurrent migrants from village to townsare Christians, but there must be many.How will their faith fare in the newcauldron of the urban morass? Willthey find fellowship? Will they spreadthe revival to the towns (as many arepraying) or will the towns—like in Tai-wan—act like a sea that cools down theerupting lava of revival?

This too is a theological question.Many village Christians have to be pre-pared for all the new challenges totheir faith, and deepened as disciplesbefore they move away from a culturethat has nourished them spiritually. Asan evangelist from Henan said, “Whenyou leave Henan for Shanghai, it’s likeleaving the community of Israel for theCanaanite wilderness.”

Curiously it is the house churchesthat might be better equipped to meettheir theological goals rather than theofficial church. This is by virtue of thehouse churches being a lot more Chi-nese. Professor Daniel Overmyer oncelisted five key characteristics of Chinesefolk religion to an audience in HongKong: (1) marked by an emphasis onspirit beings; (2) lay-led; (3) full ofspontaneous noise; (4) lively; and (5)usually focused around a meal. Housechurches—especially in the country-side—exhibit all these characteristics.Of course, a case can be made withsome truth that Christianity is merelythe veneer over the existing folk reli-gion, but it is still a fact that housechurch Christianity appears muchmore indigenous in form than its offi-cial counterpart.

One thing is clear. The Chinesechurch has a lot more thinking todo...about being more Chinese!

Alex Buchan is the Asia bureau chief ofCompass Direct and a graduate of FullerSeminary. At present he is working towardsa Ph.D. in practical theology and is writinga book called A Short Introduction to theContemporary Persecution of Chris-tians.

he growth of “CulturalChristians” (CCs) inChina is largely a culturaldevelopment and an en-couraging sign.1 We be-

lieve that, whether in terms of cultureor theology, CCs are highly significantand will exert a long-term impact.

In terms of theology, we must ad-mit that the Chinese church (includ-ing the church in Mainland Chinaand among overseas Chinese) israther narrow-minded. The narrow-ness of the overseas Chinese churchconsists of its limitation to the ecclesi-astical and theological traditions in-

herited from the West. The church inMainland China, on the other hand,is limited by the contradistinction be-tween the registered church and thehouse church communities. The reg-istered churches follow the “ThreeSelf” platform under the leadership ofthe state; the house churches take oncharacteristics of folk religion. Thetensions between the two and result-ing limitations are obvious.

These limitations result in the fail-ure of Chinese theology to truly re-flect China’s own traditions, culture,and contemporary context. The is-sues that the Chinese church reflectson are largely Western issues. Chi-nese theology has been highly irrel-evant to Chinese traditional culture orthe contemporary context. On the

other hand, since the “Three Self”churches seek to “express the harmonywith the authorities of the state,”2 theyexpress the Christian faith in terms ofan extreme version of the historic, ra-tionalist, liberal school of theology.Over against this, the house churcheshave strenuously denied the meaningof history and culture for the Christianfaith. They espouse an extreme formof fundamentalism that is highly intol-erant, and they have sacrificed theopenness of the Christian faith.

“Cultural Christians” are situated be-tween these two polarities. If they canhold onto a biblical faith and can en-

gage in theological reflection in theChinese cultural context, they have thepotential to reconcile between thesetwo extremes and to forestall any crisisthey may bring upon the church. Thisis our expectation concerning “Cul-tural Christians.”

On a more concrete practical level,“Scholars in Mainland China StudyingChristianity” (SMSCs) and CCs havebrought the newest currents of theo-logical thought into the Chinesechurch. They will create a definite im-pact on the rather bland theologicalscene in the Chinese church. In a newcompetitive situation, they will prompttheological educators (or even thewhole church) to re-prioritize theirwork, to produce more writing withdepth. The Chinese theological scene

Edwin Hui

T“Cultural Christians”

Graham Cousens

The church in China andthe overseas Chinese

church, have taken a veryconservative, or even

skeptical, posture towardthe relationship between

the gospel and culture.

11Spring, 2001

will become more vibrant and will re-new itself through discussion and inter-action. This should be a blessing to theChinese church. These new elementsshould stimulate the Chinese church tore-evaluate the scope of her vision (forexample, her mission among intellectu-als and to the world of culture), andhelp re-define the place of theology(including the re-evaluation of denomi-national mentality and theology). Thechurch would be encouraged to make amore positive response to MainlandChina and to make herself attractive tothe Chinese people in other parts ofthe world.

We do not take the position that the“Cultural Christian” phenomenon con-stitutes a crisis for the Chinese church.We believe that this challenging phe-nomenon should be understood as aunique opportunity for the Chinesechurch at the dawn of a new millen-nium. At the same time, “CulturalChristians” should earn their right toplay a significant role in the life of thechurch in China.

From the point of view of culture,CCs have the potential to help changethe place of Christian thought inChina’s cultural-academic circles, viathe introduction of Christian thoughtto the Chinese masses through re-search and translation. We must con-cede at this point that the church inChina and the overseas Chinesechurch, have taken a very conservative,or even skeptical, posture toward therelationship between the gospel andculture. This is an imbalance. As theWillowbank Report of the LausanneCommittee on World Evangelizationpointed out, all theological expositionis affected and limited by its culturalcontext.3 Therefore, if we can takehold of the present opportunity andunderstand that the emergence of the“Cultural Christian” phenomenon is asign that China’s intellectuals are seek-ing direction for Chinese culture, and

if we can offer proposals which have asolid theoretical foundation and whichcan truly shape the future, we will beable to:

1. Contribute to the transformationof Christianity from its present mar-ginal place in Chinese culture, societyand academic circles.

2. Contribute to changing the tradi-tional confrontational relationship be-tween Christianity and Chinese culture.

3. Make a real difference in China’ssocial structure and thought, and helpbring about renewal in Chinese culture,which is undergoing rapid change atthe present.

At the same time, we will contributetoward the development of Christianityin China. We must understand thebackground, life-context, academic andtheological training of the “CulturalChristians” the limitations these imposeon them, their keen pursuit of theindigenization and contextualization ofChristianity in China, and the integra-tion of culture into theology. We mustalso understand that they are not likesome Christian scholars who can still“breathe the air” of Christianity whilefunctioning outside church circles.Therefore, at this embryonic stage,there will be a greater likelihood of im-balance and confusion in the doctrinaland theological understanding ofChina’s CCs and their efforts to inte-grate culture into theology.

Christians outside the church shouldbe keenly interested in the thought andwriting of “Cultural Christians” and, ina spirit of learning together and fromeach other, offer timely reviews and re-visions to some of their views. Or,Christians can point to the views on aparticular issue, taken by the historicchurch, so that China’s masses, Chris-tians inside the church and these intel-lectuals can all gain a true and compre-hensive understanding andinterpretation of the Christian faith.

More importantly, Chinese Chris-

tians ought to be encouraged by thefact of the incarnation of God theSon Jesus Christ, which shows that theWord of God has not lost its characterbecause of a particular cultural con-text. If we can hold fast to the teach-ing of the Bible as a whole and takethe Bible as our highest norm, we caneffect an encounter between the gos-pel and Chinese culture without los-ing the entire essence of the gospel.

All theologizing should take theteachings of the Bible as the highestnorm (even though we do not denythat the Bible itself was written againsta particular cultural background).But the value of theology lies in itsusefulness in and to a particular cul-ture. The influence of the Christiantradition in Western culture is a well-known fact. In the realm of Chineseculture, theology must dialogue withculture; this is also inescapable. The“Cultural Christian” phenomenon hasa very positive significance from themore profound perspective ofChristianity’s dialogue with Chineseculture.

END NOTES1. The term “Cultural Christians” has

come to identify Chinese intellectuals“with faith in Jesus Christ and active par-ticipation as Christians, yet without beingbaptized or joining a particular church ordenomination. They are above churchesand denominations” (pg. 110). For fur-ther discussion of “Cultural Christians,”see Hui’s entire article (reference below).

2. Liu Xiaofeng, “The Fear and Love ofthis Our Generation,” 115.

3. The Willowbank Report: Gospeland Culture, Lausanne Occasional Papers,No. 2 (Wheaton, IL, 1978).

Edwin Hui, M.D., Ph.D., is professor ofBioethics and Christianity and Chinese Cultureat Regent College (Vancouver, B.C.). This ar-ticle is used with permission from “Part II: The“Cultural Christian” Phenomenon in Immedi-ate Context, With Theological Reflections” byEdwin Hui and translated by Samuel Ling inChinese Intellectuals and the Gospel,Samuel Ling and Stacey Bieler, Editors, P&RPublishing, New Jersey, 1999, pgs. 130 - 136.

and Chinese Theology

12

Converging agendasConverging agendas

t first glance the theological debate occurringwithin China’s official church may appear to be pri-marily a matter of disagreement over doctrine.

However, as with most everything in China, there is also apolitical side to be considered. It is important to understandthis political angle in order to keep the theological debate—and its effect upon the church—in proper perspective.

Events during the last decade of the 20th century—in-cluding the demise of communism in the USSR and EasternEurope, Western pressure on China to increase religiousfreedom, and the dramatic emergence of Falungong as a sig-nificant social movement—have deepened China’s leadersmistrust of religion. As Chinesesociety continues to becomemore fragmented and complex,China’s leaders fear that religiousgroups could organize to destabi-lize the already delicate balancebetween political and socialforces, as has happened repeat-edly throughout China’s history.

The proliferation of groupssuch as the Falungong sect haveonly served to reinforce the con-viction of China’s leaders that re-ligion, while it cannot be elimi-nated, must at least be broughtfirmly under Party control. Presi-dent Jiang Zemin’s dictum thatreligion must serve socialism is the means of achieving thisend. The desire of Jiang and other top leaders is that reli-gious activities in China contribute toward national unityand economic development rather than fostering social divi-sion or the development of autonomous social organizationsthat could be viewed as competitors to the Party-State.

To carry out this mandate, the Religious Affairs Bureau(RAB) has in recent years stepped up measures to close un-registered religious sites—seen most vividly in the demolish-ing of at least several dozen unauthorized churches in theheavily Christian city of Wenzhou just before Christmas oflast year. The RAB has also launched an offensive aimed atcult activity in China, taking it upon itself to define what isor is not a cult.

By taking on this question of what constitutes orthodoxreligion (as opposed to cult activity), the RAB is venturinginto uncharted territory, for up until now it has not con-cerned itself with the actual beliefs of the religious groups itis charged with supervising. This step into the theoreticalrealm may be seen as a move by the RAB to raise its staturein the eyes of the Party by attempting to answer the questionof how religion can truly serve socialism. Although the RAB

A

has not enjoyed much prestige in past years, its current lead-ership appears rather ambitious in their efforts to enhancethe status of the organization and thereby enhance theirown opportunities for advancement within the Party system.However, as a political organization staffed by unbelievers,how could the RAB expect to make a legitimate contribu-tion to the development of religious doctrine? Any attemptsto do so would likely be met with much resentment and berejected by Chinese Christians.

This gap between the goals of the RAB’s atheistic leadersand the Christian church in China is conveniently bridgedby Bishop Ding Guangxun, the long-time leader of theThree-Self Patriotic Movement (TSPM) and China ChristianCouncil. Although technically retired, Ding still has consid-erable influence within China’s official church. In these fi-nal years of his career, Ding would like to shed his politicalimage, preferring instead to be remembered as one who

made a significant theological con-tribution to the Chinese church.

Herein lies the convergence ofagendas between Ding and theRAB: Ding’s desire to construct a“Chinese” theology fits perfectlywith the RAB’s need for a theoreti-cal basis for shaping religion tosuit the demands of socialism. Theresult of this symbiotic relation-ship between Ding and the RAB isthe campaign of “theological con-struction” currently taking placeon China’s seminary campuses.

Yet how much real “theology” isthere in Ding’s prescriptions forthe Chinese church? Prior to1949

Ding and other early leaders of the TSPM were heavily influ-enced by the YMCA, which promoted an agenda that wasmuch more political than spiritual. Meanwhile, independentchurch leaders such as Watchman Nee and Wang Mingdaowere in fact making strides toward the development of a the-ology that could truly be called indigenous. But their voiceswere silenced after 1949 as the church was increasingly po-liticized. Ding’s concern then, as now, was not with thechurch’s faithfulness to the requirements of Scripture butrather its conformity to the social conditions of China andthe demands of its communist leaders.

China needs a real Chinese theology. We don’t knowwhen this will come about, but we do know that it will nothappen until the church situation in China is normalized,that is, until Christians are no longer discriminated againstand the voice of real believers in China is able to rise upfrom the grassroots and be heard. If Bishop Ding were tofoster this type of communication, this would aid him in at-taining his goal of being remembered for his theologicalcontribution to the Chinese church.

Huo Shui is a former government political analyst who writesfrom outside China.

from the WallView

By Huo Shui

View

Religion, Socialism, and Theological Construction

13Spring, 2001

Peoples of ChinaPeoples of China

Jim Nickel

C

Theology OR theologies?

hinese theology can be a mine-field, as is clearly evident fromthe other articles in this issue of

ChinaSource. But sometimes mine-fieldsmust be crossed if we want to win thebattle. One of the minefields we mustcross in the battle to make disciples ofthe peoples of China is the theologicalcomplexity that will inevitably developas diverse people groups come toChrist.

What makes theologycomplicated is that it is notpurely God’s revelation (aswe confess that Holy Scrip-ture is), but man’s interpre-tation of that revelation.Some would argue thatScripture itself is the latter,but the Bible specifically declares thatnot to be the case (II Peter 1:20-21).However, we have no such statementswith regard to theology.

Obviously, if we hold a high view ofScripture, our theology will reflect that,and we will judge others’ theologies byhow well they conform to Scripture, aswe understand it. This latter phrase,however, (“as we understand it”) sur-faces the problem. Our understandingof Scripture, and thus our theology, isinevitably conditioned by our culture.That, of course, is also true for Chris-tians in China, and therein lies thecomplication.

China is made up of a bewilderingvariety of people groups. These groupsmay be distinguished from one an-other by language, culture, religion, so-cial status, and many other factors.God desires to be known by every oneof them. He has instructed us to dis-ciple them, which, among other things,implies theological development.What will their theology—or theologies

—look like?The theology of new believers will

usually reflect, to a high degree, thetheology of those who bring the gospelto them, especially if these evangelistsare faithful to instruct those they intro-duce to Jesus Christ. However, thereare many variables. Other teachers ofdifferent theological persuasions maycome, molding the theology of theseyoung believers in a different direction.Different worldviews may cause youngdisciples to interpret the Scripture quite

differently than their teachers.We can respond to these realities in

several ways. One approach is to insistthat there is only one true set of theo-logical truths (the ones we hold to, ofcourse!); another is to go to the otherextreme, adopting the attitude that onetheology is as good as another. Both ofthese approaches have obvious flaws.Dogmatic theological assertions maywell bring people into captivity to theteacher’s own culture. On the otherhand, if we take too tolerant an ap-proach, we may fail to fulfill our respon-sibility to pass on “the faith once for allentrusted to the saints (Jude 1:3).

A wiser approach would seem to beto seek some middle ground betweenthese two extremes. If we accept thenormative character of biblical revela-tion, we must insist that theologies thatdo not conform to the clear teaching ofthe Scriptures are something other thantruly Christian. On the other hand, inall humility we must also acknowledgethe inability of any one individual or

group to fully grasp all the truths of theWord of God.

God’s revelation of Himself hasbeen compared to a multi-faceted dia-mond, of which each of us sees only afew facets. Thus, we ought to acknowl-edge that members of the body ofChrist from the various peoples ofChina might well see things in Scrip-ture that we have never seen, becauseour culture has blinded us to them.(The reverse may also be true, ofcourse, but how arrogant it is to as-sume that it is always other people’scultures that blind them to truth, andnever our own.)

One of the great blessings of cross-cultural ministry is that it has a way ofbreaking us out of our provincial ap-proaches to theology. As I reflect onmy own pilgrimage, I recall how thegroup-orientation of my Asian friends

challenged my individualistic approachto Christianity. The first time I heardof a whole Asian village deciding to fol-low Christ, I was quite put off by theconcept. Yet as I’ve studied Scripturewith this in mind, I’ve seen manyaffirmations of God’s willingness todeal with people as groups, somethingmy “rugged American individualism”previously kept me from seeing.

The necessity of contextualization inthe proclamation of the gospel is awell-established missiological principle.If we would lay a solid foundation forthe discipling of the peoples of China,we must do our due diligence to under-stand their cultures and develop evan-gelistic and discipling strategies appro-priate to them. For example, ancestorworship is a key issue in many Asiancultures. How do our evangelistic ap-proaches and discipling strategies ad-dress this? Perhaps that is a questionbest answered by Asian Christians, butanyone who wants to make disciples in

One of the great blessings of cross-culturalministry is that it has a way of breaking us out of

our provincial approaches to theology.

Continued on page 15

14

A review by John Peace

eteran criminal reporter LeeStrobel provides the churchwith a powerful case for theV

claims of Christ in this fascinating andhard-hitting book. Strobel, previouslyan atheist, committed himself to Jesusafter an exhaustive examination of evi-dence that persuaded him of the truthof the New Testament. He takes thereader on a similar tour in this book.

With a Master of Studies in Law de-gree from Yale law School, the authorcovered criminal trials with a trainedlegal mind for the Chicago Tribune. Helearned how to assess evidence to de-

termine the truth in hard cases. He ap-plies these skills to a rigorous investiga-tion of the claims of Jesus to be thelong-awaited Savior of the world.

His method is at once simple andcomprehensive. Interviews with thir-teen prominent scholars focus on thir-teen different types of evidence usedby trial lawyers in the courtroom toprove innocence or guilt. As he appliesthis methodology, he divides his booksinto three parts: “Examining theRecord;” “Analyzing Jesus;” “Research-ing the Resurrection.”

Strobel begins with “The EyewitnessEvidence: Can the Biographies of Jesus

The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1998, 297 pages.ISBN 0-310-20930-7 (paperback). Cost: US$12.99 or package of 6 for $24.95.

Chinese edition: Chong Shen Ye Su by Lee Strobel, translated by Li BoMing.The Rock House Publishers Ltd., Hong Kong, 240 pages. ISBN 962-399-096-0.

Christ on trial

Book ReviewBook Review

be Trusted?” He ruth-lessly assesses the reli-ability of the gospel ac-counts, the letters ofPaul and the testi-mony of the otherapostles in the NewTestament. He concludes with a re-sounding “Yes”—we can believe the re-ports of the eyewitnesses to the life,death and resurrection of Jesus.

Next, he asks a more fundamentalquestion: “Were Jesus’ Biographies Re-liably Preserved for Us?” Modern tex-tual criticism demonstrates that wehave an overwhelming number oftrustworthy manuscript evidence for

the New Testament from very earlytimes. We can be 99.9 % sure that weare reading what the authors wrote.But they were biased? Is there no “cor-roborating” evidence from non-Chris-tian sources outside the New Testa-ment? Yes, there is ample testimonyfrom Jewish and Roman sources tosupport the New Testament accountsof Christ.

Can we be sure that what the NewTestament says happened really did?Are there any objective signs that theauthors wrote careful history, or werethey just sharing their personal faith?The chapter on “scientific” evidence

calls the work of archaeologists to thewitness stand. The result: We discoverthat external evidence from stones anddocuments not only does not call intoquestion what we read in the Bible, but

confirms the biblical accounts.Strobel then pro-

ceeds to analyze Jesushimself. Was he reallyconvinced that he wasthe Son of God, or didthe early Christianscome up with thistheory later? From hisactions—such as forgiv-ing sins and acceptingworship—and from hisexplicit statements, wecan see that Jesus consid-ered himself to be the di-vine savior.

Finally, “Did Jesus —and Jesus Alone—Match

the Identity of the Messiah?” A carefullook at Old Testament prophecies con-sidered messianic in Jesus’ day proveshe fulfilled so many that no one couldsay it was coincidental.

All Christians acknowledge the res-urrection of Jesus as the foundation oftheir faith in him. Strobel concludeswith four chapters showing “beyond areasonable doubt” that Jesus actuallydied; that the body was missing fromhis tomb; that he appeared to manypeople at many times over a period ofmore than a month; and that an im-pressive array of “circumstantial evi-dence” makes his resurrection credible.

All along the way, Stroble grills his“witnesses” with hard questions. Hehad done his homework before eachinterview and was armed with quota-tions from those who reject the claimsof the New Testament. The most diffi-cult challenges to the apostolic recordswere met with courteous but convinc-ing rebuttals from his experts as well asfrom his own reading.

One major value of this book, then,is the hard-nosed, rigorous treatment itgives to Christian assertions aboutJesus. Strobel knows the mind of theunbeliever and he feels the weight ofthe objections thoughtful people havebrought against the idea that Jesus is

I highly recommend The Case for Christ to anyoneseeking a firmer basis for faith as well as for any

serious seekers of the truth.

15Spring, 2001

Resource cornerResource cornerthe divine savior. In the end, he con-cludes that the evidence for the claimsof Christ is simply overpowering—enough, in fact, to convince anyonewith an open mind.

I highly recommend The Case forChrist to anyone seeking a firmer basisfor faith as well as for any seriousseeker of the truth. It addresses manyof the questions I have heard from in-tellectuals from the PRC and Taiwan,and I believe that educated Chinesewill find it useful in answering commonquestions about the reliability of theNew Testament accounts of Christ.

With the assistance of a non-Chris-tian, high school student from Beijing,I checked portions of the Chinese edi-tion. The translation seems to be accu-rate, faithful to the original but suffi-ciently idiomatic to be accessible toChinese readers.

Josh McDowell’s Evidence that De-mands a Verdict is much longer and cov-ers more territory. Strobel has takenaim at one target—the claim that Jesusis the Son of God—and has hit a bull’seye. His reportorial style makes formuch easier reading than doesMcDowell’s encyclopedic treatment.

I’m Glad You Asked by Ken Boa andLarry Moody (Wende Hao in Chinese)seeks to lead Christians step-by-step toeffective responses to questions fromnon-believers. It deals with more basicquestions, such as the problem of evil.

Finally, there is Carl Henry’s massiveGod, Revelation, & Authority, Volumes 1-4. For those with the time and back-ground to appreciate his argument,Henry first addresses the fundamentalpresuppositions of unbelievers, thenmarshals the evidence for the truth ofthe Bible. He answers all the questionswhich I have heard Chinese intellectu-als raise.

Both for Christians needing moreinformation and argumentation points,and for non-believers eager to knowthe truth but bothered by tough ques-tions, The Case for Christ would be agood book with which to begin.

John Peace, Ph.D., is a pen name for ascholar who has worked among Chinese inAsia and America for 25 years.

An activity book designed for ages 9 and abovethat introduces children to China's peoples, theirculture, values and homeland.

Includes 39 pages of:* maps* puzzles* stories* hand-craft activities* card game to make and play* calligraphy practice booklet

Asia needs to consider this issue.We must encourage the develop-

ment of indigenous theologies by thechurch as it takes root among thepeoples of China. It is not the job ofoutsiders to do theology for them,though some wise and sensitivewaiguoren may earn the right to do the-ology with them. Certainly, exposure tothe great works of theology that havegone before can be useful in the pro-cess, but we must ever guard againstthe tendency to present our particularbrand of theology as the only right wayto view the Scriptures.

The manner in which theology is ar-ticulated is also an area in which weshould recognize the value of diversity.In some of the minority groups inChina, oral traditions are passed onthrough songs that go on for days.Might such songs, infused with the sto-ries of the biblical narrative, be muchmore effective expressions of theologyfor these groups than a set of preposi-tional statements in a theology text-book?

To this author, the questions seem tobe many and the answers few in this

area. The bottom line, however, is: canwe—will we—trust the Holy Spirit toguide the church among the variouspeoples of China to develop theologiesthat express God’s revelation in mean-ingful and helpful ways within theirown cultures? This not to say thatthere is not a role for Westerners whominister in China in this process. Godplaces upon all of us the responsibilityto carefully instruct people in theScriptures (see, for example, II Tim.4:2). But teaching the Scriptures andmaking dogmatic theological assertionsare two different things.

A wise teacher will spend more timehelping his students find biblical an-swers to their questions than expound-ing on the answers he has found to hisown questions. Different cultures givebirth to different questions. As thepeoples of China discover for them-selves the answers to their questions inthe Word of God, truly biblical yet ef-fectively relevant theologies will be theresult. Helping guide them throughthis process is surely what making dis-ciples is all about.

Jim Nickel is the international vice presi-dent of ChinaSource.

Theology or theologiesContinued from page 13

CHINA IS PEOPLES

LOTS OF PEOPLESBy Jim Ziervogel

Order from:China SourceP.O. Box 4343

Fullerton, CA 92834-4343

Cost: $7(includes domestic shipping)

Brent Fulton

Brent FultonChina perspective

P.O. Box 4343Fullerton, CA 92834

Toward a “Chinese” theology

s the articles in this issueof ChinaSource demon-strate, theology in China

—who is our ally in the spiritual battlein which we are engaged and who isactually fighting for the other side.How easy it is, then, to become mili-tant in our criticism of those withwhom we do not agree.

While we may like to think that ourtheological positions are based firmly

and soundly upon scrip-ture, theology is neverdone in a vacuum. It is in-fluenced by the cultural,social, political, and eco-nomic conditions inwhich the theologizingtakes place. The churchin China is thus the prod-uct of a miraculous workof God performed in themidst of complex humandevelopments that have

helped shaped the church.With increased interaction be-

tween the church inside and thechurch—both Chinese and non-Chi-nese—outside China we have becomeparticipants, not just observers, in thisprocess. Our passion for doctrinal pu-rity and our zeal to serve may promptus to want to jump in and “correct”what we perceive as the theologicalmissteps of our Chinese brothers andsisters. Yet we must first consider the

can be a contentious topic. Prob-ably none of our readers will agreefully with everything our variouscontributors have to say. Whilesome may be offended by one ormore of the positionstaken, our intention intackling this difficultsubject was not to of-fend, but to stimulateconstructive dialogueon the theological de-velopments taking placewithin the Chinesechurch.

Theology by its verynature tends to divide,for it deals with how wein our finite human conditionshould understand and relate tothe infinite God of the universe.When our understandings of whoGod is and what He requires of usdiffer, we tend to draw linesaround what we deem correct andexclude those whose ideas do notfit within our preconceived frame-work. Ultimately theology ad-dresses the question of who is inthe family of God and who is not-

A unique factors that have shapedthe multi-faceted Chinese churchof today: the prominent role of suf-fering in the lives of believers, anauthoritarian political traditionthat places religion in a subservientposition to the state, a culture thatemphasizes “ortho-praxy” over or-thodoxy, China’s decades-longstruggle to free itself from foreignmanipulation, and the enduringrole of the family as China’s pri-mary social institution—just toname a few.

As we interact with these cul-tural dynamics—and listen to oneanother—we will truly becomepartners in building up thechurch. Most importantly, we musttogether seek the Holy Spirit’sguidance as we attempt to applythe unchanging truths of Scripturewithin a context characterized byrelentless change. Perhaps thenthe things that once divided willbring us together in a more perfectunderstanding of God and of Hisplan for China.

Brent Fulton, Ph.D., is the presidentof ChinaSource and editor of theChinaSource journal.

RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED

NONPROFIT ORG.U.S. POSTAGE

PAID

FULLERTON CAPERMIT NO. 98