Inheritance and Exploration of Thought and Culture: Dr. He Shiming Cultural Lecture

Author: / Country: Mainland China
Publisher:
Publishing Time: 2002-11-01
Features:
1. Theology of Sinicization and Sinicized Theology: The concept of "theology of sinicization and sinicized theology" was mentioned in the article "Some Authentic Theological Works in the 1950s and 1960s" published in Jingfeng in November 1979. However, a more explicit discussion of this argument can be found in Four Lectures on Christian Confucianism in 1981. In brief, the "theology of sinicization and sinicized theology" aims to explore what in traditional Chinese cultural thought can be used to interpret Christian faith, and what in Christian faith can supplement the shortcomings of traditional Chinese culture, thereby creating a viable path. Therefore, it is said that the main purpose of our discussion is to excavate the original roots of China's inherent cultural thought to find all similarities, similarities, and differences between it and Christian faith. Based on our brief discussion, we deeply feel that there are indeed many similarities and similarities between China's inherent culture and Christian faith, but there are also many differences. If the two can be integrated, culturally speaking, they can certainly receive the new life and vitality bestowed by Christ, and theologically speaking, new paths can be expanded in the theological field of Christianity, thus bearing new fruits. This is the ideal of establishing a sinicized theology and a theology of sinicization mentioned in the preface and introduction. First, faith still starts from a certain specific experience and is established through the experience of causal reasoning. Second, faith changes with the changes in experiential knowledge. As we see in the religious beliefs of Chinese people, Taoism has gone through a development from external alchemy to internal alchemy. In the Quanzhen sect of internal alchemy, Taoist faith has shifted from a meaningful pursuit of immortals to a more emphasis on inner self-cultivation and spiritual pursuit with moral value. Buddhism has also undergone a transformation from the Empty School to the Existential School, and from Yogacara to the Yogacara of the Tathagatagarbha. In the Yogacara of the Tathagatagarbha, Buddhist faith has also shifted from a pursuit of the other world to a more ethereal pursuit of inner purity of mind. In this sense, we can confirm that faith is historical, constrained by historical conditions and development. Precisely because faith is historical, we can objectively examine and analyze faith historically and make new choices for faith. So, how do we understand the absoluteness of faith? In my view, the absolute meaning of faith, its transcendence, should be toward each faith subject, toward the emotional experience and spiritual realm of the subject, referring to the unwavering commitment and lack of limitations once a belief is identified. The absoluteness of faith should not be discussed from an ontological perspective; it should not be understood as an entity with eternal, infinite dominion over the empirical world and social history that is not limited. This is because the era we live in is indeed different from the past. Regarding this point, Max Weber described it as follows: "Our era, because of its unique rationalization and intellectualization, mainly because the world has been demystified, its fate is that the ultimate, noble values have disappeared from public life, either retreating into the transcendent realm of mystical life or entering into the direct, private exchanges of friendship between individuals. Our great art has more of a coquettish air than grandeur, and this is no coincidence; similarly, it is no coincidence that today, only in small groups, in personal interactions, there is something that resonates with the spirit of the prophets (pneuma) in faint pulses, while in the past, such things had once burned like wildfire across vast communities, uniting them."① Weber's statement is not without reason. However, in reality, people find it difficult to ignite the fervent faith in the substantive significance of the spirit of the prophets. This is not only due to the excessive rationalization and intellectualization in cognition but also due to the pluralistic orientation of people's value pursuits. This pluralistic orientation toward value pursuit can no longer agree to elevate a specific, individual value concept to a universal and absolute level and impose it on the entire society. Instead, it prefers to leave the issue of publicness and universality to empirical knowledge to handle, while leaving various individual, special beliefs to each individual, special heart, ensuring that every individual equally obtains freedom. Thus, the sense of sacrifice for the "community" can no longer be inspired. This is unfortunate for society. "The pursuit of freedom" will pay a heavy price for this! What is theology? Is it the self-revelation of God (Selbstauslegung), that is, a theology that describes God as a self-description (Selbstdarstellung) of God? Or is it a human discourse about God, that is, a responsible discourse about faith as human behavior in a historical and social context? Which one qualifies as Christian theology? Balthasar says: "Theology is first not a human achievement but an achievement of the holy Father, because 'He' likes to reveal Himself truly in human language and to allow people to understand the holy spirit He reveals." And Moltmann clearly points out: "Not every theology that talks a lot about Jesus Christ in its content is already 'Christology.' Christology has the right to demand an explanation of this faith. Because under the conditions and challenges of our time, it is necessary to ask about the hope of faith." These two passages have already clearly shown the two different thinking paths of Christian theology, "upward" and "downward." Here, it is necessary to discuss and analyze in detail the differences between the two theologians. Christian theology is primarily concerned with the issue of soteriology (salvation). Of course, both Balthasar and Moltmann recognize that the salvation of humans and the world is unlikely to be deduced from all historical and social pressures; salvation can only occur through God. Therefore, both see the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the historical manifestation of God's active salvation of humanity. However, these two theologians understand the appearance of Christ from different perspectives. Balthasar understands the occurrence of events from the "vertically" intrinsic history of God, emphasizing that it is an event of God's revelation, that is, the revelation of the love of the Trinity, the absolute God. Conversely, Moltmann understands the appearance of Christ from the "horizontally" historical reality, recognizing this as the eschatological acceptance of the world, that is, the eschatological prophecy of God, making the history of human freedom possible. In short, Balthasar explains the salvation of Christ for humanity first as the historical of God's intrinsic love, while Moltmann sees it directly as the history of human freedom. Next, let's look at the differences between the two on the issue of Christology. Balthasar sees the appearance of Christ as the revelation of the love of the Trinity played by God, intentionally emphasizing the divinity of Christ, emphasizing that as the Son of God, when he completely gives himself to the Father, he receives everything the Father has designated for him. Moltmann, on the other hand, seems to emphasize more the humanity of Christ, similar to Karl Rahner (1904–1984), developing Christology into a completed anthropology, particularly emphasizing the Incarnation of God as a human, "Jesus Christ is completely human, as anyone else from among us." Although both Balthasar and Moltmann know that people should not simply separate the crucifixion of Christ from his subsequent resurrection, in practice, the former emphasizes the resurrection of Jesus, while the latter emphasizes the Jesus on the cross. In the event of the Christ's appearance, Balthasar sees the completion through which the world is saved from sin by God's absolute love, while Moltmann sees more in this the non-identity, suffering historical shared by Christ and humanity. Regarding the issue of the eschatological judgment, although both Balthasar and Moltmann believe that this must be a fundamental category of all theology, Balthasar is particularly concerned with the revelation of the ultimate things, that is, the doctrine of the Trinity of God's absolute love itself. According to his view, the love of God revealed through Christ has already revealed God's victory over human sin. The eschatological judgment here is the completion of history realized in Christ, and the cross is the court of the eschatological judgment revealed in God's love. Different from Balthasar, when Moltmann focuses on the contradictions of experience and conflicts in reality, he speaks of the yet-to-be-realized completion, the reservation of God for the eschatological judgment: salvation through Christ is a participation, an anticipation of the completion of the eschatological judgment. Since Balthasar and Moltmann develop theology in different directions, they naturally have different understandings of history. In Balthasar's view, it is precisely the appearance of Christ that makes eternity localized in time, so that history rises like the rising sun on the horizon of eternity filled with divinity—the fullness of divinity completed in the self-giving of the Trinity. In fact, Balthasar explains history through the doctrine of the Trinity; when he places history in the intrinsic nature of the Trinity, history has a trinitarian structure. Thus, history is also a "theological dramaturgy" planned, directed, and completed by the love of the Trinity. Contrary to Balthasar, when Moltmann looks at the oppression, violence, and suffering in the world with his melancholic gaze, history appears to him as particularly the history of human suffering. However, since history moves toward salvation according to God's eschatological prophecy, then the history of human suffering should also be seen as a history full of hope for human responsibility. That is to say, history is a history generated in the realization of human freedom. Due to the different understanding of history, Moltmann and Balthasar have different interpretations of God. Moltmann emphasizes that God is the God of the past and the future. He is the God of the past because he has not allowed countless nameless pasts, silences, and oblivions to fade away but has allowed humans to touch them; he is the God of the future because he has promised humans a new future of salvation. Therefore, faith in God means remembering the suffering of the past and God's eschatological prophecy. Here, we can also experience God through the accusation and cry from the depths of suffering, in the full hope of asking about God and remembering the history of suffering (how long?). In contrast, for Balthasar, God is particularly the God of the present. The God who reveals Himself through Christ is the gift of the fullness of the Trinity, the absolute love: the eternal self-movement realized and completed in the present historical reality. Therefore, here the true faith is not only the glimpse of the love of the Triune God in the history localized according to the present but also being as if immersed in the game of this Trinitarian love.① Balthasar believes that faith is also the act of human obedience to God to participate in the inner holy life. Therefore, Balthasar particularly emphasizes the aspect of God's dominance in the dual nature of human freedom and does not speak much of the other aspect of self-determination (Selbstverfügung). Balthasar warns us that the possibility of sin lies in the fact that humans understand freedom only unilaterally as autonomy, that is, seeing freedom as absolute power without gratitude. Precisely because human existence, development, completion, and destiny are all due to God, humans must necessarily realize their freedom only in infinite freedom. This issue also involves the obedience of the creature to God to realize God's will and thus participate in God's co-love. In contrast, Moltmann emphasizes self-determination and self-realization of freedom. According to Moltmann, the history of humans is a history of suffering, which relates to the actual liberation of humans. Moreover, humans must take up the hope of Christ. That is to say, humans must, through the practice of freedom, make the messenger of Christ's freedom, justice, and peace appear in society and history. Thus, all are made the subject of their own history before God. In short, Balthasar's gaze is toward the love of the Triune God, thus developing a theocentric anthropology, while Moltmann is committed to an anthropology with a subject-oriented tendency in the horizon of socio-historical reality.