China, Christianity, and the Question of Culture

6. The Value of Theology in Humanities: Possible Approaches to Sino-Christian Theology

79 CHAPTER SIX the value of theology in huManities Possible Approaches to Sino-Christian Theology Speaking from the perspective of a nonbeliever, the legitimacy of Christianity in China’s context remains an unresolved issue. One key issue in the study of Christianity is whether—in the introduction, delineation, and presentation of its theological thinking, its history of propagation, and its tangible social-cultural influence on China—Christianity would lose its significance apart from any religious confession, preexisting religious bearing, and it being a representation of a foreign culture. In other words, does Christianity still hold any value apart from the zeal of faith and zeal of evangelization while being discussed in a completely secular discourse context removed from its cultural medium? To answer this question, it may be necessary to draw upon three categories of discussion on the significance of Christianity in humanities— namely, to explore theological hermeneutics through “reason,” to search for the meaning of theological ethics through the “will,” and to develop the hopes of humanity expressed in theological aesthetics though “affection.” This choice is not because “reason,” “will,” and “affection” represent three basic dimensions of humanities, nor because one aims to arrive at a synthesis of truth, goodness, and beauty using the Christian value system. It is simply that these three theological approaches address the following issues. Underlying a so-called theological hermeneutics is a confession of 80 China, Christianity, and the Question of Culture one’s limits of understanding, reasoning, and truth. It calls for a renewed examination of the question of the verification of meaning. Theological ethics strives to practice claims of goodness even as one realizes the partial, relative, and contradictory nature of human values. Theological aesthetic goes beyond its enculturation objective and its assessment of beauty into a conversation with humanity’s ultimate experience and self-redemption. Basic to all three approaches is the “interpretation” of meaning. Furthermore, confidence in theological hermeneutics is a prerequisite to prevent a recurrence of “ideological distortion.”1 The Theological Dimension of “Hermeneutics” The term “hermeneutics” is believed to originate from the messenger Hermes in Greek mythology. Hermes does not send messages between two equal entities. Instead, lord god (Zeus) sends him to speak a divine message to the public. This seems to hint at the special relationship between hermeneutics and the “divine word.” Theological hermeneutics originating from biblical hermeneutics of Judaism and early Christianity holds the same view: the Bible is considered a divine text, and the task of an exegete is to illuminate the will of God for humanity in the Bible. Thus, the term “hermeneutics” inherently presupposes a theological dimension. However, to understand “interpretation” in this light, one encounters a basic dilemma. On the one hand, the mystery in the divine word needs to be interpreted. On the other hand, interpretation necessarily involves “misreading.” In fact, the underlying problem of hermeneutics, which we now face, already manifested in that kind of ancient mythology and theological discourse context. It may be possible to solve the above difficulties in interpreting human speech through many expedient methods, but further questions remain in expedient methods to interpret “divine speech.”2 Thus, it is in the theological dimension that hermeneutics is pushed toward an ultimate resolution. If one traces the history of hermeneutics to early biblical hermeneutics , one notices two main tendencies. In Judaism, the literatures of rabbinic schools, the Qumran community, and Philo of Alexandria reveal four methods of early hermeneutic activity: literalist interpretation, Midrashic interpretation, Pesher interpretation (a form of ancient Syriac biblical commentary),3 and allegorical interpretation.4 Many Christian exegetes see the four methods implying multiple ways of interpretation. Although these four methods were all employed in Christian biblical The Value of Theology in Humanities 81 hermeneutics of the Middle Ages from Clement and Origen through to the “multiple senses” of Thomas Aquinas, the allegorical tradition remains the most popular.5 Similarly, Augustine does not approve of literalistic or historical interpretations. Rather, the thrust of biblical hermeneutics Augustine represents is understood as based on Plato’s dualism—namely, “the ontological priority of the unchangeable eternal to the changeable and material.”6 From this stems a basic hermeneutical principle: What is of primary importance is not so much our knowledge of the material sign that enables us to interpret the eternal reality, but rather it is our knowledge of the eternal reality that enables us to interpret the material sign. . . . The central problem of hermeneutics...