Review: Chinese Public Theology, by Alexander Chow

Book Reviews 583 Alexander Chow, Chinese Public Theology: Generational Shifts and Confucian Imagi- nation in Chinese Christianity (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2018). 224 pp. $ 90.00 hardcover. The vitality and creativity of Chinese Christianity is often lost on “Western” theologians and religious scholars. Terms like “underground church” are prevalent and suggest that Christianity is vigorously opposed and oppressed by the government, forcing believers into secret societies that are threatened at every turn. This book corrects these false assumptions about the social and political role the church has and continues to play in mainland China. Indeed, Christianity has been an active and influential voice in China since the end of the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976), shaping government policies and social imagination. The public aspect of Christianity in China, Chow argues, is a part of the Chinese “religiophilosophical” (2) heritage that has been passed down from Confucian scholar officials (shidafu). Chow’s aim, consequently, is to accomplish two goals: to describe the historical development of Chinese public theology and to present the Eastern Orthodox theology theosis as a resource for what Chow believes is Chinese public theology’s overemphasis on humanism (4). The two methods that Chow employs in his study are “generational shifts” and “Confucian imagination.” Generational shifts, unlike “paradigm shifts,” account for the unique perspective each generation acquires through their specific lived experience. Chow outlines three broad generational shifts that constitute part one of the book (Chapters 2–4)—state-sanctioned Protestantism, cultural Christianity, and urban intellectual Christianity. These generational shifts are inextricably tied to the “Confucian imagination,” the philosophy that promotes the notion of “inward sageliness, outward kingliness (neisheng, waiwang)” (28). Chinese public theologians, in other words, view their faith as a personal belief that should influence the public. After laying the historical groundwork in the Introduction and Chapter 1, Chow focuses Chapter 2 on the state-sanctioned Protestant public theologians that were a part of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) formation. Whereas the Cultural Revolution had sought to exterminate all religion, the reform era policies of the 1980s included religious freedom, at least to some extent, within the new governmental structure. Chinese Protestants were governed via two institutional bodies (lianghui): the Three-Self Patriotic Movement (TSPM) and the China Christian Council (CCC). The leader of both bodies, as well as others, was the very influential Bishop K.H. Ting (Ding Guangxun, 1915–2012). Ting advocated for the government to “expand its understanding of acceptable religious activities. He wanted to underscore that Christians outside the TSPM are PNEUMA © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/15700747-04004012 Downloaded from Brill.com02/19/2019 11:24:44PM via Georgetown University 584 Book Reviews to be regarded as part of the Christian family and not deemed illegal” (52). Theologically, Ting held that the “cosmic Christ” works toward redemption for all of creation (58). Theologian Wang Weifan (1927–2015) also argued that Scripture must be rooted in the Chinese context, which rejects dualistic thinking. For Wang, God should be conceptualized as “ever-generating,” meaning God is “involved in the dynamic of creation, recreation, and new creation” (61). Chapter 3 examines the academic scholars that study Christianity—“SinoChristian theology”—who are often referred to as “cultural Christians.” These Christians represent the generation after Ting and Wang, and their primary form of studying Christianity is through texts rather than religious communities. Although these Christians have detractors, cultural Christians, according to Liu Xiaofeng, are essential to Chinese Christianity because their work enables Chinese people to view Christianity as a part of Chinese culture and society rather than as a foreign religion (79). China has quickly urbanized, and in the process, a new style of public theology has emerged—urban intellectual Christianity. Chapter 4 discusses how Chinese Christianity adopted Calvinist theology during its geographical transition, which has created more educated church leaders and parishioners. For these leaders, Calvinism provides an ecclesiological model that enables the church to stay united and continue to grow. Calvinism’s soteriological claims, however, have been less important to Chinese public theologians (110). Chapters 5–7 form part two of the book, which is a more constructive. Chow explains in Chapter 5 the connection between politics, Confucianism, and public theology in China, and in Chapter 6, Chow introduces the idea of theosis as a theological resource for describing the transcendent and immanent God. Chapter 7 argues that during the rapid urbanization, the church functions as a family for those lost in their new environment. Chow’s book is extraordinarily important because it highlights the theology of significant Christian figures who are often overlooked by Western audiences. These theologians helped guide a nation during enormous upheaval and uncertainty, and they continue to shape Christianity in the world’s most populous nation. My hope is that Western theologians and religious scholars will begin to evoke Chinese theologians when constructing new theological positions, which is why I spend the majority of this review describing these theologians. There are rich theological resources outside the Western world, and this book is a great entry point for all those interested in expanding their understanding of theology and religious expression. Alongside my extremely high praise, however, does come one critique. Throughout the book Chow contends that Chinese public theology is distinctively Chinese and that Confucian resources animate the movement. He referPNEUMA 40 (2018) 563–624 Downloaded from Brill.com02/19/2019 11:24:44PM via Georgetown University Book Reviews 585 ences modern Confucian Tu Weiming who argues that Confucianism promotes an “anthropocosmic” view of the world rather than “anthropocentric” (135). In other words, Confucian philosophy already includes a concept for understanding the transcendent and immanent, which Chow even acknowledges while still insisting that it has not helped alleviate Confucianism’s anthropocentrism. But instead of further establishing anthropocosmic thought, Chow decides to completely leave the Chinese context, arguing that theosis is the answer, which was the topic of Chow’s previous book. I would have rather seen Chow examine more deeply the Confucian resources that can remove modern Chinese Christianity’s anthropocentrism. For example, Chow references the important Confucian scholars Mengzi (372– 289 BCE) and Wang Yangming (1472–1529CE). In the work attributed to him, Mengzi argues that when properly cultivated by following the Way, people are able to extend care and compassion to more and more people, eventually encompassing an entire community. Wang, indebted to Mengzian philosophy, says that people extend themselves beyond other humans (anthropocentric) to all things (anthropocosmic) like animals, plants, and even stones. There is no need, in my opinion, to include theosis to make Chow’s point, and I think it inadvertently weakens his argument about Chinese public theology in the process. My critique, nevertheless, should not discourage readership. Chow has provided theologians and religious scholars with a great gift. Chinese theologians demand international attention because of their thorough biblical investigation and specific perspective that can only aid Christians from around the world. Joel D. Daniels Georgetown University jd1573@georgetown.edu PNEUMA 40 (2018) 563–624 Downloaded from Brill.com02/19/2019 11:24:44PM via Georgetown University