Reading Religion in China Today Interviews with Chinese Christianity Researchers

review of religion and chinese society 4 (2017) 5-31 brill.com/rrcs Reading Religion in China Today Interviews with Chinese Christianity Researchers Naomi Thurston Renmin University of China naomithurston@hotmail.com Abstract This article, based on qualitative fieldwork among Chinese scholars of Christianity whom I interviewed between 2011 and 2015, explores the nexus between scholarly inquiry, cross-disciplinary negotiation, and religious belonging, specifically among the first generation of scholars researching Christianity after the launch of Deng Xiaoping’s policy of reform and opening-up. The article presents a typology of the researchers that is informed by interviewees’ disciplinary, religious, and discursive alignments. It also addresses the question of how the academic discipline of theology might find new anchorage in the landscape of “Sino-Christian studies,” with its many voices and varied interests. Keywords religious studies in contemporary China – Sino-Christian studies 当代中国宗教研究∶对话中国社会科学领域的基督教研究者 摘要 本 论 文 的 资 料 来 自 笔 者 从 2011至 2015年 在 中 国 学 术 界 进 行 的 田 野 研 究 ， 探 讨的重点是学术研究、跨文化协调与宗教身份的勾连，尤其针对学者 中的“前辈”，即改革开放以来第一代学人。此外，此项研究将呈现一 个按照学者专业、宗教归属与话语路径来划分的的类型图。本文探索的问 题是：在充满不同观点与多种目标的知识话语领域中，学术性神学在当代 语境中能否找到一个新的位置？ © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi 10.1163/22143955-00401002 C B:3 1 35 5 : : 4 2 :B : D . ) ()( 0/ 2 . 6 Thurston 关键 词 汉语基督教研究，当代中国的宗教学 Researching Christianity in China This article provides an introduction to the senior generation of contemporary scholars of Christianity working in Chinese academia and analyzes their narrative constructions of “academic Sino-Christian studies,” a field of discourse that in its themes and Problembewusstsein, as well as its interdisciplinary approaches, has important origins in the mid-1980s “culture fever” (wenhua re 文 化 热 ) and the early works of the theologically trained contemporary philosopher Liu Xiaofeng 刘 小 枫 (b. 1956).1 This field of discourse connects on different levels with the Sino-Christian theology movement2 and contributes in significant ways to the ongoing intellectual critique of Chinese modernity and the challenges of nationalism in sinophone intellectual discourse today. I have chosen here to focus on a specific group of scholars within the larger interdisciplinary field3 of Christian studies in Chinese academia, namely the first generation of social science and humanities scholars who re-entered academic life after it was normalized in the late 1970s with the reintroduction of the national university entrance exam and the onset of Deng Xiaoping’s 1 Liu is known as an early pioneer of “Sino-Christian theology,” an intellectual discourse on Christian theology in Chinese academic settings, which he promoted while based in Hong Kong during the 1990s. In the early 2000s, he began to turn his attention from theology to Straussian political philosophy. 2 See, for example, Starr 2016 (esp. chap. 9); Starr 2014; Lai 2012; Lai and Lam 2010. 3 Several observers of and some participants in sinophone discourses on Christianity have written on the cross- or interdisciplinary nature of Sino-Christian studies in Chinese academia. A recent example is Xie 2014. There has been some disagreement over the definition and characterization of “Chinese” Christian studies as well as “Sino(−Christian) theology,” variously referred to as an academic endeavor within, parallel to, or preceding Sino-Christian studies today. While some criticize the focus on scholarly identity in this field, particularly as it relates to religious faith or belonging, others have pointed out the unique value of Christian experience, seen as essential to any authentic Christian theology, academic or otherwise. Scholars tangentially or directly involved in Christian studies represent a range of viewpoints on the legitimacy and proposed direction of this field, and a clear line cannot be drawn between researchers with Christian sympathies or religious belonging and those who describe themselves as “neutral” regarding religious faith or confession. For a discussion of the various definitions and conceptions of this field, see my Studying Christianity in China (forthcoming from Brill). review of religion and chinese society: 44 (2017) 5-31 ) C 35 5 B:3 1 : 2 :B :D . ()( 0/ 2 . 7 Reading Religion in China Today economic reforms (gaige kaifang 改 革 开 放 ). I focus on this veteran generation born before the mid-1960s because senior scholars still exert the greatest influence within and beyond the field of academic Christian studies. Works written by senior scholars are better known both inside and outside of China, although a younger generation of scholars is swiftly coming into its own in areas such as comparative religious studies, comparative literature, and— because study and academic appointments outside of mainland China are far more accessible for Chinese scholars who are now in their thirties and forties—theology, which is still not an officially recognized discipline in the People’s Republic, except at official church-run seminaries. Theology was a novel subject when Liu Xiaofeng first introduced a series of Western theologians in articles published in mainland Chinese journals during the 1980s. Liu remains an intellectual pioneer in this field and is still widely associated with the movement he popularized in the 1990s, known as “Sino (−Christian) theology” (hanyu shenxue 汉 语 神 学 ). He now attributes his earlier enthusiasm for the field to the fact that he was introducing new currency into mainland intellectual discourse at the time; today that novelty has largely worn off and an academic institute fully dedicated to research on Thomas Aquinas is no more a rarity than graduate students delving into the works of Karl Barth or Paul Tillich, or undergraduate courses on the New Testament gospels. While Liu in the mid-1980s had been one of very few Chinese academics to go abroad in pursuit of a doctorate in theology, today young Chinese scholars inclined toward theology are heading overseas. Some are even learning Greek and Hebrew before leaving mainland China, something that was rarely possible at a Chinese university thirty years ago. Those going abroad exclusively to study theology are in most cases professing Christians. However, while by some indications the percentage of theology scholars describing themselves as Christians is higher among the younger generation, there is not necessarily a connection between faith and research in this area for those who complete their courses of study in mainland China, perhaps after spending just one year or a semester abroad as PhD students, maybe at a Christian institution or even at a seminary. Gao Xin 高 莘 (2010: 235), in her “Preliminary Survey on the New Generation of Scholars of Christian Studies in Mainland China,” finds that the younger generation of Sino-Christian scholars, specifically those scholars born during or after the Cultural Revolution and now in their mid-forties or younger, are more open than their academic predecessors to adopting Christianity as a personal belief: “Approximately 30% of the participants” in her survey identified themselves as Christians, whereas “most senior scholars devote themselves to the study of Christianity mainly for academic interests and do not declare review of religion and chinese society 4 (2017) 5-31C B:3 1 35 5 : : 4 2 :B : D . ) ()( 0/ 2 . 8 Thurston themselves as believers, adherents or practitioners of Christianity as a religion.” Nevertheless, some of the most prominent scholars connected with Christian studies since the 1980s have professed either Christian faith or strong Christian sympathies. Some of these veteran scholars have made public “confessions of faith” or have taken stances on issues that concern Chinese Christians. At the same time, the fair-mindedness of these senior scholars who do not identify themselves as Christians and whose work is well known in China has presumably helped to rectify current negative stereotypes of Christianity and even of the academic study of religion that are still widespread in higher education across mainland China. Examining the senior generation’s self-understanding and its constructions of the field of Christian studies thus reveals some of the important rationales for the development of the discipline. The history of this field, which has produced thinkers along a broad ideological spectrum, shows strong indications that it is more than a passing intellectual fad. Indeed, it is in part due to the charges leveled by its critics and to its widening diversity—its “diffuse nature,” as one scholar has described it using C. K. Yang’s famous coinage (Lam 2014:148)—that Christian studies in China promises to make its mark in the newer history of Chinese thought and to continue to develop as an intellectually rich discursive field. Methods: Interviewee Selection In selecting interviewees, I mainly relied on two broad criteria: scholars who are familiar with the proponents and major themes of the “Sino-Christian” discourse and scholars whose major research focus is Christianity. In addition, I interviewed several observers of the field, including a noted historian of modern Chinese intellectual history who has taken an interest in Sino-academic Christian studies. The disciplinary backgrounds of the scholars I interviewed varied widely. While in many instances they were directly or tangentially connected with “Sino-Christian theology,” for the most part they were not theologians; many were historians, sociologists, or anthropologists. I interviewed both members of the more established senior generation as well as younger scholars working in the humanities and social sciences. Initially, I interviewed forty-eight scholars between August 2011 and December 2013; in 2015, while a visiting scholar in Beijing, I interviewed one “senior generation” professor and, less formally, a number of PhD students; in 2016, I conducted another interview with a Beijing-based anthropologist with whom I also shared my findings. Nine of the eighteen senior scholars among the review of religion and chinese society: 44 (2017) 5-31 ) C 35 5 B:3 1 : 2 :B :D . ()( 0/ 2 . 9 Reading Religion in China Today forty-eight original interviewees identified themselves as Christians; of those nine, four are mainland scholars and examples of intellectuals whom Bishop K. H. Ting (Ding Guangxun丁 光 训 ; 1915–2012) referred to as “Cultural Christians.”4 The distinction I have drawn between mainland Chinese and, for example, Hong Kong Chinese scholars is not arbitrary because, although virtually all my interview partners stressed the openness and cross-cultural and international texture of “Sino-Christian studies,” the Chinese context has been a “twosystems context” with regard to Hong Kong and mainland China, and the two locations are quite different, given the history of each and the constraints on theological research in mainland China, which do not currently exist in Hong Kong in the same way. While the focus of this study is mainland China (or, rather, mainland Chinese scholars), I also traveled to several countries to speak with Chinese Christianity researchers, including Chinese scholars of Christianity working overseas. Between 2013 and 2015, I attended various academic conferences in Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Oxford, England, and Sankt Augustin, Germany, on topics that ranged from Chinese church history to literature and religion, religion and the Chinese state, and the impact of Christianity on Chinese society today. During these conferences, I had opportunities to meet with scholars and conduct some of the interviews used as the primary data for this study. The Institute of Sino-Christian Studies in Hong Kong helped me to develop contacts with a number of prominent scholars in Christian studies in mainland China. The institute graciously introduced me to these researchers, accounting in many cases for the readiness with which I was received. I also contacted individual scholars independently after becoming somewhat familiar with their networks and institutions. The observers of Sino-Christian studies whom I interviewed offered valuable perspectives in terms of gauging the development and wider intellectual influence of Sino-Christian theology and all Christianity research carried out in mainland Chinese academic settings. China’s Lost Generation: Quest for Knowledge Writing just a few years before the Tiananmen military clampdown in 1989, Shapiro and Liang described the generation that experienced the end of the 4 The “Cultural Christian” phenomenon as such has, as Frederik Fällman (2016:224–225) writes, today become “peripheral.” See also Fällman’s important study on Chinese intellectuals and faith (2008). review of religion and chinese society 4 (2017) 5-31C B:3 1 35 5 : : 4 2 :B : D . ) ()( 0/ 2 . 10 Thurston Cultural Revolution (1966–1976) while they were in their late teens to early thirties as China’s “lost generation,” a generation seeking to discover a way to help China, and to find something in which to believe. That something has often turned out to be the power of the individual; hence their frequent interest in existentialism, Christianity, and humanism, all of which are quite incompatible with socialist orthodoxy. shapiro and liang 1986:188 He Guanghu 何 光 沪 has written about this generation—to which he himself belongs—with special reference to those who took up graduate work in philosophy and religious studies beginning in the late 1970s. In the 1980s, He notes, there were only two institutions offering graduate programs, one being the Institute of World Religions (Shijie Zongjiao Yanjiusuo世 界 宗 教 研 究 所 ) at the nation’s top research institution, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, and the other the Institute of Religion at Nanjing University.5 He Guanghu (b. 1950) characterizes his generation of Christianity researchers by comparing them to the previous one: Compared to the first generation, they were younger in age [in the 1980s and 1990s] and less soaked in the rigid ideology. In their formative years, most of them had to quit school because of the disastrous Cultural Revolution, and they struggled for life at the bottom of society. Having experienced enormous hardship and agony, they felt the same skepticism, frustration, and uncertainty as their predecessors, but they were young enough to keep themselves away from despair or disillusionment. he 2008:65 The legacy of the Cultural Revolution thus weighed heavily on all who experienced it, but for He’s parents’ generation the decade seemed spiritually debilitating. The younger intellectuals and those entering higher education in the late 1970s and early 1980s took another route, choosing to embrace new 5 Prior to the Cultural Revolution, Nanjing had been a special case: after the closing of Nanjing’s Three-Self National Seminary (Jinling shenxueyuan 金 陵 神 学 院 ), a number of Nanjing seminary lecturers were “migrated” to Nanjing University to research religion. The university itself would soon enter its own moratorium; thus the loss of a faculty position was simply delayed for these individuals. Nanjing’s seminary was the last to be closed before the Cultural Revolution, following a series of consolidations first in the north (Beijing), then in the South (Nanjing), and then nationwide. review of religion and chinese society: 44 (2017) 5-31 ) C 35 5 B:3 1 : 2 :B :D . ()( 0/ 2 . 11 Reading Religion in China Today opportunities that presented themselves: the competition for (re-) entry into academic life, however, was fierce, The reintroduction of the national university entrance exam, which Gloria Davies credits with bringing about the “normalization of Chinese intellectual life,” presented the first considerable obstacle for those who chose to pursue a career based on their academic inclinations after a “decade of irregularities” (Davies 2009:237). The exam was reintroduced on October 12, 1977, after eleven years during which university life had come to a complete standstill. Since fewer than 5 percent of the over five million Chinese who took the gaokao 高 考 in 1977 actually passed the exam, those who gained access to higher education in the seventies were deemed the fortunate few. The hope that this generation would succeed and help usher in much-needed change was thus all the greater. The following pages will address the concerns and perspectives of a generation of Chinese scholars who were formed by their experience of the Cultural Revolution; initially denied a university education, they went on to produce a vibrant field of discourse that is still negotiating its place between academic theology, Western-style religious studies, and a distinctly contemporary Chinese brand of academic Christianity research. The aim of this article is to demonstrate how the generation of Christianity researchers who emerged during the zongjiao re 宗 教 热 (religion fever) of the 1980s engage in and relate to contemporary “Sino-Christian” intellectual discourses. My focus is on how scholars of the senior generation present their own field of discourse, anchored within their respective disciplinary specializations, in the context of semi-structured expert interviews. This central concern with China’s “lost generation” intellectuals, in their fifties and older today, is part of a larger research project that looks at both the senior and younger generation of Sino-Christian scholars. The senior generation is interesting because of the historical setting of their individual biographies, which have produced a wide array of revived and newly created ideological leanings among China’s modern-day veteran intellectuals. At one point or another, the senior scholars encountered—or singled out as their research focus—Christian culture, which for some was more than a professional turn. He Guanghu describes these “Cultural Christians” 文 化 基 督 徒 as a “small group of scholars” within the sphere as a whole “deserv[ing] more attention,” noting that their intellectual journey “is particularly meaningful because they quested for truth and gained Christian faith as their harvest.” He argues that Cultural Christians rejected the path of the political dissident in the 1980s; instead, “their rebelling and quest took the opposite direction, for they sought the ultimate spiritual freedom” (2008:65). Born before 1966, most of the senior scholars interviewed for this study are now at the height of their academic careers. Representing a diverse group, review of religion and chinese society 4 (2017) 5-31C B:3 1 35 5 : : 4 2 :B : D . ) ()( 0/ 2 . 12 Thurston they are based at thirteen institutions across China, including three in Hong Kong, and two abroad. These scholars represent a range of academic interests and disciplines, as well as religious sympathies. Senior scholars’ disciplinary affiliations range from theology and philosophy to religious studies (generally a “subsidiary” of philosophy in the academic hierarchy) and the social sciences. Five Scholarly Types What all the mainland Chinese scholars I interviewed share is their primary identification as scholars (xuezhe 学 者 ) or researchers (yanjiuzhe 研 究 者 ), self-descriptions that recur throughout the interview texts and stress either their nonconfessional identity or their respective academic foci.6 I describe some of the common characteristics exhibited by the scholars in the interview meetings using a simple five-type typology: the characteristics presented herein are not reflections of the whole person, rather they help illustrate professional “personas” constructed and presented in a specialized context; thus a scholar may in fact exhibit all the traits of two of the types in her professional life, but present herself as one of the types in the interview setting. These types are obviously not absolute characterizations but clusters of traits that can be shown to recur among the scholars working in this field. They are helpful for understanding the various professional and intellectual rationales commonly presented within Christian studies in Chinese academia. The focus of the typology is on academic commitment in conjunction and interaction with other commitments, such as commitments in Christian ministry (Type 3) or a simultaneous commitment to religious dialogue and political orthodoxy (as occurs in Type 1). Each type is defined by four main characteristics drawn from data collected during interviews with senior Christianity scholars. The traits that define Type 1 can be associated with a philosophy or religious studies scholar—or a sociologist—who in addition to his or her role as an academic also plays the role of policy advisor. A well-known example of this type of scholar is Zhuo Xinping 卓 新 平 (b. 1955) of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, who, from 2008 onwards, also served on different committees of the National Peoples Congress. Zhuo presents himself as sympathetic towards Chinese religious communities and helps present their positions and points of view to Chinese policy 6 Rarely did these interviewees explicitly refer to their roles as teachers or administrators. review of religion and chinese society: 44 (2017) 5-31 ) C 35 5 B:3 1 : 2 :B :D . ()( 0/ 2 . 13 Reading Religion in China Today makers. He is, as described by Lauren Pfister, a critic of “principled secularism in its Marxist and Chinese Marxist forms” who understands the post-secular realities of his time and exhibits strong pragmatic interests in issues of social stability (Pfister 2013). In this sense, then, Zhuo resembles the traditional Chinese scholar-official, a role Weber saw as requiring the “pragmatic-political rationality of the intellectual class” (Weber 2006:422). Among the scholars I interviewed, many tended to stress the positive influences of Christian values on Chinese society, although most of these individuals did not themselves profess Christian faith. This group included sociologists in particular, but also some scholars working in classic humanities disciplines such as philosophy or comparative studies. As a group they are sympathetic towards Christianity but, even though their research may lead them to become extensively involved in Christian activities, they remain, for the most part, observers of the life of faith, not converting to any religion themselves. These sympathetic observers are here categorized as Type 2 scholars. They represent a broad spectrum of scholars in the Christian studies discourse, and indeed Type 2 scholars comprised the largest proportion among the scholars interviewed for this study, outnumbering the scholars who profess Christianity (Types 3, 4, and 5 combined). Although he states that he writes from the vantage point of a non-Christian, Yang Huilin 杨 慧 林 (2014) a scholar of comparative literature and religions, sees value in the Christian theological perspective for Chinese humanities studies. Yang can be described as a Type 2 scholar, a category covering a range of disciplines in the humanities and social sciences. Types 3, 4, and 5 all describe scholars who profess Christian faith, and as Gao Xin (2010) has also suggested, they are a minority among the senior generation of Christianity researchers. Type 3 scholars are involved in religious service, for example as pastors or elders in their local churches, but, not least for purposes of their academic integrity, they draw a clear distinction between their roles as academic researchers and their service within their religious communities. This does not imply a de facto split between a scholar’s public engagement and private life; rather, when in an academic setting they rationalize their work according to an academic ethos. For example, a literary scholar may understand his spiritual vocation to be serving a Christian congregation, while his responsibility as a researcher is to participate in the production of knowledge. These goals need not be at odds with one another. However, these scholars offer no explanation of how their academic and religious values inform and influence one another in the academic setting; they simply explain that they are separate. A typical Type 3 Christianity researcher might be someone working in a philosophy department at a Chinese university who specializes in Christianity review of religion and chinese society 4 (2017) 5-31C B:3 1 35 5 : : 4 2 :B : D . ) ()( 0/ 2 . 14 Thurston research while also serving as an elder in the church he attends—perhaps an urban, middle-class, unregistered but semi-open congregation,7 the type Yang Fenggang (2006:1) has described as having “grey market” status or “an ambiguous legal/illegal status.” The Type 3 Christian scholar also has an interest in promoting Christianity outside of his academic sphere of influence. According to his understanding, “church theology” is different from the academic theology he is interested in professionally. One does not seamlessly translate into the context of the other. Like Type 3 scholars, scholars of Type 4 are religiously committed, but they are also religiously motivated in their academic work. They do not necessarily hold posts within the church or see themselves as having a double role or juggling two distinct roles. Rather, they describe themselves as fully committed Christian academics and see the two roles as significantly and purposefully intertwined, a “blended commitment” of personal, religious convictions, or a sense of belonging coupled with a dedication to intellectual work and the standards of scientific research. In contrast to Type 3 scholars, they see their scholarly work and intellectual life as expressions of Christian commitment; serving God is to serve and seek goodness, the truth, which academic work can and does lend itself to. I interviewed scholars who, based on their narratives, meet these criteria and were very open about seeing their academic position as a platform for their Christian witness. Among all the scholars I interviewed, this type was most frequently met among scholars of the younger generation, but there are also senior scholars I spoke with who demonstrate similar tendencies. Finally, Type 5 describes those scholars who are religious adherents and are also interested in theology as an academic discipline and as a social force but do not claim to be church theologians or to write in the service of the church. This profile is similar to that of Type 4 scholars, the major difference being that Type 4 scholars work in other disciplines and do not consider themselves theologians, nor are they considered to be theologians by others. Thus Type 5 scholars, some of whom have been described as theologians, are probably 7 Compare the remarks of Yuan H. (not his real name), who explained that—especially among the younger generation of Sino-Christianity researchers (in his description scholars “between 30 and 50 years of age”)—an increasing number of believers (xintu 信 徒 ) are generally affiliated with Christian groups outside the Three-Self churches. These researchers, he added, fall into two groups: the first group, which is the more “gospel or Bible-oriented” (here he names three strands: Calvinist, Lutheran, and Catholic, in this order) offers a theological justification for its effort to remain outside of political affairs, not seeking official approval or registration for its gatherings. The second group, also outside the Three-Self church, actively seeks permission to register with the state, which, however, is generally denied. review of religion and chinese society: 44 (2017) 5-31 ) C 35 5 B:3 1 : 2 :B :D . ()( 0/ 2 . 15 Reading Religion in China Today the least numerous of all the types. These scholars are not openly involved in any form of Christian ministry but are interested in Christian theology as an intellectual endeavor whose fruits may benefit society as a whole, not just the church. They include scholars whose work is theologically oriented, or whose writings have been received as theological writings; indeed, from the vantage point of many observers, including their fellow Sino-Christian scholars, Type 5 scholars are engaged in constructing Sino-Christian theology. These scholars also have a strong global focus and are internationally widely connected. They may have links to churches abroad, but within China they keep a “low church profile.” The best-known Type 5 scholars in the 1990s were Liu Xiaofeng and He Guanghu, who together have also been referred to as the “church fathers” of Sino-Christian theology (Starr 2014). However, it should be noted here that He (2015) himself has sometimes rejected the idea that such “theologians” are active in mainland Chinese academia. While it is true that virtually all established senior scholars might be described as “global citizens” who exhibit a strong sense of cultural and crosscultural awareness in terms of their cosmopolitanism, intellectual diversity, and a tendency toward an inclusive humanism, some have a higher international profile than others. For the most part, senior Christianity scholars have studied, traveled extensively, or conducted research abroad; most maintain international networks, publish or attend conferences outside of mainland China, and welcome cross-cultural academic exchange. Brief Discussion of the Five-Type Model Why introduce an abstract typology that could not possibly reflect all the nuances of individual motivations for working within contemporary SinoChristian studies? Despite its general nature, this typology is useful for addressing a series of questions regarding the state of the field today and potential future developments: Why has this academic concentration crystallized in Chinese intellectual discourse at this time? Who are its proponents, and what do their estimations of the field tell us about its prospects for the future, given that some of the most vocal proponents of Sino-Christian studies in the past have changed their research foci and are no longer interested in the field? A number of scholars who began their intellectual journeys and careers with an exclusive interest in Western philosophical studies are now more interested in Confucianism and Chinese traditional culture generally. One interviewee, Landon H., explains their shift in academic focus thus: A person who begins to delve into the cultural roots of an ideological counterpart will sooner or later review of religion and chinese society 4 (2017) 5-31C B:3 1 35 5 : : 4 2 :B : D . ) ()( 0/ 2 . 16 Thurston ask similar questions of his or her own cultural background. For some formerly Sino-Christian scholars, this later intellectual involvement gradually displaced earlier scholarly interests. Was this because their initial interests never constituted an existential intellectual journey, as was sometimes assumed? The trend shows that, according to the self-characterizations offered by interviewees, Sino-Christian theology does not facilitate the “religious infiltration” of scientific discourses, as a small minority of neo leftist scholars have suggested in recent years. Indeed, the pioneering figures of Sino-Christian theology and Sino-Christian studies have been wrongfully accused of promoting a type of “scholarly cultural imperialism.” For political reasons, Yang Fenggang, who has widely spoken on China’s Christian future, offering prognostications on the growth of the Chinese church in the new millennium, is currently not being invited to present his case in mainland China. However, as the interviews collected for this study illustrate, religious belonging, alignment, or engagement, as well as sympathy toward faith, religion, and religious groups, have in many cases provided strong motivations for achieving greater scholarly and analytical depth without sacrificing methodological precision or blurring scientific vision. Nor do Sino-Christian studies represent an experimental playing field for a Chinese theological existentialism. As has been pointed out by other observers, a theology that establishes its own legitimacy entirely outside of the church still has to formulate some basis for that legitimacy, which, in the case of the majority of scholars—namely, the sympathetic/non-confessional scholars of Type 2—is based on the methodological approaches, rationale, and self-understanding of their respective academic disciplines, not a distinct theological understanding. Critique of Sino-Christian Theology as “Theology extra ecclesiam” Qi X.8 offers his view on the “academic trend” of Sino-Christian theology and the largely nonconfessional nature of a field of research associated with a specialization called theology. This interviewee simply announced that as he was no insider and would thus be discussing hanyu shenxue from the angle of Chinese intellectual history. He went on to use the term throughout the interview. Hanyu shenxue has seen substantial development over the past twenty years. Today research relating to religion (guanyu zongjiao de 8 Not his real name. review of religion and chinese society: 44 (2017) 5-31 ) C 35 5 B:3 1 : 2 :B :D . ()( 0/ 2 . 17 Reading Religion in China Today yanjiu 关 于 宗 教 的 研 究 ) exists at every major Chinese university. Of course they don’t use the words “theology.”. . . The term used is zongjiao yanjiu 宗 教 研 究 —‘research on religion.’”. . . The development has been extremely rapid. . . . The researchers within this field already have their positions, their voice. Qi also observes that most researchers within the field of Christianity research are non-Christians: I’ve discovered that most of the researchers are researchers only. . . . The overwhelming majority of the researchers in China are not themselves Christians. They do not rely on a lived experience of Christian theology; their methods are purely academic. They might study ancient Greek philosophy in the same way. The intellectual historian emphasizes the strong scientific or academic “flavor” (weidao 味 道 ) of the Christian studies scholars’ output: Truth be told, China has quite a number of Christians today. There are some among the teachers. For example, I have two Christian colleagues, both scholars of [European] intellectual history. Both of them are very devout Christians. While they do not directly study Christian theology, I find that their understanding of Christian theology and their experience surpass the theological understanding and experience of those “Cultural Christians.” So it seems to me the best person to research Christianity is a believer. . . . If you use reason to study Christian theology, you will always be outside of theology, rather than inside it, and unable to understand (wufa lijie 无 法 理 解 ). Qi goes on to describe the situation in present China: “So many people, especially young people—even middle-school children—experience a sense of meaninglessness. Many turn to religion.” About a third of his students are religious followers, Buddhists, Christians and others, he remarks. But, interestingly, these students are not flocking to classes on religious studies or Christianity: instead they go straight to the “underground” (dixia 地 下 ) or Three-Self churches. Qi believes that Christianity research is too far removed from the Christian experience. It requires completely different methods and approaches—and yet, according to this interviewee, the majority of the researchers approach Christian studies and theology as they would approach Greek philosophy: there is little review of religion and chinese society 4 (2017) 5-31C B:3 1 35 5 : : 4 2 :B : D . ) ()( 0/ 2 . 18 Thurston or no connection between the church and academic Christianity scholars. Here the interviewee picks up on the same perceived deficiency mentioned above: for the intellectual historian, too, this separation of “theologies” and a failure to apply adequate approaches to theological research, which amounts to a failure to recognize the value of Christian experience, are the two central problems of hanyu shenxue. Despite the rapid progress of the field since the 1990s, Qi believes that the combination of the separation of “theologies” with the lack of a phenomenological approach to Christian experience is the chief reason why the development and influence of hanyu shenxue remain limited. A further impediment is the nonindependent status of Christianity research: As long as Christianity research has no independence within the university system, its further growth is limited. After reaching a certain level, it will reach the glass ceiling, from where it will not be able to progress. Of course, for China to have a theology department seems very difficult. When he said “very difficult” (tai nan 太 难 ), I asked Qi whether he saw no potential at all for the development of theology in its own right in the Chinese academy. This greatly depends, he believes, on the legal status of religions in China generally. If there are changes in that regard, then perhaps theology may flourish as an independent field, but he did not sound overly optimistic. The legal existence of Christianity research in China today hinges on its nonindependent status, on being embedded in other academic disciplines. According to Qi, Sino-Christian theology as of yet has no “position.” First of all, it lacks any distinguishing trait (ta meiyou ziji de tedian 他 没 有 自 己 的 特 点 ).9 Secondly, he adds, “Sino-Christian theology has not yet become fully contextualized.” Earlier attempts at contextualization, especially the search for common ground with Confucianism, are much more difficult to pursue in presentday China. Qi concludes that Sino-Christian theology is still young: its future development depends to no small extent on outward changes over which its promoters, it would seem, have very limited control. 9 This view contrasts with that of many other interviewees who spoke of hanyu shenxue’s distinguishing traits. review of religion and chinese society: 44 (2017) 5-31 ) C 35 5 B:3 1 : 2 :B :D . ()( 0/ 2 . 19 Reading Religion in China Today Sino-Christian Theology as an “Academic Trend” The senior sociologists interviewed for this study share the three features listed under Type 2: both are explicitly sympathetic toward Christianity and at times openly appreciative of certain aspects of Christian expressions in Chinese society. Both share a strong interest in the development of Christian communities in China. And both are—like other senior scholars—eager to demonstrate their academic commitment or identity. In the case of Types 1 and 2 this inclination to stress that “my”—sometimes “our”—methods are scientifically sound (“I am a scholar first,” or “I hold to the principle of value neutrality”) often comes across as an indirect demand not to be mistaken for a “Cultural Christian” in the sense of the 1990s “Cultural Christians.” As Zhuo Xinping writes, the term has not met with much welcome in mainland China (Zhuo 2001), and attempts to replace it (such as Chen Cunfu’s 陈 村 富 Scholars in Mainland China Studying Christianity [smscs]) have had mixed appeal. Although the term “Cultural Christian” was never wholeheartedly embraced by the mainland Chinese academics to whom it referred, it is sometimes still seen as serving a practical purpose when talking about Chinese Christian intellectuals in the 1990s, and it is also used to refer, for example, to the “Cultural Christian Debate” of 1996.10 A number of interviewees highlighted the fact that there are (thought to be) theologians suspicious of nonconfessional Christians discussing theology. “Non-religious” Sino-Christianity researchers (those not professing faith and in the interview context affirming a non-Christian identity) take their collaboration with Christian scholars as well as their participation in Sino-Christian discourses very seriously. Many, however, to some extent take issue with the term “Sino-Christian theology movement” (hanyu shenxue yundong 汉 语 神 学 运 动 ), propagated by Hong Kong’s Institute of SinoChristian Studies since the mid 1990s, and most particularly with the word “movement” (yundong 运 动 ),11 if not also with “theology” (shenxue 神 学 ) (Yeung 2010:225). Instead, as we will see below, several senior scholars suggest their own alternatives to the term, acknowledging that there is indeed 10 11 The outcome of the debate is read differently by other scholars: there is no consensus on this point. In responding to a questionnaire prompt, one scholar explained that even movements with noble goals and purposes, for example the goal of countering societal prejudice, may themselves be discriminatory; the term “movement,” for this respondent, bears connotations of “exclusivity” in one form or another. In informal conversations, I am told that for many Chinese today the word “movement” is reminiscent of Maoist campaigns. For one Chinese student I spoke with, the word “movement” signals empty promises and political agendas unlikely to offer any lasting solutions to the issues they are meant to address. review of religion and chinese society 4 (2017) 5-31C B:3 1 35 5 : : 4 2 :B : D . ) ()( 0/ 2 . 20 Thurston what one interviewee calls an academic “trend” (sichao 思 潮 ) of academicintellectual interest in Christianity that has its origins in the 1980s “religion fever” (zongjiao re 宗 教 热 ) and “Christianity fever” (jidujiao re 基 督 教 热 ). The phenomenon—at least this much is agreed upon—represents its own specialized discourse, occurring in the context of interlinked networks, some of them international and some formed around particular publications or institutions. Changing Images of Christianity in China A Type 2 scholar, Chen Y.12 was among the first cohort of Chinese Christianity researchers in post–Cultural Revolution China. Chen emphatically points out that “Christianity research—jidujiao yanjiu” was present on the academic scene in China before “Sino-Christian theology” was introduced and institutionally promoted: We researched [Christianity] first. The [introduction] of Sino-Christian theology came later. . . . We were the first generation of scholars after opening and reform. There was no [such thing as] hanyu shenxue when we began our research. Insofar as hanyue shenxue denotes the wider field of Christianity research, Professor Chen counts himself as a member (chengyuan 成 员 ) of the field, objecting less to the word “theology” itself than to the notion that “Sino-Christian theology” can claim identity with the vast field of Sino-Christian studies in mainland China, or that it is anything more than a “brand name” or “trademark,” a point also raised by others. Nonetheless, there is a sense of a “joint project” expressed in Chen’s frequent use of the first-person plural to refer to himself and other scholars, a project he is himself involved in. Specifically, the pronoun “we” is used first to refer to the inception of Christianity research in mainland China and then, repeatedly, with reference to its accomplishments within Chinese academia and society at large, for example by helping the Chinese to overcome their perception of Christianity as a “foreign religion” (yangjiao 洋 教 ). Chen stresses the strengths of Christianity research in comparison to fields of research on other religions. This is significant. Our interview took place in Beijing, which is important in terms of the academic study of religion. It houses China’s top research institute and prestigious think tank, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Here we find the Institute for the Study of World 12 Not his real name. review of religion and chinese society: 44 (2017) 5-31 ) C 35 5 B:3 1 : 2 :B :D . ()( 0/ 2 . 21 Reading Religion in China Today Religions, where one might expect to encounter something akin to the study of religion in Western academia. However, Chen singles out Christianity research as its own (disciplinary) entity. This individually focused study of religion (studying “a religion” rather than the “study of religion,” or “religious studies,” with its own standard disciplinary approaches and marked by an inclusiveness of all forms of religious expression, including new religious movements, etc.) was reiterated by other interviewees, who used the term “Christianity research” (jidujiao yanjiu 基 督 教 研 究 ) to indicate a field in its own right—distinct, one might add, from Christian theology. As a Type 2 scholar Chen demonstrates an interest in the study of Christianity specifically. The quality and depth ascribed to Christianity research in this interview suggest a level of identification with this specialized field interacting with the scholar’s academic commitment. Portions of Chen’s narrative echoed views and experiences narrated by other senior scholars: “Opening and reform presented us with [new] opportunities” (Gaige kaifang geile women jihui 改 革 开 放 给 了 我 们 机 会 ). This experience is shared by most senior mainland scholars, and it is difficult to say for whom such a statement might carry political significance. Opening and reform have in theory empowered individuals to fight for individual freedoms: some prominent Sino-Christian scholars, with Christian intellectuals being among the initial group of Charter ’08 signatories, for example, are outspoken about their desire for increased civil liberties and other reforms.13 Some have been attacked by their academic colleagues on the other end of the ideologicalpolitical spectrum as proselytes wanting to import Western-style liberal democracy into the prc. Such attacks are often based on misunderstandings rather than a fair assessment of those Christian studies scholars who seek social and political reforms for their country: many thoughtful Chinese desirous of reform and an increased consistency in the implementation of constitutionally guaranteed rights are neither political activists nor open critics of the regime pursuing political Westernization but prefer to work “within the system” toward gradual improvement and reform. The experience of the drastic change from regulated existence in the 1960s and 1970s to an increase in freedom that provided coveted career opportunities is one shared by other senior Christianity researchers who lived in mainland China during and after the Cultural Revolution. Further, the sense of having been given jihui 机 会 —chances 13 Charter ’08 was a document drafted by Liu Xiaobo and other Chinese intellectuals in 2008, addressing, among a number of other points, the demand that the People’s Republic of China consistently enforce human rights legislation already outlined in its constitution, including freedom of expression and freedom of religion. It was published on December 10 to coincide with the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. review of religion and chinese society 4 (2017) 5-31C B:3 1 35 5 : : 4 2 :B : D . ) ()( 0/ 2 . 22 Thurston or opportunities—by political and economic reform is something that separates them from their students and younger colleagues in the academy. Sino-Christian Theology and Commitment to Value Neutrality During our interview Zhang Y.,14 another Type 2 sociologist, suggested alternative terminology to describe the phenomenon of hanyu shenxue while advocating closer cooperation between hanyu shenxue and the Chinese churches; he ended by stating his position on religious studies in the Chinese academy. Throughout, he demonstrated and affirmed his identity as a scholar and an expert in the sociological study of religion in China, as well as his connection to what he terms an academic, or theological, “trend” (sichao 思 潮 ). Sociological research should not, as Zhang holds, place the social trends under investigation in ideological competition with one another. To do this may disqualify the researcher as an independent, objective observer. On the one hand, the sociologist’s research ethics require a value-neutral approach; on the other hand, most researchers will reflect on their subjective judgments of the phenomena they investigate. Apart from direct avowal, Zhang demonstrated a commitment to value neutrality by highlighting his equal appreciation of the different subjects being studied.15 Directly emphasizing the importance of researching more than one religious tradition, he quoted Max Müller’s famous dictum “Wer eine Religion kennt, kennt keine” (He who knows one religion knows none). The researcher endeavored to show that, for him, one religion is not superior to another; rather, their positive qualities are equally valuable. Zhang drew a clear distinction for himself between hanyu shenxue and hanyu shenxue yundong (汉 语 神 学 and 汉 语 神 学 运 动 ). He did not, and would not, consider himself a member of the latter discipline. The word yundong, he stated, possessed connotations too far removed from what this discourse field is centrally about, and furthermore it failed to convey what it is not—namely, it is not a spontaneous social movement. He suggested instead another way to describe the phenomenon of the contemporary Chinese intellectual encounter with Christian theology in academic contexts, 14 15 Not the scholar’s real name. In the spirit of Goethe’s definition of tolerance (“Tolerance should only ever be a temporary attitude: it must lead to appreciation. To tolerate is to offend”), Zhang repeatedly stressed that he personally holds both Buddhist and Christian teachings or the two religions’ expressions of community in Chinese contexts in high regard. review of religion and chinese society: 44 (2017) 5-31 ) C 35 5 B:3 1 : 2 :B :D . ()( 0/ 2 . 23 Reading Religion in China Today calling hanyu shenxue an “academic trend” (xueshu sichao 学 术 思 潮 ). As a statement of his own scholarly identity and involvement, he offered: “I am a researcher of Chinese Christianity who has joined the ‘hanyu shenxue academic trend.’” Zhang began researching Christianity in the late 1990s, after studying the historical relationship between politics and religion via the history of Buddhism in China and religion in contemporary China. “My approach to Christianity,” as he mentioned more than once, “is that of looking at the role of Christianity in Chinese society or the relationship between Buddhism and Christianity in Chinese society.” The sociologist repeatedly referred to his focus on Chinese society in order to highlight the sociological, rather than theological or philosophical, dimension of his work. An appreciation of theology came much later, but his focus remained on society and his methods are those of the sociologist, not the philosopher or theologian. As a sociologist looking at Christianity and Christian groups within Chinese society, Zhang is himself interested in the discursive field of hanyu shenxue as a sociological phenomenon itself. Similarly adamant about his nontheological and strictly “scientifically minded” scholarly identity was Luo J.16 While this Type 2 scholar does not profess Christian faith, it is interesting to note that those he mentioned as having influenced his life—like other interviewees, he named role models (bangyang 榜 样 ) who are all within the academic sphere—were described by him as Christians, or are otherwise known to be Christians, including his past academic supervisors and overseas academic colleagues. Luo noted how his worldview drastically changed as a result of his experiences in the 1960s and 1970s. Interestingly, in describing the change in detail, he switched in mid-sentence from the first-person singular pronoun to the first-person plural: “I think my worldview has changed,” he said, “because our life experiences can be separated into two parts,” namely before and after the Cultural Revolution. Luo recalled “going to the countryside to do manual labor” (shangshan xiaxiang上 山 下 乡 ; literally, “up the mountain, down to the countryside”), using a phrase applied especially to people who left school at an early age and were either invited or forced to “experience agricultural labor.” We experienced old-fashioned [or traditional] Communist teachings, were imbued with class struggle ideology, and were educated in atheism. This influenced me profoundly. . . . Looking back at that time, these experiences nurtured in me a spirit of doubt and criticism. 16 Not this scholar’s real name. review of religion and chinese society 4 (2017) 5-31C B:3 1 35 5 : : 4 2 :B : D . ) ()( 0/ 2 . 24 Thurston In highlighting how entering university opened up new worlds of thought and modes of thinking—a stark contrast to his experiences during the Cultural Revolution—Luo indicated his apprehensions at the time about diving from one set of prejudices, or all-encompassing system of thought, into another ideology that claimed to explain everything. It was at university that the young student encountered more of what the world had to offer intellectually. He later studied abroad in America and then went on to do graduate work in Hong Kong. All these experiences and the various ideologies he encountered boiled down to a simple life philosophy, or “value system,” as he remarked: a recognition of what it means to do good (“to be a good person,” zuo haoren 做 好 人 ), namely, to follow one’s conscience and work diligently. He added, “I don’t strive for some overambitious ideal—as it was back then, the aim of constructing an ideal society.” Luo further noted that Christianity has played an important role in the process of modernization, including democratization. My own attitude toward religion has changed significantly. Before opening and reform, Christianity was always seen as opium. After opening and reform, we gradually came to realize that the issue is much more complex. . . . Epistemologically speaking, there is no way to prove the origins of religion. He went on to explain that the attitude he adopts when researching Christianity is one of openness. This is a central theme that emerged from the interviews as scholars described how they perceived hanyu shenxue and Sino-Christian studies or how they ideally envisioned the field. On the one hand, the trait of openness simply relates to the personalities of the scholars themselves and the positions they chose: as scientists, their curiosity naturally results from—and in—openness toward the phenomena investigated. On the other hand, openness is a trait that scholars in this discourse field choose to attribute to the field itself because they are its representatives, but also, as several senior scholars explicitly stated, because openness underscores the legitimacy of the hanyu shenxue/Sino-Christian studies endeavor. However, for many senior scholars—specifically those belonging to Types 1 and 2—the openness they attributed to themselves was an openness to the study of religion rather than an openness toward religious faith. “Openness” and “open” were words that featured prominently in the transcript data at large. In response to the question of whether or how his personal life experiences have influenced his academic output, Luo talked about how his contact with rural Christians has influenced him. He offered a list of all the positive elements he perceives in China’s traditional teachings (sanjiao 三 教 ), Confucianism, review of religion and chinese society: 44 (2017) 5-31 ) C 35 5 B:3 1 : 2 :B :D . ()( 0/ 2 . 25 Reading Religion in China Today Buddhism, and Daoism, highlighting his appreciation of the depth of Buddhist teachings and praising the accomplishments of traditional Daoism in the areas of ancient chemistry and “maintaining good health” (yangsheng zhi dao 养 生 之 道 ). One reason why Christianity holds such an attraction for this historian is Chinese Christianity’s intimate relationship with Chinese modernity. He referred to the nineteenth-century Protestant missionaries who built hospitals and schools and introduced Western learning on a large scale (including Western-style higher education) while presenting the Christian Gospel. He depicted this missionary influence exercised through education and social and charitable institutions—as well as advancements in the fields of translation and medical science—as having significantly impacted Chinese modernization. “When studying theology,” Luo maintained, “I rely mainly on the historical approach, to a lesser extent also on a sociological one,” adding that “the number of scholars doing theology in China today is minimal.” In discussing Christian studies, Luo drew a comparison between Christian and Confucian value systems, highlighting how the Christian concept of zui 罪 (guilt, crime, sin) can function as a corrective to traditional Chinese teachings, in that it highlights human defects and the need for a transcendent grace. Further, Christianity values the other over the self. According to the historian, Christian studies in particular and religious studies in general are on a path of development in the Chinese academy. Christian studies conferences are held in all of China’s major cities and the topics no longer merely revolve around the role of Christianity in Chinese society (such as Christianity’s role in China’s modernization) but are increasingly focused on “Christianity itself,” meaning Christian theology. When asked toward the end of the interview whether he wished to continue researching Christianity, Luo replied, “Of course” (as did most interviewees), adding that in contemporary China Christianity research has become a “highly professionalized” research field. Luo believes that Christianity may become similarly contextualized as Buddhism has on Chinese soil. He then added that he hoped Christianity would not have too much longer a road to travel before it was fully welcomed in China and no longer seen as yangjiao. In light of Luo’s strong emphasis on openness toward Christianity and other religions as well as his ability to provide very specific examples of what he appreciates about religious teachings, it is fair to say that his claim about the marginal status of hanyu shenxue—indeed, its weak force when considered in terms of the number of Chinese theologians—is highly unlikely to be based on a dismissive attitude. Rather, it reflects the simple, factual observation that the field of academic theology is still in its initial stages of development. review of religion and chinese society 4 (2017) 5-31C B:3 1 35 5 : : 4 2 :B : D . ) ()( 0/ 2 . 26 Thurston Sino-Christian Theology as a “Fringe Discourse” The fringe status, or marginal position, of Sino-Christian theology was stressed in many interviews I conducted, in particular by scholars researching Christianity from social scientific perspectives who were themselves interested in this “academic trend” as a social or historical phenomenon. If Sino-Christian theology is no more than a peripheral appearance within the broader—though in itself not mainstream—field of Sino-Christianity research, the wider field, which a far greater number of Chinese scholars are engaged in, can, if necessary, distance itself from any theological ambitions. In fact, this was done by a number of scholars interviewed. As Chloë Starr (2013) notes, a general distancing from Christian vocabulary is evidenced in names given to conferences on Christian studies, such as “East–west Studies” rather than “Research on Christianity” or “Christian Studies.” The same is sometimes, though not in all cases, true for the naming of religious studies centers or institutes. Further, fringe status is not a disadvantage per se; having its own appeal, it can deflect unwanted attention, highlight the novelty of an emerging field, and thus create a stage for academic soloists. The present fringe status of Sino-Christian studies may also be explained more positively in terms of both an emerging and cutting-edge or innovative discourse. If one considers the expertise required for any comparative study between, say, Eastern philosophy and Western theology, it is hardly surprising that one young scholar I interviewed describes the field as gaobukepan 高 不 可 攀 —“too high to reach” or “eminent and unapproachable.”17 Nor is it difficult to understand why the field is seen as one reserved for a few prominent intellectuals. This is an image sometimes projected onto the field of SinoChristian theology and relates also to the position of its “fringe interdisciplinarity.” While younger scholars I interviewed reported their sincere interest in the field when they were graduate students, some further hinted at a certain remoteness that was seen to go with it. This has made it all the more expedient for Sino-Christianity researchers to relate their research output to contemporary debates, a concern stressed by several scholars interviewed—and, again, an endeavor that may prove useful in moving the Sino-Christian discourse 17 Compare Lian Xi (2013:73), who makes use of a similar idiomatic expression to describe the “grim struggle” of prominent Christian intellectuals in his article “‘Cultural Christians’ and the Search for Civil Society in Contemporary China”: “Given the political apathy of the majority of grassroots Christians and their habitual distrust of worldly schemes of salvation, the high-minded pursuits of prominent Protestant intellectuals have remained “highbrow songs that find few singers” (qugao hegua 曲 高 和 寡 ). review of religion and chinese society: 44 (2017) 5-31 ) C 35 5 B:3 1 : 2 :B :D . ()( 0/ 2 . 27 Reading Religion in China Today away from the fringes and closer to center stage, through its participation in public intellectual outlets, if the emerging generation of Sino-Christian scholars proves willing to pursue this rather than focusing inwardly on its own professionalization. Another issue is that Chinese scholars want to avoid portraying the phenomenon of hanyu shenxue and the wider discourse field of Sino-Christian studies as something of a religious revival among Chinese academics—or even an intellectual “fever” such as the “culture fever” (wenhua re 文 化 热 ) of the early post-Mao years. They may be wary of exaggerations or of being identified with someone else’s religious agenda. Much of the academic research on Christianity in mainland China remains marginal; even now, for some scholars working in the social sciences, research on Christianity is politically sensitive, with some arguing that the climate under a leadership stressing the outstanding cultural contributions or superiority of Chinese traditional culture in modern nationalist terms contributes to the marginal standing of studies on a foreign Leitkultur. At times their intellectual reflections on Christian theological topics make use of the “language of Chinese critical inquiry” (Davies 2009:1), which refers to engaging the (prescribed) concerns of the nation—“worrying about China” (1)—in scholarly discussion. Such is the case, for example, when Jürgen Moltmann’s Theology of Hope is compared and contrasted with the Chinese Dream or, stretching the dialogue further, contemporary Chinese notions of “harmonious society” (hexie shehui 和 谐 社 会 ) are read as foundational concepts of Christian or other religious doctrines. Scholars have opened up new disciplinary approaches that are not officially recognized; they are working to effect institutional changes by elevating the status of religious studies in prc academia. This last point is one that Western theology must pay particular attention to, for the emerging field of Christianity research in China has set itself the goal of raising the status of Chinese “religious studies” or “the study of religion” (zongjiao xue 宗 教 学 ), and with it much of the academic work in Christian theology, including, on a limited scale, continuing higher education for church seminarians. Conclusion18 As the field of Sino-Christian studies has been promoted for the past two decades on some fronts as “Sino-Christian theology,” one is well justified in asking 18 In the present article, I have used “Sino-Christian studies,” “Chinese Christianity research” and other, sometimes ambiguous, terms interchangeably and somewhat liberally. What, review of religion and chinese society 4 (2017) 5-31C B:3 1 35 5 : : 4 2 :B : D . ) ()( 0/ 2 . 28 Thurston the question: What about the introduction of theology, in a more systematized and independent form, into the disciplinary hierarchy of the prc academic sphere? This question is of interest because opinions on whether there is, in fact, already such a field as Chinese academic theology diverge among experts. When I asked interviewees this question directly, not all had an answer ready. On the other hand, Zhuo Xinping (2013) deliberately uses the term “theology” to describe a particular brand of religious studies. Entering the names of some of the more prominent Sino-Christian scholars into Chinese search engines, one finds that some of them are described as “theologians” or at least as specializing in “theological research.” Thus while the “name still matters” and theological programs will face significant obstacles in attempts to secure state funding, the term “theology” is nonetheless being traded and associated with high-profile academic figures. Academic journals, on the other hand, might be given titles that focus on keywords like “Christian culture” (jidujiao wenhua 基 督 教 文 化 ) or “research on Christianity” (jidujiao yanjiu 基 督 教 研 究 ) rather than “theology.” One historian I interviewed, however, was adamant in highlighting the importance of theology to complete the study of religion as an academic discourse capable of communicating the essence of Christianity: Without theology, religious studies lacks much of its jingshen 精 神 —its vitality, its spiritual drive—and is empty. In theology, experience comes first, which is also why there is the understanding that theology can only be developed by the believer. . . . Without theology, the research done on Christian thought lacks this starting point of experience and becomes empty. . . . In China, neither the position of religious studies nor that of Christian studies is very prominent. Christian studies are not a force of great influence in contemporary society. If you look at the schools of thought that are influential in China today, they are Neoliberalism, New Leftism. . . While not all scholars within the Sino-Christian discourse share a sense of duty to act in the public sphere, and there are indications that “research for after all, is “Chinese”? Here He Guanghu (1996) for one has explained that the “Chinese” or “Sino” (hanyu 汉 语 , “Chinese language”) element of “Sino-Christian theology” refers to language, especially native (or “mother-tongue”) language, as well as to the theology written by Chinese-speaking (writing) theologians living in a particular Chinese-language context; and these contexts of course vary significantly across geographical locations and social strata. He here includes the Chinese diaspora. The descriptive term “Chinese Christian studies” is also the name of a list-serve and network of young scholars researching and teaching Christianity at various institutions across China. review of religion and chinese society: 44 (2017) 5-31 ) C 35 5 B:3 1 : 2 :B :D . ()( 0/ 2 . 29 Reading Religion in China Today research’s sake” is the trend toward which the younger generation is leaning, I would argue that a sense of public responsibility and a search for Christian theology’s meaningful engagement of public life is still an important legacy of hanyu shenxue, and that this is where both its vitality as a fringe and cuttingedge discourse as well as its potential for increased public legitimacy might be found. Chinese researchers in the social sciences and humanities have a vital role to play in the development of Sino-Christianity research in the present prc academic setting: because they are interested in Chinese Christianity and research religious phenomena from sociological and historical perspectives, much of their research in fact comes closer to Western notions of the discipline of religious studies than the sub-discipline now going by the name of zongjiao xue, a subsidiary branch of philosophy. The Sino-Christian discourse sphere thus comprises a unique interdisciplinary blend of diverse voices whose openness toward theological inquiry warrants the attention of Western China watchers, both in theology and religious studies, as well as in the social sciences, where, in China, research on religion is generally gaining traction, and investigating its theological dimensions is increasingly seen as valuable and necessary for a comprehensive understanding of religious phenomena. References Interview and Survey Data Electronic Respondents 1–37 (electronic survey responses). “Jidujiao yanjiu zai Zhongguo yu Hanyu shenxue” 基 督 教 研 究 在 中 国 与 汉 语 神 学 (Studying Christianity in China and Sino-Christian Theology). June 13, 2013–March 11, 2014. Electronic survey. Electronic Respondents 38–43 (electronic responses to interview questions). Messages to the author. February 19, 2012–February 19, 2014. E-mail. Interviews 1–48. Personal interviews with the author. August 18, 2011–December 16, 2013. Audio files and transcripts. Questionnaire Responses. Sent to and collected by the author. August–September 2011. Print and e-mail. Published Sources Davies, Gloria. 2009. Worrying about China: The Language of Chinese Critical Inquiry. Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press. Kindle E-Book. Fällman, Fredrik. 2008. Salvation and Modernity: Intellectuals and Faith in Contemporary China. Lanham, md: University Press of America. Fällman, Fredrik. 2016. “Public Faith? Five Voices of Chinese Christian Thought.” Contemporary Chinese Thought 47, no. 4: 223–234. review of religion and chinese society 4 (2017) 5-31C B:3 1 35 5 : : 4 2 :B : D . ) ()( 0/ 2 . 30 Thurston Gao Xin 高 莘 . 2010. “Preliminary Survey on the New Generation of Scholars of Christian Studies in Mainland China.” In Sino-Christian Theology: A Theological Qua Cultural Movement in Contemporary China, edited by Lai Pan-chiu and Jason Lam, pp. 225–237. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. He Guanghu 何 光 沪 . 1996. “The Methodology of and Approaches to Sino-Christian Theology.” Regent Journal 3: 16–24. He Guanghu 何 光 沪 . 2006. “The Basis and Significance of Sino-Christian Theology.” Sino-Christian Studies in China, edited by Yang Huilin and Daniel Yeung, pp. 120–132. Newcastle, uk: Cambridge Scholars Press. He Guanghu 何 光 沪 . 2008. “Three Generations of Chinese Christianity Researchers: From the 1950s to 2007.” In China and Christianity: A New Phase of Encounter?, edited by Felix Wilfred, Edmond Tang, and Georg Evers, pp. 58–70. London: scm. He Guanghu 何 光 沪 . 2015. “In Search of ‘Between Heaven and the Human’: The Trend of the Sino-Christian Theology Movement.” iscs Newsletter: 20th Anniversary Special Issue: 1–2. Lai Pan-chiu 賴 品 超 . 2012. “Cong Hanyu shenxue dao Hanyu Jidu zongjiao yanjiu: Hanyu shenxue de chuancheng yu fazhan” 从 汉 语 神 学 到 汉 语 基 督 宗 教 研 究 : 汉 语 神 学 的 传 承 与 发 展 (From Sino-Christian theology to Sino-Christian studies: The inheritance and development of Sino-Christian theology). In Inheritance and Development: Essays from the 4th Roundtable Symposium on Sino-Christian Studies, edited by Daniel Yeung, Jason Lam, and Gao Xin. Hong Kong: Logos and Pneuma. Lai Pan-chiu and Jason Lam. 2010. “Retrospect and Prospect of Sino-Christian Theology: An Introduction.” In Sino-Christian Theology: A Theological Qua Cultural Movement, edited by Lai Pan-chiu and Jason Lam, pp. 1–17. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Lam, Jason 林 子 淳 . 2014. “The Emergence and Continuity of the Community of SinoChristian Theology.” Logos and Pneuma 41 (Autumn): 137–149. Lian Xi 連 曦 . 2013. “‘Cultural Christians’ and the Search for Civil Society in Contemporary China.” The Chinese Historical Review 20 (1): 70–87. Pfister, Lauren. 2013. “Post-Secularity and Its Manifestations in the Works of Zhuo Xinping.” Paper presented at the Christian Faith and Ideological Trends in Contemporary China conference, Oxford, August 20–23. Shapiro, Judith, and Heng Liang. 1986. Cold Winds, Warm Winds: Intellectual Life in China Today. Middletown, ct: Wesleyan University Press. Starr, Chloë. 2013. “Classroom Christianity: How Theology Is Flourishing in China.” Christian Century 130 (3): 28–31. http://www.christiancentury.org/article/2013-01/ classroom-christianity (accessed December 28, 2013). Starr, Chloë. 2014. “Sino-Christian Theology: Treading a Fine Line between SelfDetermination and Globalization.” In Globalization and the Making of Religious Modernity in China: Transnational Religions, Local Agents, and the Study of review of religion and chinese society: 44 (2017) 5-31 ) C 35 5 B:3 1 : 2 :B :D . ()( 0/ 2 . 31 Reading Religion in China Today Religion, 1800–Present, edited by Thomas Jansen, Thoralf Klein, and Christian Meyer, pp. 379–410. Leiden: Brill. Starr, Chloë. 2016. Chinese Theology: Text and Context. New Haven, ct: Yale University Press. Weber, Max. 2006. Religion und Gesellschaft: Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Religionssoziologie. Frankfurt am Main: Zweitausendeins. Xie Zhibin 谢 志 斌 . 2014. “From ‘Multi-Disciplinary Studies’ to ‘Interdisciplinary Studies’: An Overview and Prospect for ‘Across Disciplines’ Character of Sino-Christian Studies.” Logos and Pneuma 41 (Autumn): 103–126. Yang Fenggang 杨 凤 岗 . 2006. “The Red, Black, and Gray Markets of Religion in China.” The Sociological Quarterly 47:93–122. Yang Huilin 杨 慧 林 . 2014. China, Christianity, and the Question of Culture. Waco, tx: Baylor University Press. Yeung, Daniel 楊 熙 楠 . 2010. “The Phenomenon of Sino-Christian Theology from the Perspective of a Proponent.” Asiatica Ambrosiana 2: 225–233. Zhuo Xingping 卓 新 平 . 2001. “Discussion on ‘Cultural Christians’ in China.” In China and Christianity: Burdened Past, Hopeful Future, edited by Stephen Uhalley and Xiaoxin Wu, pp. 283–300. Armonk, ny: M. E. Sharpe. Zhuo Xingping 卓 新 平 . 2013. “The Status of Christian Theology in China Today.” In Christianity, edited by Zhuo Xinping. Leiden: Brill, pp. 7–29. review of religion and chinese society 4 (2017) 5-31C B:3 1 35 5 : : 4 2 :B : D . ) ()( 0/ 2 .