Abstract
In this monograph, Alexander Chow (Ph.D., University of Birmingham) analyzes some of the fundamental differences between the traditional Chinese worldview and that of historic Christianity. For instance, both Daoism and Confucianism teach that human nature is essentially “good” and that humans are characterized by an “original innocence” rather than “original sin.” Maintaining that a “sin nature” has been inherited from one’s forbearers presents an insurmountable problem to the Chinese who are required to venerate their ancestors. Additionally, the monergistic view of soteriology seen in Western Reformed theologies (i.e., salvation being the result of God’s work alone without human cooperation) has been anathema to the Chinese, who have insisted upon synergism (that humans must have a role).
Because of such teachings, Christianity experienced slow growth in China prior to the 1950s. But following the 1960s’ Cultural Revolution and the government reaction to the Tiananmen Square demonstrations of 1989, the Second Chinese Enlightenment resulted in a much greater openness to the ideas of “sin” and human need for God’s unmerited favor.
To classify the theological thinking of Chinese Christians, Chow uses three categories developed by Justo Gonzalez. Type A is the law-oriented theology of Tertullian, represented in China by Wang Mingdao and Watchman Nee. Type B is the truth-oriented theology of Origen, seen in the writings of Y.T. Wu and T.C. Chao. Type C is the history-oriented theology of Irenaeus, adopted by K.H. Ting. This third category has much in common with concepts found in Eastern Orthodoxy, and Chow believes that Type C has the best chance for producing a truly indigenous Chinese theology.
According to Eastern Orthodoxy, Gen. 1:26 distinguishes between the “image” and the “likeness” of God. In the Fall, the “likeness” was lost, but the imago dei remains. Adam’s mortality passed to his descendants, but not his guilt. Such ideas allow the Chinese to maintain the Daoist/Confucianist belief in the essential goodness of the human being (i.e., the “image”) while using the Orthodox idea of theosis (divinization) to define sanctification in a way that emphasizes synergy rather than monergy.
This book is highly recommended for those who are involved or who contemplate ministry in the Far East. It contains an excellent summary of the theological thinking of several contemporary Chinese Christians and offers insightful ideas regarding contextualization that will be of use to ministers of the gospel whether or not they agree with Chow’s emphasis on Eastern Orthodoxy.