Wise Man from the East: Lit-sen Chang (Zhang Lisheng)

Critique of Indigenous Theology; Critique of Humanism

Chang, Doyle

• Publisher: Pickwick Publications
• Year: 2013
• eBook ISBN: 9781621898153
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

How should Christianity relate to Chinese culture? That question has engaged the minds of both Chinese and Western Christians for several centuries. Lit-sen Chang (1904-1996) was brought up as a Buddhist and educated in the Confucian classics as well as in modern political philosophy. He later delved deeply into Daoism as well. After World War II, he founded Jiangnan University in order to exterminate Christianity and revive Eastern religion. Conversion to Christianity in 1950 radically altered the course of his life. He studied at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and then joined the faculty, teaching missions and writing prolifically on theology and apologetics, especially on the relationship of Christianity to Chinese culture. His Critique of Indigenous Theology and Critique of Humanism are published here in English for the first time, and provide excellent examples of his wide learning, insightful analysis, powerful writing, and firm commitment to historic Christianity.

Critique of Indigenous Theology

Translated by G. Wright Doyle

Translator’s Preface

Readers will quickly note that Chang often repeats himself. He does this not only within this one book, but also across several works. It seems that he had some important concepts, as well as stock phrases, including favorite biblical passages and Chinese proverbs (usually “four character sayings”) that he had either memorized or, less likely, had written down, and he returned to these again and again. Usually I have retained this repetition, but sometimes other possible translations of the same Chinese phrase have been employed for the sake of variety. With proverbial sayings, I have usually attempted to render these literally as well, though sometimes I have given the general meaning without reproducing the original figures of speech.

Chang typically constructs very long sentences with many subordinate phrases and clauses, especially participial phrases. He delights in piling up parallel descriptive phrases and clauses. I have retained most of his grammatical structure, but have also sometimes split up sentences in order to conform a bit more to modern English usage.

Consistent with Chang’s own English usage, both translators have used the general term man or mankind to include men and women. This also prevents awkwardness of style.

In the notes, when the author cites his own works, the following method has been used: The author will be listed as Lit-sen Chang, the name by which he is known to English readers. Works in Chinese will be given their title in Pinyin (Chinese Romanized spelling), followed by an English translation of the title in parenthesis. Works in English will be listed simply by their English-language titles.

As much as possible, Chinese names and technical terms have been transliterated into Pinyin, but when they are found in quotations, or when common usage (such as Lit-sen Chang’s own name) requires it, the Wade-Giles or other original form of spelling is retained. Frequently, alternative English spellings are contained within quotations marks in the text; almost as frequently they are found in footnotes. When Tian (heaven) refers to a supreme being, it is capitalized; at other times, the lower case is employed, except that the form in quotations from printed English translations is always retained. Since the distinction between references to a supreme being and to the realm above (as distinct from the earth) is often difficult to determine, readers may disagree with the choices that we have made; we fully respect such difference of opinion, along with any other criticism of the translation decisions Samuel Ling and I have made.

Unless otherwise indicated, biblical quotations throughout this volume are from the New King James Version.

Lit-sen Chang does not always cite his sources with precision.1 For that reason, it is frequently almost impossible to trace the original quotation. We both have followed the practice, therefore, of citing only the authors and the titles of the works from which quotations are taken, to give an idea of the range of Dr. Chang’s scholarship and the types of resources upon which he drew. Much of the time, in the Critique of Indigenous Theology, I have had to translate Professor Chang’s Chinese rendering of English quotations back into English, without always being able to find the original statement. I apologize for any resulting inaccuracy or infelicity of rendering.

—G. Wright Doyle

Author’s Preface

In the time of missionary Hudson Taylor, a conference of missionaries was held in Shanghai, during which Dr. Joseph Edkins spoke words to this effect: “The three great religions of China—Buddhism, Confucianism, and Daoism—are strong fortresses erected by Satan among the Chinese. Their intent is one of opposition to the spread of Christian truth, and we must exert every effort to destroy them. After their demolition, China will become a nation ruled by the Prince of Peace, the Messiah, and this will be one of the greatest triumphs since the overthrow of Roman political and religious power and Greek philosophy.”2 Sadly, these strongholds have to this day not yet been destroyed. On the contrary, those scholars who advocate “indigenous theology” want to come to their aid, even surrender to them, and promote a pagan religion—which would bring pain to the friends of our faith, joy to its enemies, and hidden disaster to the Chinese church!

Early in life, the author was immersed in the three religions of Buddhism, Confucianism, and Daoism, and was cruelly deceived by them; with the endorsement of Dr. Ouyang Xiu, Dr. Luo Han, and other outstanding scholars, he founded Jiangnan (Kiang Nan) University, which became a center for the revival of Eastern culture and religion. In 1950, on a trip to the university founded by Tagore in India to lecture on “Asia’s Destiny: The Hope of Mankind,” I planned to confer with leaders there and initiate a movement for the revival of Eastern religion and culture. I thought that this was the way to save the world, in fact the only way. During this trip, however, I was obstructed by God, who closed the door to India. At this critical point in my life, when everything hung in the balance, God brought me from death to life, from disaster to blessing, the mystery of which cannot be fathomed by human understanding. Thenceforth, I forsook everything, considering all I had previously learned as worthless, and studied theology, dedicating myself to the proclamation of God’s Word.

I must briefly summarize my past experiences3 so that those who advocate indigenous theology can know that before I turned to the Lord, I was like them. You could even say I was a fellow traveler, and went even further than they did. As a result, my earnest prayer and hope is that indigenous theologians may see that their fellow traveler could suddenly see the light, pass from death to life, and say, like the Apostle Paul, that “what things were gain to me” “(i.e., indigenous theology), “these I have counted loss . . . for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord . . . forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward . . . toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus” (Phil 3:7–14), that I may gain “an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you” (1 Pet 1:4).

After my conversion, my earliest writings, Yuan Dao (The Way), and Sheng Dao Tong Quan (A General Interpretation of Christian Truth), drew upon the ingrained Chinese concept of the Heavenly Way, quoting many passages and proverbial sayings from various Chinese classics and authors (such as the Book of History, Book of Songs (Odes), Book of Changes (I Jing), Analects of Confucius, Doctrine of the Mean, Dao De Jing, Zuo Juan (Tso Chuan) Commentary on the Spring and Autumn Annals, Historical Records, and Confucian writers like Dong Zhongshu, Zhou Dunyi, Chen Mingdao, Chen Yichuan, Lu Xiangshan, Zhu Xi, Shao Kangjie, Wang Yangming, etc. This caused misunderstanding in the church, because people thought I was promoting indigenous theology and many were prepared to come and to rebuke me. Their motives were totally good, for they wanted to guard against heresy and prevent me from confusing the truth of God. But they completely misunderstood, and did not realize that I meant to oppose indigenous theology. In particular, they did not see what I was striving mightily to accomplish, or perceive my strategy for proclaiming the truth. My goal was to “pull down strongholds” (2 Cor 10:4), to utterly shatter my countrymen’s traditional view of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism, to pull the rug completely out from under their teaching, to eradicate indigenous theology’s poisonous root, and clear away obstacles to the Christian gospel.

My strategy was to lead them along naturally, bringing them to hearty assent to the truth and causing them to turn from their previous futile conception of the Heavenly Way. I hoped that they would seek the truth with a sense of their spiritual poverty; accept the Truth of God with a sincere heart; and not consider Christianity a Western religion, or heed the voice of indigenous theology’s claim that it had a “foreign stench” (actually, it is closer to our nation’s ancient concept of the “Heavenly Way”) and not accept the slander that Christians were “forgetting their roots.” In this strenuous effort, I was not attempting to prove a point with specious arguments. On the contrary, I meant to oppose the specious reasoning of indigenous theology. In this manner of communicating the gospel to my compatriots, I am following the Apostle Paul’s strategy: “To the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews . . . To the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak” (1 Cor 9:20, 22). Thus, to the Chinese, I have become a Chinese, that I might win Chinese; to the weak, like the indigenous theologians, who are “weak in faith,” I have become “weak,” even to the point of being misunderstood, causing others to think that I am promoting indigenous theology. Actually, I aim to use what my fellow Chinese, especially the Indigenous Theologians, treasure, namely, our “ancient traditions” and “our people’s cultural heritage,” to redirect these people away from their weak way of thinking, so that they might perceive clearly the reality of C...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Acknowledgments
• Editor’s Introduction
• Part 1: Critique of Indigenous Theology
• Author’s Preface
• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: The Source of the Disaster of Indigenous Theology
• Chapter 3: Fallacies of Indigenous Theology
• Chapter 4: Indigenous Theology and Philosophy
• Chapter 5: Indigenous Theology and Culture
• Chapter 6: Indigenous Theology and Religion
• Chapter 7: Indigenous Theology and Humanism
• Chapter 8: Indigenous Theology and Indigenous Church
• Chapter 9: Christian Doctrine and the “Substance-Use [Essence-Application] Principle”341
• Chapter 10: Conclusion
• Part 2: Critique of Humanism
• Chapter 1: The Tradition of Chinese Humanism: Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism
• Chapter 2: The Renaissance of Chinese Humanism in the Twentieth Century
• Chapter 3: Twentieth-Century Chinese Humanists
• Chapter 4: Humanism in Christian Guise: Lin Yutang
• Bibliography