Invited by the Journal of Research for Christianity in China and Center for the Study of Religion and Chinese Society, Shanghai University (CSRCS), Professor Zhang Zhigang from Peking University delivered an online lecture themed “The Localization Issue of Christianity: From a World Christianity History Perspective” on September 22.
As a professor of philosophy and religious studies, Zhang opened this talk by pointing out that ”localization“ was a common concept in religious history studies, especially in the history of world Christianity. He walked the audience through three important phases in the history of Christianity: “Establishment: Grecizing of Christian Scriptures and Theology”, “Reformation: The Nationalization in Luther’s Scripture Translation”, and “Recent Trends: Contextualization and Localization in Liberation Theology”.
Zhang stated that the implication of “localization” was complicated and interwoven with the social backgrounds “both horizontally and vertically”, requiring researchers of different historical, cultural, and national backgrounds to search deeply. Such research, he argued, might help to validate the concept of “religion sinicization” and establish whether or not “sinicizing Christianity” agrees with the patterns of religions’ survival and development revealed in the history of world religions.
He described that over the past five years or so, “religion sinicization” had become a focus topic in academia both within China and outside. Yet some scholars remained suspicious of it, which Zhang believes is because they deem this terminology to be of “too strong a Chinese character” and lacking in “general academic significance”, therefore preferring the term “localization”, which had been widely adopted in the study of the history of world religion, especially the history of Christianity. In Zhang’s opinion, however, such hesitation and preference of one term over another looked like a “failure to properly understand the concepts”.
The professor pointed out that, if we search into the rising trend of liberation theology, Gutiérrez and Bonino’s “contextual reflections of theology” and “localized theology” were by no means empty talk, but grounded in Latin America’s reality of poverty, and challenging the political theology of the West.
This discussion aimed to not only explore “the localization of Christianity”, but also to investigate how it might inspire the argumentation of “sinicization of religion”, especially “sinicization of Christianity”, said Zhang. He stressed that, if researchers could overcome the tendency of indiscriminately imitating the “localization” research tradition and search carefully into the three typical localization phases of Christianity as mentioned above, it could facilitate the argumentation of the two following “fundamental propositions that are logically progressive”:
Firstly, the primary premise or fundamental basis of the survival, spreading, and development of the world’s major religions were that they were able to “do as the Romans do”. While sticking to their scriptures, fundamental beliefs and core doctrines and rituals, they managed to adapt to the specific environment of different regions, cultures, peoples, nations and societies, and became localized, nationalized and contextualized in different ways.
Secondly, in order to study religious phenomenon – whether “historic” or “current” – researches must first understand and follow the general patterns of how all religions exist and develop. If applied specifically to the Chinese culture, Chinese nation and Chinese society, the common localization, nationalization, contextualization and modernization of major religious traditions that had been validated by world religion history studies would doubtlessly correspond to the process of these religions becoming rooted and surviving in China and the Chinese nation. Obviously, in his point of view, this meant that “sinicization of religion” agreed with the general patterns of religious development revealed in the world religious history.
Professor Zhang Zhigang, a doctoral advisor of philosophy and religious studies at Peking University, dean of the Department of Religious Studies of Peking University. His research interests include theoretical studies of religion, philosophy of religion, comparative religion and philosophy between China and the West and Chinese religions and policies, etc. He is the author of What Is Religious Studies?, A Study of Philosophy of Religion: Contemporary Views, Key Issues, and Methodological Critique, Companion to Religious Studies, Sinocization of Religions: A Theoretical Study.
- Translated by Grace Song
9月22日下午，中国基督教研究杂志与上海大学宗教与中国社会研究中心联合特邀北京大学宗教文化研究院院长张志刚教授，作关于“世界基督教史视域下的本土化问题潜思”线上讲座。
张教授首先指出，本土化是世界宗教史、尤其是世界基督教史研究中常用的一个普遍概念。讲座中，他带领大家一起考察了基督教思想史上的三个典型阶段——“初创时期：基督教经典与神学的希腊化”“宗教改革：路德经典翻译解释的民族化”“晚近动向：解放神学的处境化与本土化”。“本土化”的概念含义是错综复杂、横向交织、纵向关联的，促使不同的时代、文化、国家等背景下的研究者去潜心探索。而研究者的考察结论也利于启发论证“宗教中国化”概念、深思“基督教中国化”是否合乎世界宗教史所揭示的生存发展规律。
近五、六年，“宗教中国化”研究已成为海内外学术界所关注的重大课题，但仍有部分学者对“宗教中国化持质疑态度，以为这一提法因有“鲜明的中国特色”而缺乏“普遍的学理意义”，他们更倾向于世界宗教史尤其是基督教史研究所普遍采用“本土化”概念。在张教授看来，此种学术质疑及其术语选择，恐怕带有值得商榷的“食概念不化”倾向。
张教授指出，近观方兴未艾的解放神学思潮，古铁雷斯、博尼诺等人所致力的“处境化神学反思”与“本土化神学主张”，绝非一般地或抽象地谈论“神学思想的处境化或本土化”，而是既立足拉美社会的极端贫困现实，又力克欧美学界的政治神学空谈。
张教授指出，此次讨论的学术旨趣不止于考察“基督教本土化”问题，还力图探究这一专题研究之于“宗教中国化”、特别是“基督教中国化”的义理启迪。他强调，若能克服前述“食概念不化”之照搬照套“本土化”的研究倾向，通过深析世界第一大教——基督教思想史上三个典型阶段的本土化例证，将有助于论证下列两个“逻辑递进的基本命题”:
其一，千百年来各大宗教传统之所以能在世界范围内广泛传播并得以生存发展，其首要前提或根本条件即在于，它们均能“入乡随俗”，使其“精神的种子”落地、扎根、开花、结果，在持守其经典根据、基本信念、核心教义礼仪规范的同时，普遍适应于不同的地域、文化、民族、国家和社会等具体氛围，且以不同的方式来实现其自身的本土化、民族化、地域化、处境化时代化等。
其二，研究宗教现象——不论“历史的”还是“现状的”，无疑要首先认识并遵循诸种宗教存在与发展的普遍规律。中国宗教史是世界宗教史的重要组成部分。世界宗教史视域下所历来证实的各大宗教传统的本土化、民族化地域化、处境化、时代化等共相或共性，具体就中华文化、中华民族和中国社会而论，不外是指诸种宗教扎根于中华大地、生存于“作为国家的中华民族”的种种情形及其发展过程。这显然意味着“宗教中国化”是合乎世界宗教史所普遍揭示的生存发展规律的。
讲座后亦设有问答环节，约200人参加了此次线上讲座。
张志刚教授，系北京大学博雅特聘教授，哲学系、宗教学系博士生导师，北京大学宗教文化研究院院长等。张志刚教授研究领域包括宗教学、宗教哲学、宗教文化、中西哲学与宗教比较研究、中国宗教现状与政策研究等。他的主要著作有《宗教学是什么》、《宗教哲学研究》、《宗教文化学导论》、《宗教研究指要》、《当代宗教冲突与对话研究》、《宗教学前沿问题研究》、《“宗教中国化”义理研究》等。
北京大学张志刚教授线上讲座：“世界基督教史视域下的本土化问题潜思”
Invited by the Journal of Research for Christianity in China and Center for the Study of Religion and Chinese Society, Shanghai University (CSRCS), Professor Zhang Zhigang from Peking University delivered an online lecture themed “The Localization Issue of Christianity: From a World Christianity History Perspective” on September 22.
As a professor of philosophy and religious studies, Zhang opened this talk by pointing out that ”localization“ was a common concept in religious history studies, especially in the history of world Christianity. He walked the audience through three important phases in the history of Christianity: “Establishment: Grecizing of Christian Scriptures and Theology”, “Reformation: The Nationalization in Luther’s Scripture Translation”, and “Recent Trends: Contextualization and Localization in Liberation Theology”.
Zhang stated that the implication of “localization” was complicated and interwoven with the social backgrounds “both horizontally and vertically”, requiring researchers of different historical, cultural, and national backgrounds to search deeply. Such research, he argued, might help to validate the concept of “religion sinicization” and establish whether or not “sinicizing Christianity” agrees with the patterns of religions’ survival and development revealed in the history of world religions.
He described that over the past five years or so, “religion sinicization” had become a focus topic in academia both within China and outside. Yet some scholars remained suspicious of it, which Zhang believes is because they deem this terminology to be of “too strong a Chinese character” and lacking in “general academic significance”, therefore preferring the term “localization”, which had been widely adopted in the study of the history of world religion, especially the history of Christianity. In Zhang’s opinion, however, such hesitation and preference of one term over another looked like a “failure to properly understand the concepts”.
The professor pointed out that, if we search into the rising trend of liberation theology, Gutiérrez and Bonino’s “contextual reflections of theology” and “localized theology” were by no means empty talk, but grounded in Latin America’s reality of poverty, and challenging the political theology of the West.
This discussion aimed to not only explore “the localization of Christianity”, but also to investigate how it might inspire the argumentation of “sinicization of religion”, especially “sinicization of Christianity”, said Zhang. He stressed that, if researchers could overcome the tendency of indiscriminately imitating the “localization” research tradition and search carefully into the three typical localization phases of Christianity as mentioned above, it could facilitate the argumentation of the two following “fundamental propositions that are logically progressive”:
Firstly, the primary premise or fundamental basis of the survival, spreading, and development of the world’s major religions were that they were able to “do as the Romans do”. While sticking to their scriptures, fundamental beliefs and core doctrines and rituals, they managed to adapt to the specific environment of different regions, cultures, peoples, nations and societies, and became localized, nationalized and contextualized in different ways.
Secondly, in order to study religious phenomenon – whether “historic” or “current” – researches must first understand and follow the general patterns of how all religions exist and develop. If applied specifically to the Chinese culture, Chinese nation and Chinese society, the common localization, nationalization, contextualization and modernization of major religious traditions that had been validated by world religion history studies would doubtlessly correspond to the process of these religions becoming rooted and surviving in China and the Chinese nation. Obviously, in his point of view, this meant that “sinicization of religion” agreed with the general patterns of religious development revealed in the world religious history.
Professor Zhang Zhigang, a doctoral advisor of philosophy and religious studies at Peking University, dean of the Department of Religious Studies of Peking University. His research interests include theoretical studies of religion, philosophy of religion, comparative religion and philosophy between China and the West and Chinese religions and policies, etc. He is the author of What Is Religious Studies?, A Study of Philosophy of Religion: Contemporary Views, Key Issues, and Methodological Critique, Companion to Religious Studies, Sinocization of Religions: A Theoretical Study.
- Translated by Grace Song
Peking University Professor Gives Webinar on Localization of Christianity from a World Perspective
