回應陳家富博士對《二十世紀神學選讀》的評論

A Rejoinder to Dr. Keith Chan’s Critique of 20th Century Selected Theologians

YEUNG Hing Kau

Dr. Chan’s critique focuses on two theologians out of the eleven discussed in the book. These two theologians are Paul Tillich and Schleiermacher. My response is as follows:

1. The name of Christ and Christology
Tillich uses the term “Jesus as Christ” rather than “Jesus Christ” when referring to the second person of the Godhead. This reveals the main concern of his Christology. In dialoguing with his students, he makes it clear that the term “Christ” serves only as a symbol. The teaching of the Chalcedonian Creed that Jesus Christ is both true God and true man is unacceptable to him. He cannot figure out how incarnation is possible. He treats Jesus as half-monophysitic. The difficulties of his Christology lies in his ontology, which strictly contradicts his Christology. For Tillich, incarnation can be regarded as metamorphosis, a sort of absurdities.

2. Philosophical theology
Tillich’s concept of God is basically a kind of agnosticism. No knowledge of God is possible in view of the absolute transcendence of God. Being and Becoming are two segregated things. To say that Tillich wants to strike a balance between Logos-Christology and adoptionist Christology would be mis-reading his theology. In fact, Tillich insists that God cannot become man. This is a conviction deeply rooted in his heart.

3. Typos will be amended and translation will be improved on the second edition of my book.

4. Schleiermacher
The response of German theologians in the post-Kantian period to the issue of “how ontological knowledge is possible” concentrates mainly on the discussion of consciousness and unconsciousness. Schleiermacher stresses on feeling rather than the “knowledge” of God. Feeling is not psychological emotion but a sort of pre-reflective experience. One may have the feeling that he is embraced by God. This feeling is similar to the feeling of beauty and sublime in Kant’s philosophy. Schleiermacher points out that the content of religion lies in the religious affections of the mind; it is classified as religious consciousness. In evangelical faith, we accept that God’s revelation is revealed in history and space. This divine revelation exists objectively. It is by no means a dependant of human subjectivity.

Schleiermacher is indeed a figure of considerable standing in Western academia, but we may not agree with all his theological standing on the fundamentals of evangelical faith.