山道期刊

A Psalm for Nurturing Desires: The Shaping of Desires in Psalm 63

Simon Chi Chung CHEUNG

Desires are essential to human nature. There is a longstanding tradition arguing that the formation of character cannot do without the shaping of a person’s desires. Xunzi, a classic Chinese philosopher, refers to the moulding of desires as “nurturing” (yang). This paper aims at reading Psalm 63 anew, exploring how it depicts and nurtures desires. Each stanza of the psalm, as argued here, is demarcated by desire-related themes at its two ends. Spatial movements in the psalm, contrary to previous suggestions, are not indicative of the psalm’s life setting. They rather represent the psalmist’s quest for God in whom the psalmist’s desires can find full satisfaction. The pervasive use of the trope of food in this psalm is another means of nurturing desires, by showing how the psalmist desires what is right despite his physical and emotional yearnings. Finally, it will be shown that, according to the psalm, displaying the right moral qualities is a necessary concomitant of having the right desire

Pauline Anthropology, Resurrection, and 1 Corinthians 15

LEUNG Chun Ho Bernard

The anthropological presuppositions of Pauline theology are usually not issues to which students of the New Testament give precedence. Questions such as “What is humanity?” “Who am I?” “Why do people sin?” “Are humans truly free?” etc. are considered relating directly to the disciplines of dogmatic theology, philosophical anthropology, or even psychology and sociology, and less pertaining to Pauline studies. However, anthropology is inextricably intertwined with nearly every aspect of Pauline theology, including Christology, soteriology, ecclesiology, and eschatology. The key terminology of Pauline anthropology, i.e. “body,” “flesh,” “soul,” “spirit,” etc., is part and parcel of Paul’s discourses on the nature and purpose of Law, Sin, and Death. One important topic in anthropology is particularly heuristic to our discussion of Paul’s teaching of the resurrection of the dead: the continuity of identity of individuals. What makes a person’s identity remain unchanged in the afterlife? How can we claim that a person who was dead will have the same “self” in the resurrection? The questions become more difficult if we consider 1 Corinthians 15 which emphasizes the discontinuity between the resurrected body and the dead. This paper explores the study of anthropology in Pauline studies in recent decades. It suggests that, instead of “personal identity” as a human being, Paul highlights the “collective identity” of the believers in Christ who is the representative of those entering the heavenly existence. The continuity of identity is somehow preserved in collective terms despite the marked contrast or discontinuity in the resurrection.

Pauline Anthropology, An Examination of Pannenberg’s Fundamental Theological Anthropology and Its Breakthrough of Barth’s Formal Anthropology, and 1 Corinthians 15

Keith Ka Fu CHAN and LI Haoyu

This paper argues that while Wolfhart Pannenberg and Karl Barth both ground their anthropologies on a Christological foundation, Barth on the one hand emphasizes the corresponding structure between Christ’s humanity and human authentic humanity, and his epistemological foundation is located in the idea of God’s self-revelation; Pannenberg on the other hand emphasizes the openness to the world and to God within human nature through the empirical-historical analysis of human manifestation. Moreover, even though Pannenberg starts his anthropological project “from below,” this paper aims at demonstrating that his “from below” approach is justified by a close examination of his eschatological-historical approach of God’s revelation and his idea of “human becoming.”

The Political Implications of the Christian Concept of Person: Rereading Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Man-yiu LEE

This article attempts to reexamine Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s concept of person with reference to Václav Havel’s insightful work The Power of the Powerless, and point out that this Christian concept could have political implications. Both Bonhoeffer and Havel insist that people living in a totalitarian or post-totalitarian state must seek to become a real person, though “being real” in a different sense. After such a cross-reference reading, the author sees that Bonhoeffer’s theology, especially his concept of person and his belief of being a person in Christ, can exert powerful political influences in a totalitarian system. When everyone lives sincerely, honestly and responsibly, all kinds of role-playing and ideologies that support the system will be overthrown. History can then be rewritten or even created. The notion of “becoming a real person” may seem ordinary, but it can bring out earth-shaking and unexpected changes. This reading also allows us to see that Havel’s thoughts also have limitations. As Bonhoeffer points out, to live sincerely, honestly and responsibly, a person must believe in God wholeheartedly and let the image of Jesus Christ transform one’s life. In the end, to become a real person is a question of faith, which is related to the change of mind (“I believe in God”) and the re-shaping of life (“being in Christ”). This is what Bonhoeffer believes and insists throughout his life.

In the Beginning Was the Drama: Balthasar’s Theatrical Anthropology

Sheng Yu PENG

As finite beings in a finite world, human beings lack the ability and resources to grasp the meaning of infinity. The desire to pursue the infinite predisposes human beings to become tragic actors on the stage of history, as the “infinite” is always beyond the grasp of the “finite.” However, when human beings persist in their attempt to redeem themselves, they inevitably become involved in guilt, whether consciously or unconsciously. As finite beings, human beings also struggle with the tension between “self” and “role,” that is, the inevitable tension between the role one represents and one’s experience in reality. How can this tension and paradox in the dramatic (tragic) nature of human beings be resolved? How to find an appropriate framework for interpreting the conflict between the limited freedom of human beings and the unlimited freedom of God? What insights and enlightenment can Balthasar’s theatrical anthropology offer to these questions?

The purpose of this paper is to introduce and explain the theatrical anthropology of the Swiss Catholic theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar (1905-1988). By reading, understanding, and sorting through Balthasar’s major works, this paper attempts to sketch out the theatrical anthropology in Balthasar’s rich theological thoughts. The paper explores the resources of theological anthropology in terms of the twofold metaphor of drama (human beings as actors and the world as a theater/theatrum mundi), role and freedom in God’s vision, historical time structure, tragedy, and aesthetic form. It also further explains how Balthasar uses “drama” as a metaphor to illustrate God’s becoming man and His action in the world and to deal with the uncertainty and paradoxical actions in human finite life in the context of theological drama. This paper finds that Balthasar’s theatrical anthropology emphasizes that the central question of anthropology is “Who am I?” rather than “What is man?” For Christ Himself, He “is” the person He “should be” (a unity of being and becoming); His being is His mission. Since Christ is the concrete form of realization, finite human beings achieve their missions through Christ’s freedom. We can only become “humans” by taking up our missions. In short, the realization of finite freedom within infinite freedom does not occur in the abstract “infinite,” but in the “incarnate” Christ. Balthasar argues that the tragic features of human existence cannot be resolved in the realm of the finite. It is only when the suffering God steps into the theater of the world that we discover that finitude, time, and suffering are not to be abolished, but are given a new value beyond our comprehension.

Anabaptists and Baptists: How Closely Are They Related?

Alex K. TO

The relationship between Anabaptists and Baptists has caught the attention of many researchers in recent years. Did Baptists grow out of Anabaptists? When Baptists first appeared in the early 17th century, many people had confused them with the Anabaptists who emerged in the 16th century. However, the full title of the first Baptist confession, “A Confession of Faith of Seven Congregations or Churches of Christ in London, which are commonly (but unjustly) called Anabaptists…,” which is commonly known as the First London Confession (1644), makes clear Baptists are different from Anabaptists.

Anabaptism began with the followers of the Swiss reformer Ulrich Zwingli. During their quest for a true church, these young followers concluded from their study of the Scripture that a true church was made up of regenerated people who had made a public confession, and baptism was only for believers. Since small children were incapable of repenting and confessing faith, infant baptism was both meaningless and unscriptural. As Zwingli was afraid that their radical idea would not be supported by the city council of Zurich, he distanced himself from these young people. Ignoring the government’s ban, the young dissenters held a private gathering and baptized one another in early 1525. The Anabaptist idea spread rapidly within a short time. Among the different strains of Anabaptism, Menno Simons who upheld the belief of pacifism and non-resistance became the most important and influential Anabaptist leader. His followers, Mennonites, become the mainstream Anabaptists nowadays.

John Smyth, an English Puritan-Separatist, started the first Baptist church in Amsterdam in 1609. Thomas Helwys continued to uphold the Baptist ideas and led the General Baptists in England. The Particular Baptists also came into the scene in England shortly afterward. Johann Oncken started Baptist churches on the European continent independently two hundred years later. All these Baptists were somehow related to the Anabaptists. Based on the encounters of the different early Baptists with Anabaptists, in particular Mennonites, the author shows that there were close connections and interactions between the groups.

By comparing the Schleitheim Confession (1527), the first Anabaptist confession, with several early Baptist confessions, in particular A Short Confession of Faith in Twenty Articles (1609) and the First London Confession (1644), it is further noticed that there are obvious similarities and noticeable differences between their core beliefs. Both Anabaptists and Baptists place emphasis on believer’s baptism, believers’ church, purity of the church, the symbolic meaning of the Lord’s supper, and the good reputation of pastors. Although both advocate the separation of church and state, they have divergent views toward civil magistracy. The other obvious differences are their stances on Christian pacifism and oath-taking.

Both Anabaptists and Baptists are seeking a true church despite their dissimilarity. We should learn to appreciate each other’s beautiful heritage and seek the wisdom to know what needs to be treasured.

The Accusation and Defense of the Cult Charge against the Chinese Catholic Church on the Imaginary Basis in the Late Ming Dynasty: A Case Study of Two Nanjing Persecutions in 1616-1617 and 1622

SONG Jun

The Chinese Catholic Church in the late Ming Dynasty was twice accused of being a “cult” in 1616 and 1622 respectively. Fortunately, Hsu Kuang-chi and Yang Ting-jun were able to defend the church in writing. Both the accusers and the defenders argued on the basis of the Confucian view of Good and Evil. Hence, it indicated that Christianity had little impact on the dominating status of Confucianism. In addition, though being labeled as a “White Lotus Sect,” a cult prohibited by the government, the Jesuits in China had no substantial argument to defend themselves. This revealed that their understanding of Confucianism, Buddhism and Daoism was still superficial, and that they had little knowledge of the folk religions. The foundation of Christianity in China was still shallow.