山道期刊

Emperor Worship and the Pauline Communities

LEUNG Chun Ho Bernard

Over a century ago, the German philologist Adolf Deissmann observed that there arose a “polemic parallelism” between the uses of Christological titles in the early church and the political titles attributed to the Roman emperors. This sheds a new perspective on the reading of the Pauline epistles as “anti-imperial,” i.e. Paul wrote subtly and polemically to counter the influence of Roman imperial ideology prevalent at that time in the cities of Paul’s ministry. The most ubiquitous and far-reaching instrument for the diffusion of imperial ideology was “Emperor Worship” (or “Imperial cults”). However, did the institution of “Emperor Worship” in provincial settings put political pressure on the Pauline communities to take part in the cult as a civic and religious duty, so that Paul needed to response to the crisis in a hidden way? This article, firstly, aims to investigate the scope and complexity of “Emperor Worship” in the early Roman Empire. This step is crucial for the interpreters of the Pauline epistles to comprehend correctly the significance and functions of “Emperor Worship” in the social-political life of the Roman cities in which the early Christians might be affected. Secondly, this article will (1) assess the prevalence of “Emperor Worship” in the Roman provinces and cities where Paul established the Christian communities; (2) evaluate the claim that “Emperor Worship” caused social and religious tensions to the Pauline communities; and (3) comment on the trend for “anti-imperial rhetoric” in the reading of Paul.

Constantine and Constantinianism: A Revisit of Its Historical Arguments

Nathan K. NG

The fourth-century Roman Emperor Constantine had long been regarded as a hero who liberated the church from severe persecutions. However, this traditional view has recently been challenged by some Christian scholars, especially John Howard Yoder and the Yoderians. They even criticize what they called Constantinianism or Constantinian Shift as the root of the disavowal and apostasy of the church. However, did the Yoderian Constantinianism correctly reflect the historical church and state relationship during the reign of Constantine? Today, the Yoderian view has been condemned in Peter J. Leithart’s 2010 publication named Defending Constantine as historically questionable, oversimplified, misleading, one-sided and even wrong.

This article evaluates the views and arguments of both sides. As a result, both the Yoderians’ so-called New Ecclesiology and New Eschatology are found to be historically unsustainable. The assertion that the church began to fall in the rule of Constantine does not accurately convey the historical reality. If the emperor Constantine was not responsible for the Yoderian critique of the nowadays so-called Erastianism or Caesaropapism, is it still appropriate to call it “Constantinianism”? All modern Christian ethicists, especially the Yoderians, should rethink the issue.

On Earth as It Is in Heaven –The Lord’s Prayer and Totalitarianism

Pilgrim W. K. LO

The Third Reich appeared in Germany, which has a long tradition of Christian culture and a rich theological heritage. During Hitler’s reign, a great schism took place between the church leaders. There were contradictions between German Christians and the Confessing Church; there were fierce debates between the group of “pro-Hitler theologians” like Emanuel Hirsch, Paul Althaus and Werner Elert who presented the Ansbacher Counsel, and the group of “anti-Hitler theologians” who signed the Theological Declaration of Barmen drafted by Karl Barth.

The theological framework of the Ansbacher Counsel is based on Luther’s doctrine of the Two Kingdoms, while the Theological Declaration of Barmen is based on the Reformed “Royal Lordship of Christ.” The focus of the dispute is obviously on the issue of “the positioning of the Earthly Kingdom.” This article attempts to explore the political significance of the Lord’s Prayer. It uses the theological paradigm of the Lord’s Prayer –”From the Father to the Son ” – to deal with the shortcomings of both the Ansbacher Counsel and the Theological Declaration of Barmen. The Lord’s Prayer does not deny the kingdom on earth, nor does it exclude the Christ. We can explain it as follows:

Jesus is not the king of the earth, but the Kingdom of God came to the earth through the Son. However, the kingdom of the Son is not a kingdom established by the Israelites, nor is it any kingdom based on politics, but a kingdom that guides all kingdoms on the earth to do the will of the Father.

Reformed Attitude and Perspective on Church-State Relations: A Diachronic Review and Evaluation

CHENG Yang-en

This article offers a diachronic review and evaluation of the attitudes and perspectives on church-state relations in the Reformed tradition. The first part depicts representative Reformed communities which responded in a timely fashion and subsequently constructed their church-state attitudes and perspectives in their particular contexts, including Calvin’s Geneva, the Huguenots in France, the Reformed camp in the Netherlands, the Covenanters in Scotland, the Puritans in England and in Colonial America, and the anti-Apartheid campaign in present-day South Africa. Then, in the second part, this article offers a diachronic review and short evaluation of the elaboration and development of the interpretation of the Reformed perspectives on church-state relations, adopting a methodology similar to the theory of the History of Effect (wirkungsgeschichte) developed by Hans-Georg Gadamer and Ulrich Luz. The interpretative notions developed over time include theories such as inherited concepts of resistance shaped and adapted by political environments, “revolution of the saints” acting as modern “citizens,” justification of resistance from “as duty” to “as right,” resistance as “war against the idols,” the development of a rightful “theology of resistance,” and obedient “political actions” triggered by “confession of faith in response to emergent and challenging situations” (status confessionis).

Hong Kong Baptists’ Views on Church-State Relationship: A Historical Perspective (1842-1970)

Alex K. TO

Baptists have long been proud of themselves in upholding the principle of the separation of church and state. Since their first establishment in Hong Kong in 1842, Baptists have been involved and entangled in church and state relationship. The colonial government provided a free grant of land and government officials donated money to build the first Baptist church in Hong Kong. Due to the British traditional belief that churches operated better schools, Baptists in the early days of Hong Kong received government subsidies to run a church school.

In the mid-twentieth century, the change of political situations in Mainland China led to a large influx of refugees, resulting in a sudden demand for various social services such as education, medication, and housing in Hong Kong. Seeing churches would share the same idea of anti-communism, the colonial government continued to rely on churches to provide services to meet the needs. Due to some historical reasons, Baptists were singled out as the most reliable partner among different churches and religious groups. As a result, Baptists built the first resettlement housing, the Pok Oi Estate, on government land for the fire affected refugees in 1950, and operated a number of schools with free land grants, interest free loans, and building fund subsidies from the government. Apart from primary and secondary schools, Baptist cooperation with the government extended to include Baptist College, Baptist Hospital, and other social service institutions. To save public expenditures, the government welcomed Baptist participations in providing these services. Baptists were also pleased to be able to do outreach through these institutions.

While enjoying the benefits of partnering with the government, these practices aroused the concern of Southern Baptists, who were the principal supporter of Baptist ministries in Hong Kong. Worrying that the receipt of government money would infringe on the Baptist principle of church and state separation, the Foreign Mission Board of Southern Baptists warned that they would stop funding Hong Kong Baptists if they continued to accept government subsidies. However, what constituted government subsidy could not be clearly defined by the Foreign Mission Board despite their repeated attempts. In fact, the same issue also troubled Baptists in the United States when deciding whether to accept government subsidies for their higher education institutes.

Facing this situation local Baptist leaders voiced their opinions through Baptist Monthly, the denomination newsletter, and held special meetings in the 1960s to discuss the subject matter of whether to accept government subsidies to operate Baptist schools. Those who supported the idea of accepting subsidies took a pragmatic view and argued that it would help them evangelize and serve the community more effectively. Their opponents, who took a theoretic view, believed it was an obvious infringement of Baptist teaching and wrong to use worldly money for God’s work. In the end, the pragmatic approach prevailed. However, the issue was far from settled. Opinions continued to be raised and discussions went on in the following years.

A Preliminary Exploration of the Concept of “State” in John Howard Yoder’s Church-State Discourse

Vincent C. P. LAU

Constantinianism is one of the core concepts in John Howard Yoder’s theology and it continues to be a controversial concept in academia. Yoder considers Constantine as the main architect of the age, but not its sole architect. Moreover, those theologians who adopt the concept of Constantinianism mainly regard it as a theological concept, not a concrete historical reality. It is a description of a period of time rather than a particular Roman emperor’s merit.

One of the major features of Constantinianism is so-called marriage of church and state. In order to have a better understanding of Yoder’s concept of church-state, a clear definition of the terms “church” and “state” is crucial. This essay will discuss the notion of “state” in Yoder’s thought. First, the concept of “the reign of Christ” will be examined, as it is considered as the theological foundation of Yoder’s church-state discourse. Second, the mandate of the state will be expounded. Finally, the functions and limits of the state will be analysed.

Bonhoeffer’s Six Types of Resistance: The Analysis of Michael P. DeJonge

Andres S. TANG

This paper aims to give an extended review of Michael P. DeJonge’s little book Bonhoeffer on Resistance: The Word against the Wheel. In the past, the discussion of Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s political resistance does not focus much on the theology behind the action. However, for DeJonge, Bonhoeffer has a systematic, differentiated, and well-developed vision of political activity and resistance. He does not only offer an analysis of Bonhoeffer’s six types of resistance but also outlines his political thinking on resistance.

To put it precisely, DeJonge does not give a straightforward account of the six types of resistance but constructs it in the context of Bonhoeffer’s theological thinking of Luther’s understanding of state and church, two kingdoms, preservation toward redemption, law and gospel, and justification. In other words, DeJonge reads and constructs Bonhoeffer’s resistance thinking in the context of Bonhoeffer’s own understanding of Martin Luther. This way of reading consists of two steps: first, reading Bonhoeffer’s political thinking on resistance in the context of his understanding of Luther’s political thinking; and second, reading Luther’s political thinking in the context of Bonhoeffer’s understanding of the center of Luther’s theology. For DeJonge, Bonhoeffer is thinking of resistance in a Lutheran way so it is a kind of Lutheran political resistance theology.

Indeed, DeJonge wrote another book Bonhoeffer’s Reception of Luther in 2017 before publishing this little book in 2018. Based on the research findings in his Bonhoeffer’s Reception of Luther, he gives a systematic yet accessible analysis of the six types of resistance and the underlying political thinking of Bonhoeffer. This paper includes five sections: discussion of Bonhoeffer’s resistance thinking in the context of Luther’s theology, the features of Bonhoeffer’s on Resistance, showing the Lutheran theology behind Bonhoeffer’s resistance thinking, analysis of Bonhoeffer’s six types of resistance in terms of Luther’s two kingdoms, and conclusion.