载《中国基督教研究》2016年第7期
网址：https://ccspub.cc/jrcc/article/view/313
G. Wright Doyle
Introduction: Contextualization and Indigenization
For more than two centuries, Chinese and Western Protestants have been trying to find ways to contextualize the Christian message in China. They have followed various approaches. Some prefer the “accommodationist” program of Matteo Ricci. Liberal Protestants followed this path in the twentieth century with the “Indigenous Theology” movement. Some evangelicals have recently also favored this way of making Christianity more acceptable to Chinese.
Recent proposals include those by “Jackson Wu,” who argues that Chinese have no concept of sin and that we should therefore alter our presentation of the gospel to emphasize what the Bible says about shame, rather than focusing on guilt. Alexander Chow has proposed that we try to connect Eastern Orthodox views on “deification,” apophatic theology, and free will with traditional Chinese concepts, rather than following what he terms a “Western” approach that emphasizes original sin. I have responded to these proposals elsewhere.[1]
Some make a distinction between “contextualization,” which they take to mean making contact with cultural ideas, and “indigenization,” which refers more to identifying with local political and social movements and supporting these in the name of Christ.
But first, we must emphasize that Christianity in China has already been “sinicized.” Christians in China, especially Protestants, have been free of foreign control since 1950. Protestant churches, both registered and unregistered, are led by Chinese Christians. They read the Bible in Chinese, preach and teach in Chinese, and sing songs in Chinese. Many of the most popular songs were composed recently by Chinese Christians.
For more than two hundred years, Protestant Christians have taken the lead in spreading the gospel to their neighbors. They have built their own traditions and have a rich history of faithful witness to Christ, including countless martyrs, since the earliest days of Protestantism in China. Today, Chinese theologians are publishing world-class commentaries on the Bible and writing books on theology, apologetics, and daily Christian living. For example, 吳道宗. a theology professor in Taiwan, has written a systematic theology and a book on apologetics: 深知所信(systematic theology), 信仰初探 (apologetics), and has contributed commentaries to two series published in Hong Kong: 天道書樓, and 基道出版社.
Furthermore, Chinese Protestants are patriotic. They submit to the laws of China and seek to serve the needs of the people. Even the vast majority of unregistered churches, which the government suspects of being rebellious, have almost no interest in politics; they only seek to serve Christ and spread the message of salvation through faith in Christ.[2]
Still, most Chinese Christians agree that more has to be done to make Protestant Christianity in China even more “Chinese” in thought, message, church life, and concrete expression in society.
In the rest of this article, I shall try to do two things: 1. Look at a few examples of “contextualization” and of the political and cultural “indigenization” in the past, and 2. Propose principles which I think will help us avoid errors made in the past, and take steps to move forward in a construction fashion.
- Lessons from the past
- “Contextualization”[3]
Gnosticism: Under the influence of Platonism, Gnostic “Christians” denied the reality of the Incarnation, so they taught that the Word of God did not become flesh, and that Jesus only “appeared” to die. Also, because the immaterial “One” could not have direct contact with the material world, they posited a series of “emanations” from God to man.
Arianism: Likewise influenced by Platonism, Arians denied the possibility of the Incarnation of God, and taught that Jesus was a second-tier “God,” not fully equal with the Father.
Ambrose: In his On the Duties of Ministers, Ambrose framed the entire structure of his book on the four cardinal virtues of Stoicism, as applied to government officials in Cicero’s De Officiis, rather than on Scriptural ethical categories (such as love for God and neighbor, the Ten Commandments, the fruit of the Spirit, etc.). The result was a skewed system of ethics for Christian leaders.
“Nestorians”: The first Christian missionaries to China were from the Syrian Church. Though this subject is debated, most authorities agree that the Church of the East missionaries in China used so much Buddhist and Daoist terminology in their explanation of the gospel that the result was a very confusing mixture of Christianity and paganism.[4]
Medieval Roman Catholicism: Roman government, popular religion, Neo-Platonism, and Aristotle were mixed with Christianity to form a hybrid religion that (1) built a church hierarchy patterned after the Roman imperial government; (2)c o-opted local popular religious “gods,” calling them “saints,” using their shrines for worship, and creating new “saints,” especially Mary.;[5] (3) took Neo-Platonic mysticism and Aristotelian epistemology and categories and merged them with biblical religion to create a syncretistic mix.
Matteo Ricci: Often lauded as a creative innovator who attempted to reach Chinese literati by emphasizing similarities between Confucianism and Christianity, Ricci was in his own time criticized for muting distinctive Christian doctrines and maximizing alleged correspondences between his interpretation of Ruism and some aspects of the Christian faith.[6]
In the early part of the nineteenth century, American-style Arminianism rejected the sovereignty of God as a relic of monarchical government and replaced it with the more “democratic” ideas of the autonomy of the individual and his supposed “freedom of the will.” Later in the century, Friederich Schleiermacher, under the influence of Romanticism, replaced objective biblical truth with subjective personal feelings of dependence upon God. Generally considered the “father of liberalism,” he moved the focus of theology from the Scriptures to the individual and society.
Towards the turn of the twentieth century, fueled by Enlightenment rationalism, Darwinism, skeptical historical criticism, and Romanticism, theological liberalism gained ascendancy. Starting with anti-supernaturalistic presuppositions, liberals accepted Darwin’s theory about origin and the so-called “findings” of the skeptical historical criticism of ancient texts, and rejected biblical doctrines of creation, inspiration of Scripture, the Incarnation, Resurrection, and the need to be born again.
Shortly thereafter, and into the middle of the twentieth century, “Indigenous Theology” in China tried to synthesize liberal theology, Confucianism, Buddhism, Daoism, and Marxism. Its proponents rejected the unique authority of the Bible and the unique role of Israel in God’s plan of salvation; denied the doctrine of original sin and the need for repentance and regeneration through faith in Christ; used terminology and categories from traditional Chinese religions, including Confucianism; and emphasized self-improvement and social reform, or revolution by violence. The more conservative among them also accepted ancestor worship.
In Europe, Karl Barth reacted strongly against man-centered liberal theology, but, heavily influenced by Existentialism, and conceding the negative results of skeptical biblical criticism, downplayed objective biblical revelation, emphasizing instead our subjective response to the Bible.[7]
After he gained absolute power in Germany, Adolf Hitler ordered the churches to support Nazism, which was a pagan ideology. Most did, but the Confessing Churches wrote the Barmen Declaration, saying that they would not serve any god but the God of the Bible.
Throughout the first half of the twentieth century, French Jesuit Teilhard de Chardin accepted Darwinian evolutionism as a fact and made it the core of a pantheistic theology that was first condemned, and then approved of, by Roman Catholic authorities.[8]
Liberation Theology: Starting with Marxist social critique, it turned biblical salvation from deliverance from sin to deliverance from political and economic oppression, even using violent revolution if necessary.
Psychological counseling: Starting with secular psychology, it replaced biblical categories about man, especially our sinfulness, and replaced them with psychological categories, such as alienation, lack of self-esteem, etc.
Prosperity message: Assuming the legitimacy of the “American dream” of personal peace and affluence, with worldly happiness as the goal for each individual, prosperity teaching ignores biblical passages about sin, repentance, the Cross, spiritual blessings now and our hope of a new heaven and a new earth after Christ returns.
Black theology: Marxism, racism are mixed together to attack whites and to promote radical social change, through violence if necessary.
Feminist theology: Starting with the assumption that male authority is by definition oppressive, it rejected biblical doctrines of God as Father and King, and changed God into a mother-goddess.
- “Indigenization”
When Constantine declared Christianity to be a legal religion of the Roman Empires and then later made it the official state religion, the policy of the state changed from persecution to promotion. Over the centuries, two models of church-state relations emerged. In the Byzantine Empire and later Russia, what came to be known as “Caesaro-papism” emerged. That is, Caesar rules the church, and the church supports that state as its willing puppet. That condition obtains in Russia today.
In the western part of the Roman Empire, and then in Western Europe generally, under the leadership of Ambrose, Gregory the Great, and subsequent popes, church and state were separate. Often, the church tried to rule the state through moral suasion and sometimes even political and military power. Where relations were peaceful, however, the state used the church to support is policies and maintain order, and the church used the state to uphold its privileged position. That was the case in all Roman Catholic countries until recently.
As Samuel Huntington said somewhere, ”In the West, [influenced by the Bible], God and Caesar are separate. In Eastern Orthodox Christianity, God is Caesar's junior partner.”[9]
After the Reformation, the magisterial Protestant (i.e., Lutheran and Calvinistic) reformers, as well as the Anglican Church, continued the custom of each state having only one established church, which almost always supported the power and policies of the prince. That is, the state supports the church and the church supports the state.
The usually cordial connection between church and state in Western Europe suffered a great challenge when Hitler made National Socialism the ruling ideology of Germany and required that church leaders approve of this ideology, which insisted upon a race-based definition of German identity and the elimination of the Jews. Most German Protestants who signed the Barmen Declaration in protest were imprisoned, exiled, or killed.
The American Revolution brought about a new paradigm: Separation of church and state. That is, church and state were organizationally disconnected, and there was no established church, though the state generally favored Protestantism, and almost all Christians backed the policies of the government. Now, the central government has begun actively to oppose biblical Christianity and has passed laws and initiated policies meant to exclude all religious influence (except that of Islam!) from public life. Persecution of evangelical Protestants and conservative Roman Catholics now looms as a distinct possibility, on the grounds that they do not support the national policy of abortion on demand and imposition of lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender demands upon all citizens.
Curiously, however, this will be done with the support of the liberal wing of Christianity in the United Sates. My book, Christianity in America: Triumph and Tragedy, traces the story of how American Christians have sought to use power to influence politics, but instead were used by the politicians to further their own ends.[10] For example, American Christians supported every war that their country has waged. Have all those wars been justified, or has the church been deceived by government propaganda?
Liberation theology offers yet another model: Inspired by Marxist ideology, it leads the church to opposes the state or, if the state becomes socialist or otherwise advances the political agenda of the church, the church supports the state’s policies. This is the model of the Presbyterian Church of Taiwan, which formerly fueled the opposition to the Guomingdang and now fully supports the Democratic Progressive Party.
Evaluation
Generally, all these arrangements, except for separation of church and state, have hurt both the church and society.
The church has lost its independence to serve God first. People with the wrong motives – to gain power and influence – have risen to leadership. The church has lost its prophetic role in society.
Society has lost the distinctive “salt and light” presence of a body of people who are different in good and important ways; who hold to absolute truth and refuse to hate all that society tells them to hate; and who are loving, but who refuse to compromise with evil.
The church has lost its connection with the world-wide church by adopting a theology that is limited to its own time and culture.
The church has lost its distinctive message of salvation from sin through faith in Jesus alone and through following him alone.
The church has gotten tangled up in the worldly struggle for power, prestige, and property, rather than the love of God and of his kingdom.
Eventually, the church loses its spiritual vitality and dies. This has always happened to state-sponsored religious groups, and to those that imitate and follow the prevailing cultural and social concepts and values rather than adhering to the Scriptures. We see this in Europe’s empty cathedrals and in the dying liberal denominations in America.
Specifically, all attempts either to “contextualize” the gospel or to make it appear culturally “indigenous,” create a hybrid religion that more or less departs from the biblical message. At best, these attempts, as exemplified, for example, in the effort by Wu to change the focus of the message from forgiveness of sins to deliverance from shame, and of Chow to change the focus from deliverance from original sin to unification of heaven and earth, begin with the local culture, and read the Scriptures or theology in that light, rather than beginning with Scripture, and critiquing culture through the lens of Scripture. Much of their cultural analysis may be correct, and much of their theology and exegesis may be faithful to Scripture, but the whole project is flawed and weakened by making culture, not Scripture, the primary lens for reading the Bible and constructing theology.
The 16th-century Reformers, including Luther, Calvin, and the English Reformers, tired to remove all pagan religious and philosophical elements from Christianity and build a theology based only upon careful exegesis of the Bible. They have been followed by hundreds of evangelical theologians since then.
In the 20th century, Lit-sen Chang (Zhang Lisheng) penned an incisive critique of this movement, Critique of Indigenous Theology, showing how it continues the failed tradition of all similar attempts to “indigenize” or “contextualize” Christianity by merging it with alien systems of thought. For an English translation, see Wise Man from the East: Lit-sen Chan (Zhang Lisheng).[11] He places Indigenous Theology within the context of much of modern non-evangelical theology and explains why it necessarily distorts the true message of the Bible.
Carl F.H. Henry critically examined almost the entire sweep of Western philosophy and theology and pointed out how a failure to begin with biblical assumptions, categories, and explicit statements leads to fatal compromise with non-biblical philosophical and religious ideas and a distortion of the gospel. In his six-volume God, Revelation, and Authority, he offers a positive statement of orthodox Christian teaching and contrasts it with deviant systems or defective attempts to meld philosophy with the Bible. Henry demonstrates that even otherwise orthodox theologians like Barth and many modern evangelicals, influenced by Existentialism, fail to preserve vital elements of scriptural teaching .[12]
- Proposals for the future
- We must begin with the Scriptures as our unique and ultimate authority in all matters of faith and practice.
Unique: The Bible alone is the inspired Word of God in written form. All other human writings are products of human experience, reason, and intuition.
Universal: The Bible speaks to all cultures with equal authority and relevance.
No culture, not even Chinese culture, and no political ideology, can provide the fundamental authority for Christians.
- We must reject the idea that any culture or any political situation is the starting point or material for theology.
Theology must come from the Bible alone, with due regard for the traditions of the past 2,000 years.
Theology should derive from the Bible, not from any cultural traditions or concepts.
We should use the Bible to evaluate our culture. This will involve affirming some traditional ideas; rejecting others; and modifying many that we can affirm.
- We must use proper methods to interpret the Bible.
The Bible is sufficiently clear in all important matters, if it is read according to normal rules of interpretation.
We should use the best possible rules of interpretation to understand the Bible, starting with that text rather than with our cultural or socio-political context.
We must not assume that cultural “blinders” make it impossible for us to understand the Bible.
- We must remain within the boundaries of the Christian faith as it has been believed around the world and throughout the centuries.
We cannot leave the essentials of Christianity and still be called “Christian.”
To be Christian, Chinese theology must affirm the doctrines expressed in the historic creeds of the universal church.
- We must start with God, and with our relationship with God
The main “problem” is that we are alienated from God, and must be reconciled to him through faith in Christ.
The main goal in life is to know God, serve God, glorify God, rely on God, find “Life” in God, imitate God, and live with God forever.
The main problems are not financial need, illness, injustice, corruption, lack of national ecognition, but the sins in our heart that cause us not to love God or other people.
Our goals in life should not be primarily to gain success, money, fame, position, power, or even the approval of our parents, but to know and serve God.
- We must see this world as important, but not final.
Therefore, we must obey God’s commands to love our neighbors as ourselves, but not imagine that anyone or any government can build the kingdom of God on earth.
- We must understand our cultural heritage and our current situation.
Christians, to love their neighbors and to speak meaningfully to them, must be students of their culture and of their society.
In all his works, Lit-sen Chang (Zhang Lisheng) urged that Christians use the Bible both to evaluate Chinese religions and philosophy and to address political, economic, and social conditions from a biblical point of view. His book, Asia’s Religions: Christianity’s Momentous Encounter with Paganism, he illustrates how he applied this principle to the religions of China.[13] He devotes two chapters each to Confucianism, Daoism, Buddhism, and Zen. In the first chapter, he analyzes the belief system from a Christian point of view; in the second, he critiques each system in the light of the Bible. Since Chang had been a careful student and follower of each of these traditional teachings before he became a Christian, he speaks with intimate knowledge and profound insight .
In Zen-Existentialism: The Spiritual Decline of the West, Chang combines a critique of Zen Buddhism with an analysis of Existentialism to explain how both deeply influenced Western philosophy and theology in the twentieth century.[14]
For more about Lit-sen Chang, go to https://chinainstitute.squarespace.com/lit-sen-chang.
- We must communicate the gospel in terms that people understand, without changing the meaning of the Bible.
Rather than trying to merge the Christian faith with other faiths or philosophies, we can take advantage of “points of contact” in culture and in society, and address those with a biblical evaluation as well as a Christian proposal for “solving” both intellectual and practical problems for individuals, families, churches, and entire societies.
For example: We should define “sin” to include any thought, word or action that does not reflect the will of God as revealed in the Bible, not just “arson and murder.” Define “god” (shen) as the Creator, Preserver, Savior, and Judge of all mankind, not a “deity” whom we can use for our own ends. The proper way to translate the biblical word “god” to refer to Yahweh has been a matter of long and intense controversy. A case for using “Shen” is made in a paper by me.[15]
We may use the ideas of “yin and yang” to understand some aspects of the Bible, but we must also note that the Bible speaks of only one God, in three persons, and that there are absolute standards of truth and falsehood, right and wrong.
In my book, Reaching Chinese Worldwide, I offer some preliminary suggestions for taking advantage of “points of contact” in culture and society to communicate the gospel effectively to Chinese people.[16] These points of contact include the “pressure points” in society that make people aware of their weakness and needs, such as marital conflict; the concept of filial piety; shame; the role of Christianity in American society; Confucian ideas of virtue; Buddhist concepts of virtue and of heaven and hell; and the “Dao” of the Dao De Jing.
In my book, 孔子與耶穌--論語V.S.聖經約翰福音(Confucius and Christ), I compare and contrast the teaching and examples of Confucius and Jesus on the subject of the “ideal man.” Using Paul’s categories of self-control, justice, and godliness, I try to point out both similarities and differences between Confucius and Christ, and conclude that Confucius was a great sage, but Christ is the only Savior.
A similar comparison and contrast of the Dao of the Dao De Jing and the Logos of the Bible can be found in my book with that title at www.reachingchineseworldwide.org/books/
- We must demonstrate care for current needs in society, and show how the Bible speaks to these needs as well as we can. For example: We should treat lower-class people and manual laborers with respect; care for the elderly, the migrant workers and their children, battered women, neglected children.
- We must live lives that reflect the love and truth of Christ.
As individuals, and in the family, in the church, and at work, Christians should act as “salt and light” in every domain of life.[17]
- We must use appropriate forms of architecture and music to communicate the gospel. For example: Avoid church buildings that look like Gothic cathedrals. Use homes instead.
- We must observe common social norms of courtesy and communication whenever these do not conflict with the Bible. For example: Calling people “Uncle” and “Auntie” in the church, and showing respect for elders. BUT we must also call on parents to treat their children with respect and honor, and not lord it over them or discourage them with constant nagging or over-control. We can affirm that the husband is the head of his wife, but we must also teach husbands to lead their wives with self-sacrificing love. We can affirm the traditional Chinese emphasis upon serving the needs of the larger group, but we must also affirm the inherent worth of every individual and his responsibility to serve God, even if others disapprove.
- We must respect all in authority, pray for them, and submit to them in all things that do not require us to disobey God.
- Wright Doyle
Director, Global China Center
Adjunct Professor, Institute of Global Studies, Shanghai University
[1] See on Chow, see http://www.globalchinacenter.org/analysis/reviews/theosis-sinochristian-theology-and-the-second-chinese-enlightenment-heaven-and-humanity-in-unity.php; and http://www.globalchinacenter.org/analysis/christianity-in-china/theosis-sinochristian-theology-and-the-second-chinese-enlightenment-part-ii.php. On Wu see http://www.globalchinacenter.org/analysis/reviews/saving-gods-face-a-chinese-contextualization-of-salvation-through-honor-and-shame.php and http://www.globalchinacenter.org/analysis/reviews/weaknesses-in-general-wu-makes.php
[2] For convincing evidence of the non-political stance of China’s unregistered Protestants, see Timothy Garner Conkling, Mobilized Merchants-Patriotic Martyrs: China’s House-Church Protestants and the {Politics of Cooperative Resistance, 2013. For the social service activities of Chinese Protestants, including those in unregistered churches, see Brent Fulton, China’s Urban Christians (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publicaitons, 2015); Paul Golf, with Pastor Lee, The Coming Chinese Church: How Rising Faith in China Is Spilling Over Its Boundaries (Grand Rapids, MI: Monarch Books, 2013); Carston T. Vala, Huang Jianbo and Jesse Sun, “Protestantism, community service and evangelism in contemporary China.” International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church. (Volume 15, Number 4, December 2015} 305-319.
[3] More information on most of the “contextualizing” programs discussed below can be found in such works as Colin Brown, Philosophy & The Christian Faith (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1968); John Frame, A History of Western Philosophy and Theology (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2015); Roger E. Olson, The Story of Christian Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999; Stanley J. Grenz & Roger Olson, 20th-Cnetury Theology (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1992. Readers should be aware, however, the Olson and Grenz are highly inaccurate and very unreliable when evaluating theologians who believe in God’s sovereignty, such as Augustine, Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and especially Carl F. H. Henry. See G. Wright Doyle, Carl Henry: Theologian for All Seasons (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2013).
[4] For extended discussions, see Lit-sen Chang, Critique of Indigenous Theology, in G. Wright Doyle, Wise Man from the East: Lit-sen Chang. ( Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2013) 365-38;Jean-Pierre Charbonnier, Christians in China: A.D. 600 to 2000.( San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2002) 22-67; Ralph R. Covell, Confucius, the Buddha, and Christ: A History of the Gospel in Chinese (Maryknoll, NT: Orbis Books, 1986) 24-35; Samuel H. Moffett, A History of Christianity in Asia. Volume I: Beginnings to 1500. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1998) 305-313.
[5] For the pagan origin of Mary as “Mother of God,” see Stephen Benko, “The Virgin Goddess”: Studies in the Pagan Christian Roots of Mariology (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1993).
[6] See Roman Catholic rejection of his accommodationist approach, see Liam Matthew Brockey, The Visitor: Andre Palmeiro and the Jesuits in Asia. (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2014)275-325. Some Protestants, such as W.A.P. Martin and Timothy Richard, lauded Ricci’s approach, but the overwhelming majority saw it as an unnecessary and over-risky compromise. For the debate, see A.J. Broomhall, It is Not Death to Die!, Book Seven in Hudson Taylor & China’s Open Century. (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1989) 138-143, 522-525.
[7] For extensive interaction with the thought of Karl Barth, see Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority. Six Volumes. (Waco: TX: Word Books, 1976-1983). An abridgment of the Chinese translation o Volumes 1-4 in Chinese is available from Campus Press, Taiwan.
[8] For the increasing realization that Darwinian evolutionism lacks scientific basis, see Michael Denton, Evolution A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, MD: Adler & Adler, 1985); Philip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial, Second Edition (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2010); Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 2000); Kurt Wise, Faith, Form and Time (Nashville, TN: B&H Books, 2002).
[9] Samuel Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World. (New York: Simon & Shuster, 2011). I could not find the page reference.
[10] G. Wright Doyle, Christianity in America: Triumph and Tragedy (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2013).
[11] Lit-sen Chang (Zhang Lisheng), Critique of Indigenous Theology, in G. Wright Doyle, editor and translator, Wise Man from the East: Lit-sen Chang (Zhang Lisheng). (Eugene, Oregon: Pickwick Publications, 2013) ix-xxx, 1-172. See also Zhang’s Critique of humanism, translated by Samuel Ling, in the same volume, 173-230.
[12] The first four volumes of God, Revelation, and Authority have been published in Chinese by China Evangelical Seminary; an abridged version edited by G. Wright Doyle is available from Campus Press in Taiwan. For an introduction to God, Revelation, and Authority, see G. Wright Doyle, Carl Henry: Theologian for All Season. Eugene, Oregon: Pickwick Publications, 2010. Bob E. Paterson, Carl F.H. Henry (Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1983) offers a concise summary of God, Revelation, and Authority, though his last chapter, “Carl Henry and His Critics,” is very unsatisfactory.
[13] Lit-sen Chang, Asia’s Religions: Christianity’s Momentous Encounter with Paganism. Edited by Samuel Ling. Philipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1999.
[14] Lit-sen Chang, Zen- Existentialism: The Spiritual Decline of the West. Reprinted by Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock, 2010. Originally published by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1960.
[15] See G. Wright Doyle, “Problems in Translating the Bible into Chinese: Names for God,” at http://www.globalchinacenter.org/analysis/christianity-in-china/problems-in-translating-the-bible-into-chinese-the-names-for-god.php
[16] See G. Wright Doyle, Reaching Chinese Worldwide. (Durham, NC: LightMessages, 2013), 101-139.
[17] For examples of how Chinese Christians have contributed to society, see Carol Lee Hamrin, editor, with Stacey Bieler, Salt & Light: Lives of Faith that Shaped Modern Chin. a Three Volumes (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2009-2010). Two volumes have been published in Chinese.
