11 minute read

PART III: INTERVIEW

from Mosaic Bulletin 2018

from Mosaic Bulletin 2018, page 57

Poem

TIEN DAO, A MUCH-NEEDED RESOURCE FOR THE CHINESE-SPEAKING CHURCH: AN INTERVIEW WITH DR. DAVID PAO by Jennifer Guo

The Tien Dao Bible Commentary series was recently completed, a landmark achievement as the first complete commentary series originally written in Chinese by Chinese biblical scholars. We had the privilege of interviewing the New Testament editor for the series and the author of the two volumes on the Gospel of Luke, Dr. David W. Pao. As a scholar who regularly preaches and teaches in churches and seminaries in Mainland China and Hong Kong (as well as in diaspora Chinese churches throughout the world), Dr. Pao has rich first-hand knowledge of the Chinese church and Chinese theological education. We are pleased to share some of these insights with our readers, as well as introduce the Tien Dao Bible Commentary series.

Q: Please tell us a little about the state of theological Chinese theological education. What are some encouraging trends/ developments, and what are some challenges for theological training in China?

It is difficult to provide a brief comment on the current state of Chinese theological education. Perhaps a historical overview may be helpful. Prior to 1949 (the year of the establishment of the People’s Republic of China under the Chinese Community Party), missionaries from the West established missionary schools, Bible institutes and seminaries, and Christian universities in the different regions of China. After 1949, centers of Chinese theological education shifted to Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore. Some young Mainland Chinese Christians who had the opportunity to leave China in the late forties and early fifties had also been able to receive further training in theological institutions in the West. Those who returned to Asia were able to provide fuel for revival in theological education among the Chinese churches,

which culminated in the establishment of interdenominational graduate schools of theology, such as China Evangelical Seminary in Taiwan (1970) and China Graduate School of Theology in Hong Kong (1975). When various sorts of organized religious activities became more tolerated in Mainland China in the early 1980s, we witnessed the establishment of a number of seminaries recognized by the government Religious Affairs Bureau, the largest of which is the Nanjing Union Theological Seminary near Shanghai (1981). The many Mainland Chinese Christians who worshipped in the unregistered house churches also continued to receive support from a number of house church seminaries in China.

Two significant developments took place in the few years before and after 1997, the year Hong Kong ceased to be a British Colony and became part of China (as a Special Administrative Region). First, many decided to leave Hong Kong, including a number of Christian leaders. Traditional diaspora Chinese communities benefitted from the influx of these leaders, leading to the establishment of additional Chinese churches and Chinese-speaking theological institutions especially in cities in the States (e.g., Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York), Canada (Vancouver, Toronto, Calgary), and Australia (Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane). Second, with Hong Kong being considered part of China, the number of recognized seminaries in China doubled overnight. Many Hong Kong seminaries that are highly influenced by North American Evangelicalism now play an important part in the wider theological scene in China. In the past decade or so, we continue to witness the growth of the Mainland Chinese immigrant population in Australia, Europe, and North America, leading to the establishment of a number of newer Chinese-speaking seminaries serving these communities (e.g., International Chinese Biblical Seminary in Europe, in Barcelona, 2007).

Distinctive features of Chinese theological education include: closer ties between the academy and local churches, heavier focus on Christian living and spiritual disciplines, and more significant involvement of women in various forms of ministries. Continued challenges include: uneasy relationship with Western theological traditions (e.g., issue of the relevance of the Reformation, relationship with Western denominations, burden of Western imperialism), wide-spread ignorance of non-Western global Christianity, remnants of anti-intellectualism, and the lack of resources for research in the classical theological disciplines.

Q:

How did the Tien Dao Bible Commentary series come about? What are some of the distinctives of this commentary series?

Recognizing the need for a complete set of biblical commentaries for the Chinesespeaking world, a group of scholars started this Tien Dao bible commentary project ARTICLES | ART | INTERVIEW | BOOK REVIEW | MOSAIC SPOTLIGHT

in the late 1970s, with the financial support from a family that had established a research and publishing grant of two million dollars US. The series was finally completed after almost 40 years. More than 40 Chinese scholars are involved, with a total of 85 volumes.

I became involved in this project 20 years ago when I assumed the role of New Testament Editor, and I had the privilege to speak at the dedication service for this commentary set this past November. Written by in Chinese by Chinese scholars, none of these are “translated” volumes. These commentaries interact with and comment on the Greek text, but are intentional in being accessible to a wider Christian readership.

Beyond being the first complete commentary set in Chinese, this series is important for the Chinese churches for a number of reasons. First, it reflects the commitment to study the biblical text in its original language. The same organization that oversees this commentary set also organized the committee that produced the first modern revision of the older Chinese Union Version (from the early 1900s). The Chinese Union Version had the reputation of being the Chinese King James Bible, and it took the collective effort of a group of notable Chinese biblical scholars to convince believers that no translation of the bible can claim to be inerrant. These biblical scholars who provided the Chinese churches a new version of the Chinese bible were the earlier contributors of this commentary series. Being the parallel project to this new version of the Chinese bible, this new commentary project emphasizes the need to read the bible in its original language.

Second, this commentary set also testifies to the shift in Chinese preaching style and approach. In the first half of the 20th century, most Chinese preachers adopted a “spiritual reading” of the biblical text, similar to what is known as an “allegorical interpretation” in Western Christian traditions. The growing acceptance of this commentary set among Chinese preachers reflects a general recognition of the importance of expository preaching. This rests on the firm conviction that the biblical message understood in its original

context can continue to speak to a new generation of believers.

Third, this commentary set symbolizes the unity of the Chinese Christian communities in various parts of the world. While the 40 authors share the same commitment to the final authority of the Bible, we came from different countries and regions, we speak different dialects of the Chinese language, and we represent different local Chinese communities. Yet we find our common ground in the same sacred text that continues to shape our identity as one people of God. It is a powerful testimony to the power of God’s word that unifies us all.

Fourth, this commentary set provides a much-needed resource for the global Chinese-speaking community of believers. In some churches in China, for example, a one-volume Study Bible is often the only resource available to a pastor. With the publication of this commentary series in Hong Kong by a Christian publisher, and the reprinting and marketing of this series in Mainland China by a well-respected secular publisher (with no restriction in sales), this series promises to be a blessing to many. Beyond the remote regions in China, even in smaller bible study groups for Chinese students across the university campuses in the US, this has already become a standard reference tool especially for those who are not used to reading theological literature in a “foreign” language.

Q: Please share with us a little about your two-volume contribution to this series on the Gospel of Luke. This was one of the most difficult projects to which I had ever committed. Since coming to the States in the mid-1980s, almost all of my writings, formal or informal, were in English. Writing this commentary forced me to relearn Chinese, and to acquire a new set of theological vocabulary. By the grace of God, and with the editorial help of a Chinese doctoral student here at TEDS, and several capable copy editors of the Tien Dao Publishing House, I am grateful to see this commentary published. This commentary reflects two professional interests of mine: to situate the text in its cultural and historical contexts, and to pay close attention to the narrative development within the text. The first points to the recognition that the power of the biblical message often resides in the interaction between texts and contexts. The task of a biblical interpreter, therefore, is to recreate for a contemporary audience the power of the ancient text. The second recognizes that defending the historicity of the text and reconstructing the historical events behind the text are not the end of the task of a biblical interpreter. Equally important is to respect the text itself and to see what the divine and human authors have prepared for us through such a text. While these two foci can often be found in Western commentary literature (though not always together in one volume), they are not as familiar to many of the Chinese Christians.

My commentary does not, however, merely aim at introducing the fruits of Western scholarship to the Chinese audience. For those of us who consider “stories” an important medium in expressing our thoughts and exemplifying our convictions, I find my own cultural background affecting the questions I bring to the text and the way I answer them. Though I did not to write a commentary that is distinctively “Chinese” in orientation, I do realize that the cultural context from which I came

and in which I continue to serve do add a particular layer in my appropriation of the gospel message.

Majority world scholarship, even when written in English, tends to be ignored by the West. What are some things the West can learn from Chinese biblical scholars? Q:

This is a difficult question to answer. It is easier to detect a distinct set of theological voices in the area of “constructive theology” (for lack of a better term), likely due to the nature of the discipline itself since dialogue with the contemporary culture is part of the tasks of this discipline. In the area of biblical studies, it is more difficult to identify the distinct set of voices among Chinese biblical scholars. One can of course identify Chinese scholars who have had significant contributions in various areas of biblical scholarship, but often these scholars would not claim that their distinct contributions are necessarily tied with their own ethnic identity. There are, however, exceptions. First, in areas of post-colonial studies, for example, some who have had first-hand experience in post-colonial contexts have been able to bring new questions to the text. Second, in certain areas of social-scientific readings of the ancient texts, those from the “East” may be more sympathetic or even sensitive to certain aspects of the texts. Examples include honor-shame language, significance of group identity and dynamics, the question of dialects and the distinction between oral and written language … etc. Third, because of the lack of dichotomy between the academy and the church, most Chinese (or Majority World) biblical scholars are committed preachers and pastors. The questions they raised are therefore often firmly grounded in the reality of the lives of the believers.

At the end, what Western scholars can learn from those of the Majority World may not be easily identifiable in terms of particular areas of research or study. Perhaps more importantly, those from the Majority World can help us (myself included) who work primarily in the West to realize that we too have our own cultural lenses through which we read the texts and see the world. Debunking the myth of Western scholarship as a “neutral” scientific enterprise may be the greatest contribution made by those whose readings are often labeled merely as “cultural” readings. ARTICLES | ART | INTERVIEW | BOOK REVIEW | MOSAIC SPOTLIGHT

BIOGRAPHICAL BLURB: Dr. David Wei Chun Pao (BA, Wheaton College; MA, Wheaton College Graduate School; MTS, MA, PhD, Harvard University) is Professor of New Testament and Chair of the New Testament Department at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. While completing his doctoral studies, he preached and taught at the Chinese Christian Church of Rhode Island. His English-language publications include Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus (Mohr Siebeck 2002/Wipf & Stock 2016), Thanksgiving: An Investigation of a Pauline Theme (IVP Academic 2002), and Commentary on Colossians and Philemon (Zondervan Academic 2012). A few of his current projects include forthcoming commentaries on the Pastoral Epistles (Brill) and the Gospel of Matthew (IVP Academic).

Art Attributions:

This article is from:

Mosaic Bulletin 2018

by MosaicTEDS