Interdependency and Change: God in the Chinese Theology of Xie Fuya (1892–1991)

Abstract

Xie Fuya (N. Z. Zia, 1892–1991), a major Chinese Christian thinker, has contributed much to the development of Sino-theology. However, his work has yet to receive the recognition it deserves. As a thinker who is well-versed in both Chinese and Western philosophies while dedicating himself to the exploration of the philosophy of religion, Xie presents a dual feature in his writings. On the one hand, his work engages in a dialogical discourse between Eastern and Western philosophies. On the other hand, his writings represent an ambitious attempt to interpret traditional Chinese philosophical tenets within the context of Christian theology, transverse from the level of human nature to the level of ontological existence, representing an innovative model of contemplation in the field of Sino-theology. This contribution is of immense value to the development of Chinese philosophical thought. For this reason, this article attempts to illustrate, through Xie’s writings in various stages of his life, his relentless effort to promote the integration of Eastern and Western philosophies within the framework of Chinese thought. His most notable accomplishment in this East–West confluence effort is his unique assumption of God’s attributions as both zhonghe (literally “middle harmony”, connoted as interdependency by Xie) and bianyi (change).

1. Introduction

Xie Fuya’s (謝扶雅, 1892–1991) intellectual trajectory entails an in-depth understanding of Christianity within the context of Chinese tradition and a reciprocal interpretation of Chinese culture through the lens of Christianity. This process exemplifies a model of the bilateral interpretive circle between the Eastern and Western philosophies. In the early stage of his thought development, Xie focuses on elucidating the relevance of religion to human existence from the perspective of new realism, clearly demonstrating the influence of Alfred North Whitehead’s (1861–1947) process philosophy in his philosophical and theological contemplations. Xie eventually developed his unique philosophical religious discourse, which resonates with both Eastern and Western ideological underpinnings, based on the tenets of process philosophy.

In many ways, Xie’s life experience epitomizes the turbulent nature of his time. Born in the late Qing Dynasty, his formative years coincided with the Chinese Republican era, a period marked by significant social upheavals and polemics in every aspect of human life. These socio-cultural dynamics contributed much to the development of his pluralistic and progressive academic outlook. While studying in Japan, Xie was converted to Christianity; his spiritual experience further intensified his acute awareness of the tensions between traditions and modernity, East and West, culture and religion, public and individual, etc. Like many of his Chinese contemporaries who lived through the tumultuous years of major historical events such as the Xinhai Revolution, the Japanese invasion, and the Chinese Civil War, Xie was forced into joining the diaspora, transmigrating from China to British-colonized Hong Kong, then to the United States, only to find himself returned and settled down in Guangzhou, China again in his later years. No doubt, Xie’s prolonged sojourn outside of China left him with a deep sense of displacement and affected him significantly but, most importantly, this unique experience shaped his role as a prominent Christian intellectual who actively addresses the challenges facing Christianity in his time and has strengthened his commitment to revitalizing the relevancy of Chinese traditional thoughts through his Western training, in which the development of his Zhonghe theology and studies of the Yijing is central.

Commencing with his seminal work, Zhongjiao zhexue宗教哲學 [Philosophy of Religion] (1927), Xie consistently works on his life-long effort of developing a Chinese indigenous theology embedded with both Chinese and Western values. His proposition upholds the Confucian Yang-Ming school’s tenet of “unity of knowledge and action” (zhixing heyi 知行合一), implying the rationality of religion, which eventually gives rise to “put faith into practice” (yixing tixin 以行體信). In the latter stage of his career, Xie dedicated most of his efforts towards the confluence of two pivotal classical traditions through their respective canons: the Christian Bible and the Yijing 易經 [The Book of Change]. He managed to indigenize Christian theology from the perspectives of epistemology, ontology, and axiology based on his philosophical proposition of Neo-Meanism (Xinweizhonglun新唯中論) and contemplation of Yi philosophy, which will be further elaborated in this article.

The culmination of Xie’s scholarly endeavors is evident in his latter works, such as Weizhong lunji 唯中論集 [Essays on Meanism] (1969), Zhouyi lunji 周易論集 [Essays on the Yijing] (1984), and Zhongyong yu daoli中庸與道理 [The Doctrine of the Mean and Logos] (1986). These writings reflect Xie’s concerted efforts to assimilate Christianity into the conceptual framework of Chinese philosophy through a comparative analysis of Western religious and philosophical paradigms, his most significant contribution to the field of Sino-theology.

In his representative seminal work Zhongyong yu daoli, Xie succinctly encapsulated the gist of Chinese philosophy as follows:1

In the past five thousand years, Chinese thought has never departed from the way of zhongyong 中庸 (zhong as the middle and yong as common sense),2 embodying the principles of concession and convergence.

(Xie 2019d)

Since the late Qing period, Chinese intellectuals have adopted an approach of integrating Chinese and Western perspectives into their learning and the production of knowledge. From the title of the book, it is obvious that Xie has attempted to outline the distinguishing features of both Chinese and Western philosophies, which are represented by zhongyong and daoli道理 (the principle of things), respectively. He argues that Chinese philosophy is in sum the doctrine of zhongyong, which advocates for “considering both extremes and choosing according to the principle of zhong” 執兩用中. On the other hand, the foundation of Western philosophy is based on the concept of logos, emphasizing daoli, which bears the notions of “principles” and “patterns”. Xie elaborates that

…[I] have observed the ancient roots of Chinese culture and its development through the ages. During my studies, I firmly believe that the essence of zhong has not perished but has withered due to the lack of nourishment over the past two or three hundred years. By examining the Greek and Hebraic elements embedded in modern Western civilization, we can see that the quintessence of the former lies in its relentless pursuit of ultimate truth rather than in its artifacts and inventions, while the spirit of the latter is underpinned by the love and sacrifice of Jesus, as opposed to the dogmatic teachings and rituals of its institution. The essence of these two elements provides true nourishment that can greatly benefit the “old roots” of Chinese thought.

(ibid., p. 266)

In the context of Sino-Christian theology, the concept of God remains the central theme of Xie’s academic endeavors and his approach to the problems of Chinese culture. Through his reinterpretation of Zhong Yong 中庸 [The Book of the Mean] and Zhou Yi 周易 [The Book of Change], Xie attempts to develop a framework for understanding and describing God within the Chinese intellectual tradition and context. This approach is based on the principles of zhonghe 中和 (zhong and harmonious3) and bianyi 變易 (change), which bring forth his proposition of an indigenous “Zhonghe shenxue” 中和神學 (Theology of Interdependency)4 or “Yi de shenxue” 易的神學 (Theology of Change).

Although Xie is such an important contemporary thinker who has contributed much to the field of Sino-theology, comprehensive studies and discussions of his thoughts are few. Scarce as it is, there are three major studies (Tang 2007; Ho and Lai 2008; Ho 2013) of Xie worth mentioning. The first is Tang (2007) Xie Fuya de zhongjiao sixiang 謝扶雅的宗教思想 [The Religious Thought of Xie Fuya], which stands as one of the pioneering studies of Xie Fuya’s thoughts. Tang’s analysis adopts a thematic approach, delving into the evolutionary trajectory of Xie’s intellectual development across various stages. The subjects of his consideration include Xie’s discussions on human character and perspectives on religious philosophy, ethics, indigenous theology, etc. While Tang does touch upon the topic of Xie’s Zhonghe theology, a central focus of my present article, he falls short of providing a clear account regarding the origins and development of Xie’s notion of Zhonghe theology. This omission, I believe, can be attributed to Tang’s limited grasp of Xie’s works. In other words, Tang does not offer a comprehensive explanation of how Xie’s distinct interpretation of Chinese philosophies creatively explicates the ideas from the Yijing and culminates in the formulation of his Zhonghe theology. Next is an English article co-written by Ho and Lai (2008): Chinese Christian Intellectual in Diaspora: A Case Study of Xie Fuya, published in Monumenta Serica. This article is an adapted and shorter version derived from Ho’s Chinese doctoral dissertation in 2006. The significance of this article lies in its comprehensive overview of Xie’s intellectual activities, especially focusing on the period when Xie was in the diaspora. This article has contributed much to the effort of introducing Xie to a wider audience of the English-speaking world. The third important study of Xie, also by Ho, is a Chinese monograph Lisan zhong de Jidutu shenfen jiangou: Xie Fuya sixiang licheng離散中的基督徒身分建構: 謝扶雅思想歷程 [Identity Development of Christian Diaspora: Thought Process of N.Z. Zia (Xie Fuya)]. This monograph, published in 2013, is an extensive reworking of Ho’s doctoral dissertation, combined with all his previous studies of Xie. Ho’s monograph, not departing from his central focus on Xie’s diasporic experience, explores primarily Xie’s contentious debates with various parties, both local and abroad, on matters of culture and religion, particularly Christianity. This investigation centers on the post-1949 period when Xie fled China, residing in Hong Kong, and later relocating to the United States. In addition to the study of Xie, the author, Ho, offers commentary and insights into China’s political landscape and development during that era, providing a contextual backdrop to shed light on some of the outcomes of Xie’s intellectual development and activities in the diasporadic period. It is important to note that Ho’s work, both the article and the monograph, does not aim to provide an in-depth analysis of any specific aspects of Xie’s philosophical ideas. Instead, the focus of Ho’s works lies in presenting a comprehensive overview of Xie’s “history of mentalities”—the process of Xie’s “identity construction”, underscoring the challenges and hardships that Xie encountered during his diaspora.

Although the abovementioned studies have their own merits and contribute much to the studies of Xie Fuya, all have not provided a detailed and in-depth description of the formation process of Xie’s most important theological proposition: the Zhonghe theology. This is the gap that my present article, which aims to examine the contribution of Xie’s core concepts of zhonghe and bianyi have made to Chinese theology in terms of both essence and function and his view of God as both active and passive, intends to fill in.

2. Zhonghe (Interdependency)

In the 1960s, Xie embarked on a phase of “theological construction” in his academic life. During this period, he worked out the preliminary versions of his theological proposition and published them in several articles, such as Xifang xiandai shenxue yu Zhongguo guyou sixiang 西方現代神學與中國固有思想 [Modern Western Theology and China’s Indigenous Thought], Zhongguo sanjiao de gongtong benzhi 中國三教的共同本質 [The Common Essence of the Three Chinese Religions], “Zhonghe” yu “cheng” xinyi—Zhonghua Jidujiao shenxue de zhexue jichu 中和與誠新譯—中華基督教神學的哲學基礎 [New Interpretations of “Zhonghe” and “Cheng”: The Philosophical Basis of Chinese Christian Theology], Zhonghua Jidujiao shenxue de jigeyuanze中華基督教神學的幾個原則 [The Principles of Chinese Christian Theology], Zhongshu yu dajieming 忠恕與大誡命 [Faithfulness and the Great Commandment], and Wo de yixie weichengshu de shenxue sixiang我的一些未成熟的神學思想 [My Preliminary Theological Thoughts], etc. In these writings, Xie expounds and reinterprets Christian thoughts based on his concepts of zhong and he, which are derived from the Yijing tradition. Such an attempt serves as an entry point for Xie’s endeavor of constructing his unique and profound indigenous Zhonghe shenxue.

The concepts of zhong and he are vital elements in Chinese cultural thought. According to the explication of Xie, zhong denotes the avoidance of going to extremes and the adoption of the subtle middle way, resulting in the mutual interdependency of the two ends. As such, he and zhong are synonyms, as indicated in the Confucian teaching of zhongyong:

While there are no stirrings of pleasure, anger, sorrow, or joy, the mind … is in the state of EQUILIBRIUM [the mean]. When those feelings … act in their due degree, there ensues … the state of HARMONY. This EQUILIBRIUM is the great root from which grow all the human actings in the world, and this HARMONY is the universal path which they all should pursue.5

Therefore, zhong refers to the essence and he is the process, zhong is static while he is dynamic, and zhong is the inherent basis of all things in the world. When things arise to their appropriate levels, there is harmony that initiates the dynamic process from which all things are formed, i.e., the creation of God. Thus, Zhong Yong says “When the mean and harmony are actualized, heaven and earth are in their proper positions, and the myriad things are nourished”6, (Muller 2023) implying that life is only possible when zhong and he interact harmoniously. It is in this light that Xie argues that a harmonious state can only be achieved through proper interactions 交互 (jiaohu) of the elements, and one can act in equilibrium only by holding the two extremes in balance (Xie 1974a).

Xie believes that Chinese Christians should embrace the qualities of “equilibrium and harmony” alongside their already recognized attributes of moral ethics and practicality. The core elements of Chinese culture, represented by zhong and he, serve to elucidate the nature and actions of God, encompassing both His transcendence and immanence. Zhong symbolizes a state of equilibrium, while he embodies dynamism. These two principles not only underpin the foundation of Chinese culture but also serve as the bedrock for its interpretation, development, and essential attribution (Xie 1974c). To Xie, the most important goal of his contemplation and explication of the zhonghe philosophy in a Christian theological context is the hope of rejuvenating the ancient Chinese culture.

Xie argues that Western philosophy, rooted in its Christian foundation and profoundly shaped by both Hebraic and Greek traditions, is dialectical and dualistic. Therefore, the philosophical dichotomy of idealism/materialism, realism/ conceptualism, individualism/collectivism, etc., emerges. Such dualistic views create tension and divergence between two contrasting concepts and set them apart in two poles. Xie is of the opinion that Western nations tend to hold an attribution of absoluteness in their view of epistemology; therefore, they tend to be theoretical, thorough, and uncompromising in their knowledge performance, which, according to Xie, has often given rise to doctrinal extremes. In the Chinese tradition, although certain lines of thought are recognized as more beneficial than others, there is an overarching emphasis on the inclusion of diversity and avoiding extremes. This is why Xie refers to Chinese philosophy and culture as a form of “meanism” (weizhonglun唯中論), in which the principle of “one in many, many in one” (一在多中, 多在一中) is advocated. This principle highlights the value of being neither in excess nor insufficient and thus navigates the subtleties of the middle way, which avoids the pitfall of going to extremes. In addition, this principle exemplifies the integration of Chinese and Western cultures and therefore reconciles the disparities between faith and knowledge.

Xie’s perception of God emerges from his dissatisfaction with two prevailing notions of divinity: the “transcendent God” and the “pantheon God”. The former depicts God as immensely distant from worldly matters, devoid of any connection or empathy; the latter portrays God as a generalized entity dispersed within all of creation, entwined with nature in an ordinary and uninspiring manner. He highlights the concept that God is love, consequently signifying His capacity for affection and willingness to share His abundance. In conjunction with this, Xie affirms that God is a personal agent of actions that inherently imply practicality.

By reinterpreting the concept of divinity through the lens of traditional Chinese philosophy, Xie not only suggests the potential for an indigenous theology but also offers a response to Western philosophical notions surrounding the nature of God. This re-examination bridges the gap between Eastern and Western thought, fostering an intricate dialogue between cultural perspectives.

In the initial stage of his theological exploration, Xie successfully tackles the issue of the “heartless” transcendent God by drawing on Alfred N. Whitehead’s (1861–1947 CE) process theology, which portrays God as both transcendent and immanent. Xie has been greatly inspired by Whitehead’s theological proposition and therefore appropriates this theological approach in the working out of his “Theology of Zhonghe”. Within this framework, Xie conceptualizes God’s primordial nature as “God-in-Himself” and His consequent nature as “God-for-Himself”. This perspective of God encompasses the crucial concept of interdependency, a notion that holds immense significance for Xie. “It is neither a pre-modern supernaturalist theism nor contemporary naturalistic atheism”, but rather navigates the middle path of “naturalistic theism” (Huang 2006).

Xie proposes that, given God’s embodiment of love, His actions naturally manifest as expressions of love, evoking from the believers a fitting response of gratitude. Therefore, from his theological perspective, action is more important than mere knowledge, a perspective grounded in both Chinese thought and his critique of Western theology. At the heart of Xie’s Neo-Meanism stands a methodological approach revolving around the concept of impartiality. This methodology, characterized by its multi-layered structure of ideas, deducts from the original state of chaos and progressively moves on to the pinnacle of rationality. Each layer forms a synthesis of opposing elements, avoiding extremities—another fundamental principle underpinning Xie’s “Theology of Zhonghe”. The philosophical clarity of “knowing” (zhi 知) shall serve as the foundation of a rational theological reasoning of faith (xin信). As a practicing Christian, Xie believed that the ultimate purpose of theology is not to argue for the existence of God, for God is self-evident in a believer’s heart, but rather to provide the basis for a solid faith in Jesus as the Son of God, as well as in his life, death, resurrection, words, and deeds, so that believers can practice their faith with conviction. For God is the God of action, in that Jesus incarnated into the flesh to redeem the world, and the Holy Spirit actively guides Jesus’ disciples into active missionary acts. Hence, according to Xie’s perspective, action holds an essential role in the Christian faith, surpassing the mere knowledge of theological understanding and faith alone. At a certain level, his proposition of Neo-Meanism acts as a guiding principle for the interactive relationship between theory and practice. The stated theory directs the application of Chinese “meanism” in the practice of the Christian faith, an endeavor in which Chinese philosophy can offer a valuable contribution.

In short, Xie believed that “knowing” initiates “action”, and action is the manifestation of knowledge. He connects theological “knowing” with the practicality embedded in Chinese culture and puts a specific emphasis on how Chinese Christians should exercise their faith. It is in this sense that Jesus Christ personifies both a transcendent deity and an exemplary figure of exceptional character. Christ symbolizes the convergence of “knowledge” and “action”, empowering believers to practice their faith through practical actions. This empowerment not only encourages the integration of knowledge and action within faith but also resonates with the Chinese philosophical emphasis on practice.

3. Bianyi (Change)

At the age of fifty, Xie received a notable gesture from Zhao Zichen (趙紫宸 1888–1979), a renowned Christian scholar from Yenching University, who penned a lengthy poem for him. The poem concludes with the following lines:

The slowly passing water knows the past,

dense clouds are gathered from then to now.

Let us study the Yijing together with an unobstructed mind,

Your knowledgeable enlightenment is highly appreciated.

(Zhao 1991)

As a Confucian scholar, Xie was deeply preoccupied with the task of rejuvenating Chinese culture by reviving the Confucianist scholarship. He attempted to study Zhouyi (Yi learning of Zhou tradition 周易) with the Greek scientific and Hebraic spiritual approaches. Such effort was aimed at fostering a constructive dialogue between Christianity and the inherent Confucianist, Buddhist, and Taoist elements found in Zhouyi. In the later years of his life, Xie published his cross-cultural and cross-disciplinary interpretive findings in his book, titled Zhouyi lunji. At the age of ninety, he recapitulated in verse his thoughts on his Yijing studies, declaring that his “lifelong study of the Yijing was not in vain”, and that his “purpose in studying the Yijing is to authenticate the Gospel” (Xie 2019b).

Xie had high regard for the yin-yang 陰陽 principle, a Chinese philosophical concept that describes opposite but interconnected forces, exemplified in the Yijing, stating that its implication is “boundlessly profound”. The yin-yang principle represents the two complementary forces or qi 氣 that constitute and motivate the cosmological movement, working in a harmonious interaction rather than opposing each other. Therefore, Xie remarks that “Chinese ideas are always interactive and mutually beneficial”. The starting point of Xie’s contemplation of Yi 易 can be traced back to one of his earliest articles: “Shao Yong Xiantianxue xinshi” 邵雍先天學新釋 [A New Interpretation of Shao Yong’s Learning of a Priori] published in the Lingnan Journal in 1932.

In this article, Xie explains the three-dimensional structure of the ultimate pluralism embodied in Yijing by employing Shao Yong’s (1011–1077 CE) Xiantianxue 先天學 (the learning of a priori) which observes the orderly interactions between the elements of the Eight Trigrams (Bagua八卦).7 Such a view bears a vivid resemblance to Henri Bergson’s (1859–1941 CE) philosophy of progress. Bergson argues that evolution is motivated by a dynamic “vital impetus” (humanity’s natural creative impulse) rather than the deterministic hypotheses that were either mechanistic or teleological. Shao’s Xiantianxue refers to a priori insight, which is distinguished from a posteriori. A priori denotes the analytical or abstract logical/mathematical relationships in which every substantial aspect in the realm of experience is manifested. Therefore, the true understanding of the universe could not be achieved without a priori reasoning. Shao Yong represents his Xiantian theory in a Xiantian diagram 先天圖, which is derived from Fuxi’s 伏曦 diagram of the Eight Trigrams. It is noteworthy to point out that the mathematical and logical principles displayed by the Eight Trigrams inspired the French philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) to form his arithmetic of binary systems. Xie sees this incident as the point of intersection between Eastern and Western cultures (Xie 2019c).

Shao’s Xiantian diagram embodies the systematical and mystical qualities of the mathematical order. Because it is an a priori expression, it is distinctive from the materialistic and idealistic experience; Shao Yong hence designates the objective working principles of this mathematical law as the “law of the mind/heart” (xinfa 心法). Shao elaborates: “Xiantian learning is the method of perceiving with the mind/heart; the Xiantian Positional Eight Trigrams 先天掛位圖 is birth forth from it”. Shao asserts that every phenomenon in the universe arises from the interactions (jiao 交) of the forces. The occasion that arises from this random interaction can be understood as chance and opportunity. As such, this kind of interaction represents not only the substantiated phenomena (things) but also the continuous fluid mutability (movement). Every interaction is a four-dimensional formation comprised of space and time, which is connected to a priori understanding of the mathematical and logical rules of the universe. The universe arises as the result of a major interaction; events and things are the result of minor interactions, and the two are inseparable. Zhong is not only a term describing mathematical logic but also an idea that denotes a kind of relationship. Since the essence of the universe is logical, it is safe to deduce that the formation of the universe is also occasional and relational (ibid., pp. 257–69).

In other words, life is also comprised of random occasions. Humankind and all other things in the world are of the same essence and only differ in degree rather than in kind, especially in the fact that only human beings possess the potentiality of attaining sagehood. Therefore, it is said that “Human is also a kind of thing, and the sage is also a human”, a statement that represents the integration of idealism and materialism. Shao Yong’s attitude towards life is based on his Xiantian (a priori) perspective, which sees the mean as a sudden creation that breaks through the flat pattern of the universe and establishes a three-dimensional image of the relationship between man and his environment, which denotes the fact that objectivity is the key to attaining sagehood; therefore, a noble person values the principle of the golden mean. Shao considers that human beings occupy an intermediary position in the universe, upholding what is above, and connecting with what is below; as such, the mind/heart level covers the human level inclusively, and the human level covers the material level inclusively. Therefore, with the substance as soil and the mind/heart as flower, man is the actualization of things and possesses the potential of attaining sagehood. Thus, it is said that “Man dwells between heaven and earth, and the mind dwells in man” (Shao 2010). This principle underpins Shao’s life perspective based on his learning of a priori, which sees that life has three aspects: the material aspect (heaven and earth), the human aspect, and the aspect of mind (holiness and divinity).

Following this line of thought, Xie published another article: Tian Pian and Zou Yan 田駢和騶衍8, which is his explication of the philosophy of vacuity (xu 虛) associated with the Qiyi 齊一 school, attributes to Tian, and the philosophy of change (bian 變) associated with the Yin-Yang school, attributed to Zou. He highlights that both schools can be classified as Daoistic in nature. Interestingly, the philosophies of Tian and Zou bear a resemblance to the philosophies of two Western thinkers who lived around the same period. One of them is Parmenides (late sixth or early fifth century BC), a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher who postulated that the world is enduring and unchanging. The other one is Heraclitus (fl. c. 500 BC), a Greek philosopher remembered for his cosmology, who arrived at the opposing viewpoint that the world is in perpetual flux. This marked contrast between the two world views represents the diverging positions prevalent in natural science: the ontological inquiry of one or many and the cosmological inquiry of permanence and change. Based on the stated premises, Xie conducted his comparative exploration of the similarities and disparities between Chinese and Western philosophies.

Although the Yijing makes no mention of Shangdi 上帝 (God), it does state that taiji 太極 (the Supreme Polarity) is the creator of all things, as seen in Xici shangzhuan 繫辭上傳 [Treaties on the Appended Statements Chapter 1] in the Yijing: “In change there is Supreme Polarity, which generates the Two Modes (liangyi兩儀)”9. “When yin and yang are unfathomable, we call it spirit (shen神)” (ibid., p. 45). In the Xugua xiapian 序卦下篇 [Commentary on the Hexagram Sequence Chapter 1] of the Yijing, it is mentioned that “only after Heaven and Earth exist are the myriad things produced therein” (ibid., p. 56). All of which indicate the analogous “theological” view expressed in the Yijing. When elucidating the essence of God in terms of Chinese concepts, one can only inadequately express that the true God possesses a “singular essence yet takes on dual forms” (yiti liangtai一體兩態), namely, a static God and an active God. From an ontological view, God exists as perpetually unchanging and static (God in Himself), while in terms of functionality God is dynamic and persistently engaged in the act of creation (God for Himself). However, these two attributions are inherently unified in God.

The core of Yijing’s philosophy revolves around the concepts of “change” (bianyi 變易) and “unchanging” (bubian 不變). According to Xie, God remains unchanging in His essence, while change is evident within His creation. The dynamic element of God is embodied in both His creative power, which resembles taiji, and in His act of salvation. Everything formed in the universe is susceptible to change; hence, according to Xici zhuan in the Yijing, “The ceaseless emergence of life is the manifestation of change”, which underscores the essential driving force behind the cosmological movement of the universe. Furthermore, Xie perceives the redemptive work of Jesus Christ and the renewal brought forth by the Holy Spirit as a continuous act of God’s creation. The purpose of this continuous creative act manifested by Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit is to set every state of being into a proper “equilibrium” (zhizhonghe致中和), with the effect that the whole of humanity could be saved and return to God’s kingdom.

In his theological explication of the Yijing, Xie first applies the “One yet many, many yet one” theory in the Yijing to his contemplation of the triune God. The concepts of “one” and “many” in the Yijing mainly refer to the formative process of the universe. In this context, taiji initiates the creation of all things, progressing from the singular to the plural, and ultimately reducing the plural back to the singular. Thus, a cyclical and continuous relationship exists between the singular and the plural. However, Xie has creatively appropriated Yijing’s “one and many” theory in his argument of the Trinity. He thus suggests that the “one and many” concept in Christian theology should not be misconstrued as a unity of multiple gods, but rather as the representation of the one God existing as or in three equally divine “Persons”—expressed as “one yet three” and “three yet one”. Xie, however, does not stop at this point but further replaces the trinitarian notion of God with a new godhead theology that suggests that God exists as “one essence with two forms”, portraying God as “one yet two and two yet one” (Xie 2019a).

Secondly, he makes a detailed discussion of the “active yet static, static yet active” theory in the Yijing to further explicate his view of God as an entity of one essence with two forms. According to the saying of Xici shangzhuan, “The Yi is without thought and action; silent and unmoving, when stimulated it penetrates [connects] all circumstances under Heaven” (Adler 2022, p. 46). Regarding the stated insight, Zhu Xi 朱熹 (1130–1200 CE) comments that “The silent one is the essence of spiritual enlightenment; the enlightened one is the function of the silence”. This comment suggests that action and stasis manifest in function and essence. According to Xie, a static God is unknowable and ineffable; only a dynamic God can be known, and His work is primarily found in the creation and His act of redemption. God is silent, but he perceives all things; God reveals Himself in creation and His act of redemption yet is motionless at the same time. Thus, God’s essence and function are tightly integrated, and Xie uses the term “one essence with two forms” to describe the one and only God, who is both static yet active and active yet static (Xie 2019a, pp. 283–90).

Thirdly, Xie posits that the theory of “being external yet internal, being internal yet external” in the Yijing bears a stark resemblance to God’s attribution as both transcendent and immanent. The philosophy of Yi is categorized into four primary thought patterns: external observation (pertaining to all elements in the cosmos), inner contemplation (delving into its revelations), transcendence (surpassing the inherent limitations of all things), and engagement (interacting with all things on a profound level). Xie reinterprets these four thought patterns through the lenses of transcendence and immanence. He argues that God embodies both His inherent nature (God-in-Himself) and His relationship with His creation (God-for-Himself), representing the notions of transcendence and immanence. According to Xie, transcendence and immanence are neither separate nor contradictory, but rather interdependent of each other. From Xie’s perspective, taiji exemplifies a manifestation of transcendence, while the daye大業 (the great endeavor) signifies immanence. Yet the two are interconnected, representing different facets of the same God. These two attributions are unified within the essence of God.

In his theological contemplation, Xie has taken the Song Confucianist approach of seeing movement and stasis as the two sides of the same coin. In the stated process, he further integrates this notion of unity to his philosophical proposition of “meanism” and establishes his unique theological perspective of God as an entity of one essence with two forms. The two forms collaborate intrinsically with God according to the “principle of interdependency” (jiaoyi yuanli交依原理). Therefore, Xie designates his theology as the “Theology of Interdependency” (Jiaoyi shenxue交依神學).10 He says:

The only thing that runs counter to this “Theology of Interdependency”, which stems from the principle of jiaoyi, is absolutism. God is awe-inspiring, but that does not mean that He wields absolute authority, nor that He lords over all creation as a master controlling his slaves. In Chinese ethics fatherly kindness and filial piety are not unidirectional, but rather a type of mutuality. God wants His children to become one with Him. God does not see the perfectness in Himself as complete but sees his obligation of creation as an act for Himself. Jiaoyi shenxue acknowledges that God is both transcendent and immanent. He is immanent in the sense that he dwells in the innermost core of our existence, which is God-for-Himself. The transcendent God is beyond our knowledge, which is God-in-Himself. Jiaoyi shenxue adopts both the virtues of German–French theology and the theology of the Anglo-American school, i.e., holding fast to the middle and applying the principle in an impartial way.

(Xie 2019b, pp. 427–35)

Xie’s cosmology posits that the universe itself constitutes a unified and indivisible entity. The concept of dao has coexisted with God from the beginning, situated between creation and nothingness. It holds a status that is non-ultimate yet profoundly significant, reminiscent of the notion of “life’s extension” in Bergson’s “philosophy of life” or the “flow of nature” as seen in Whitehead’s process philosophy. When quantitative shifts lead to qualitative transformations, the taiji gives rise to the fundamental forces of yin and yang. Time and space converge, subjectivity and objectivity merge, opposites harmonize, and yin and yang find equilibrium. This state embodies the middle way, often referred to as the golden mean. “Process” is an inherent aspect of reality, and reality actualizes itself in the process; when the two interact, a mutually interdependent relationship arises between the two. Similarly, yin is linked with stasis, while yang embodies motion, representing forces that are both complementary and opposing. As explained in the previous part of this article, according to the teachings in Zhong Yong, when heaven and earth have reached the state of harmonious equilibrium, all things will be nourished and will flourish. On top of that, Xie argues that when the mean bears the notion of the intrinsic, it serves as the source of “essence” and “actual occasion”, representing God-in-Himself. As for harmony, proper position, and nourishment, they pertain to the creative process of God, corresponding to God-for-Himself.11

The concept of yin and yang entails opposing forces that also mutually reinforce one another. Xie perceives his doctrine of interdependency or “meanism” as analogous to the Christian principle of paradox. In essence, God-in-Himself aligns with Whitehead’s notion of the “primordial nature” of God, while God-for-Himself corresponds to what Whitehead denotes as the “consequent nature” of God.

According to Xie, God represents the dialectical unity of being both mutable and immutable, as well as immanence and transcendence. God’s immutability stems from the timeless consistency of His essence, whereas His mutability stems from His creative impulse to transform and shape all things. God’s presence is inherent in all things, rendering Him the fundamental essence of immutability. However, He also transcends creation by virtue of being its creator and ruler.

Xie reasoned that this dialectical relationship encompassing mutability and immutability, immanence and transcendence, constitutes a unity that is simultaneously two and yet one. This understanding reflects the true nature of God. Building on this foundation, Xie further refines his dynamic perspective of God as the dialectical unity of God-in-Himself and God-for-Himself. In simpler terms, there exists a relationship of interdependency between God-in-Himself and God-for-Himself, echoing the Theology of Zhonghe, which he established in the earlier stage of his theological endeavor.

Strictly speaking, Xie’s view of God is not the Christian God revealed in the Bible since his view of God is closer to that of Deism. He understands God in a philosophical sense, as the first cause of the universe, or the highest good pointed to by all religions, which can be referred to as heaven or dao. Such an assumption of a quasi-deistic God is derived from Xie’s interpretation of the Yijing, which resulted in his establishment of the “Theology of Yi”.

When discussing the dialectical relationship between mutability and immutability, Xie puts forth the argument that, regardless of the changes that may occur within God, His fundamental essence remains unaltered. The reason behind the potential divergence and development within Christian theology lies in the interplay between the changing and unchanging aspects of God. If God were entirely immutable, He would not have been capable of creating the world. Conversely, if He were in a perpetual state of change, He could not embody absolute completeness. Despite the substantial contradiction of this view, there exists a profound harmony in its argument.

Xie utilizes Whitehead’s terminology to present his perspective on God’s dialectical nature of mutability and immutability. He refers to the former as “a cluster of new encounters” and the latter as “the substance of the world”. Because the universe is an assembled whole of all elements, it can also be reversely dissolved into the various constituent encounters that collectively shape it; yet during this process, the intrinsic quintessential of the universe remains unchanged. In other words, the shifting of all “encounters/circumstances” shall not affect the immutability of cosmic immanence. Therefore, the Christian God, in Xie’s view, is an undivided entity that possesses a dualistic intrinsic nature of mutability and immutability (Xie 1974b).

According to Zheng Xuan 鄭玄 (127–200 CE) from the late Han period, the term Yi has three meanings: simplicity, change, and immutability. Xie applies his theology of interdependency to elucidate the concept of immutability as God in His intrinsic nature. Creation stems from the principle of change, signifying God’s self-expression. Simplicity denotes a balanced middle path that is effortless to follow. Immutability represents the fundamental essence of God. Change embodies His act of creation and providence. Simplicity characterizes His actions and redemptive endeavors.

The relationship between Yi’s notions of change, immutability, and simplicity resembles that of the interconnectedness found within the Trinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, both in terms of their fundamental nature and their actions. Naturally, for humanity, the middle path of salvation and sanctification stands out as the most accessible and prominent aspect of all.

Xie asserted that God is a dialectical unity of immanence and transcendence. His earlier emphasis on the immanence of God does not negate God’s transcendence, for God is still the everlasting God who has neither beginning nor end and the One who is the inclusive whole of the universe. God is unique and absolute, unchanging, and eternal. Everything in the world is a manifestation of this supreme being. According to Xie, this dialectical nature of God, being transcendence yet immanence, finite yet infinite, absolute yet relative, ultimate yet non-ultimate, also determines the nature of Christian theology. Over the last two millennia, the domain of Christian theology can be divided into two main categories: Platonic and Aristotelian. The former places greater emphasis on the idea of God’s transcendence and ineffable faith, while the latter highlights the concept of God’s immanence and rational faith (ibid., pp. 299–300).

Concerning Xie’s argument on the existence of God, he initiates by expounding on the Confucian notion of “the unity of heaven and man” (tianren heyi天人合一) from the perspective of religious mysticism. Although this does not provide conclusive proof for the existence of God, it also does not refute it. Subsequently, he draws upon the yin-yang concept in Yizhuan 易傳 [Commentaries of the Yijing] to deduce that God serves as the ultimate cause behind all elements within the universe. He then employs the approach of the ontological argument, coupled with Zheng Xuan’s three attributions of Yi—simplicity, change, and immutability—to clarify that the term “Yi” indeed refers to God.

In his discussion of the Trinity, Xie perceives yi, taiji, and daye as analogous to the roles of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. He conducts a meticulous analysis of these concepts to portray the nature and attributes of each Person in the Trinity (Xie 2019b, pp. 313–22). As an expansion of his Theology of Interdependency, Xie presents his perception of God as a singular entity with dual forms—the dynamic and the static. Thus, God becomes a monistic being of “one yet two, and conversely, two yet one” existence. This amalgamation of dynamic and static aspects finds resonance in the concepts of stillness within motion and motion within stillness. This parallel is comparable to the concept of transcendence–immanence unity in Confucianism. It explicates God as a being who maintains a profound connection with the world while retaining His transcendence.

4. Conclusions

With the illustration and analysis of the two most important tenets of Xie’s theological thought, it is safe to conclude that Xie’s philosophical perspective was heavily influenced by Whitehead’s process theology, a groundbreaking theological philosophy in a modern theological context. Whitehead’s process theology reflects a cosmology in which the force of creativity is central. In stark contrast with traditional theology, which sees God as the ultimate existence, Whitehead posits that the force of creativity stands as the universe’s ultimate existence, with God and all worldly realities exemplified as its concrete manifestations or instantiation. According to Whitehead, God possesses a unified dualistic nature: the “primordial nature” and the “consequent nature”. From the perspective of primordial nature, God, while not constituting the ultimate reality, remains as the prototype of creative instantiation, without which creativity would be devoid of meaning. In the realm of physical reality, God serves as a boundary so that abstract infinite possibilities can undergo a process of transformation and turn into substantiate and tangible realities.

Whitehead’s theological philosophy deeply impacted Xie in formulating his Zhonghe theology. In line with Whitehead’s proposition of God’s “primordial nature” and “consequent nature”, Xie further expounds the former as “God-in-Himself” and the latter as “God-for-Himself”. As such, Xie’s perspective of God inherently encompasses the attribution of impartiality, which further exemplifies a relationship of interdependency between the two natures, a notion that holds immense significance for Xie. Therefore, Xie’s perspective of God “is neither a pre-modern supernaturalist theism nor contemporary naturalistic atheism”, but rather a “naturalistic theism” that goes beyond tradition and modernity.