The Historical Evolution and Indigenous Pathways of Christian–Buddhist Dialogue in China: A Perspective from Religious Dialogue Theories

Abstract

The early encounters between Buddhism and Christianity in China were primarily characterized by mutual exclusivity and competition. By the Republic of China era, both traditions faced mounting pressures—Buddhism under the impact of modernization, and Christianity in its efforts toward indigenization—which prompted a shift toward inclusive engagement and mutual learning. However, their interactions often remained limited to superficial formalities due to an instrumental approach that treated the other as a means to an end. During the early modern period, some pioneering thinkers began exploring core doctrines from a pluralistic perspective: Zhang Chunyi’s concept of “Buddhicized Christianity” sought to deconstruct essentialist views using the Buddhist wisdom of śūnyatā (emptiness), offering an Eastern philosophical pathway for religious dialogue. Xu Dishan, on the other hand, employed the literature as a medium to transcend doctrinal differences by emphasizing shared ethical practices, thereby constructing what can be termed “aestheticized pluralism”. In the contemporary context of globalization, scholars increasingly rely on comparative theology and comparative religious studies to enable deeper mutual interpretation of core doctrines, bringing more mature forms of interfaith dialogue. These dialogue practices demonstrate unique paradigm shifts and reflections on Western theories of religious dialogue, contributing Eastern-inspired insights for contemporary religious dialogue.

1. Introduction

In the genealogy of intellectual and cultural evolution, the collision and integration of heterogeneous cultures constitute a driving force for self-renewal. As symbolic systems embodying belief structures and value orders, religions face a dual tension in cross-cultural dialogue: the need to deepen self-understanding through “the mirror of the Other” (the Other as a mirror, showing parts of oneself through their different beliefs, values, etc. It roots in 20th-century continental philosophy and psychoanalysis), versus the imperative to maintain the distinctiveness of their core beliefs. Based on differing attitudes toward religious others, scholars have developed various dialogue paradigms, such as exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism. Yet, in actual historical praxis, these paradigms unfold a more complex picture, raising important questions: What dialogue patterns will different dialogue attitudes ultimately give rise to? Do these paradigms function independently or in intertwined ways? When theoretical models are applied in real-world contexts, how do inherent methodological tensions—such as those between essentialism and relativism, unity and diversity, openness and fidelity—become evident and intensified? Furthermore, within non-Western, indigenized contexts, what breakthrough practices can provide promising pathways to address the current challenges in contemporary religious dialogue theory?

To date, scholarly work on Christian–Buddhist dialogue in China has yielded some findings, primarily centered on the study of the ideas of specific historical periods and key figures—exemplified by studies of Buddhist–Christian interactions during the Nestorian period (Huang 1996), investigations into their engagements in the Ming-Qing era (Zhang 1942), analysis of Buddhism and Christianity in the Republic of China Period from the Perspective of Modernity (Zhou 2016), and analyses of the religious thoughts by prominent figures like Master Taixu (Long 1997) and Zhang Chunyi (Su 2007). However, the academic community has not yet conducted a systematic review of the interaction between Buddhism and Christianity from the perspective of the entire historical development process; on the other hand, there is a lack of reflection on the strengths and limitations of the dialogue theory, combined with the specific practice of Christian–Buddhist dialogue in China.

Therefore, this paper adopts analytical frameworks from dialogue theory—specifically exclusivism, inclusivism, pluralism, and comparative theology—to systematize the concrete dialogical practices that emerged during Christianity’s historical encounter with Buddhism in China under varying attitudes toward religious others. It further explores how these practices respond to the aforementioned theoretical and practical challenges and what insights they offer for contemporary religious dialogue. Specifically, through methods, such as historical text analysis, case comparison, and theoretical critique, we can focus on analyzing the following issues:

How do different historical contexts in China influence attitudes toward dialogue and self-development, and how do different attitudes toward others affect self-development? (1) Examine the evolving the attitudes and characteristics of dialogue against different historical backdrops in China, and explore how varying attitudes toward “the other” exert an impact on self-development. (2) What inherent tensions in dialogue are manifested in the dialogue practices between Chinese Christianity and Buddhism? Within these dialogue practices and the tensions they embody, what do the advantages and limitations of Western theories on religious dialogue consist of? (3) What Eastern paradigms can be drawn from the dialogue between Christianity and Buddhism in China for contemporary religious dialogue? (4) Drawing upon China’s dialogical experiences and integrating them with the critical evaluation of existing religious dialogue theories, try to propose a preliminary idea of “śūnyatā fractal” model that contributes to both interreligious dialogue and the systematic development of Chinese theology.

2. The Intellectual Debate Between Christianity and Buddhism in the Context of Exclusivism: Historical Context and Theoretical Reflections

Exclusivism, characterized by declaring one’s own religion as the sole absolute truth while negating or seeking to replace other faiths, is deeply embedded within major religious traditions—particularly evident in monotheistic systems. Notable examples include Karl Barth’s “revelatory exclusivism” in Christian theology and the early Catholic doctrine “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” (no salvation outside the Church). This exclusivist logic, rooted in an absolute conception of truth, hinders interreligious understanding and learning, often provoking intense ideological conflicts and real-world tensions—a phenomenon especially pronounced during the nascent phase of the Buddhist–Christian interaction in China.

2.1. The Historical Trajectory of the Early Encounter Between Buddhism and Christianity in China: From Dependence on Others to Intellectual Confrontation

The historical encounter between Christianity and Buddhism in China inherently reflects a dynamic process of cultural collision and mutual adaptation between two distinct religious traditions within an indigenous context (Chen 1980).

During the Nestorian period of the Tang Dynasty (Zhu 1998), when Christianity first entered China, it relied on Buddhism—also a foreign religion—to establish a foothold locally. By employing Buddhist terminology, Nestorian missionaries equated “the Visible” with Christ’s humanity and “the Invisible” with divinity, while interpreting the original sin through the lens of karma theory (Huang 1996). Although this dependent propagation strategy facilitated initial doctrinal transmission, it also created ambiguities in Christian identity. When Emperor Wuzong of Tang launched the Great Anti-Buddhist Persecution (845 AD), Nestorianism was devastated due to its perceived association with Buddhism. Later, under the Yuan Dynasty (1271–1368), which adopted a more open policy toward foreign religions for pan-Eurasian governance purposes, Nestorianism experienced a temporary revival alongside Buddhism. However, constrained by interreligious competition and limited internal adaptability, it eventually declined.

The arrival of Catholic Jesuit missionaries in China in the late Ming and early Qing dynasties marked another high point in the spread of Christianity in China. During this period, the Jesuits actively distanced themselves from Buddhism and indirectly competed with it by vying for influence among the scholarly elite and at court (Zheng 2003). Initially, Catholic missionaries targeted the upper-class scholars and employed Buddhist terminology to explain Catholic doctrines—for instance, missionaries wore monastic robes, referred to themselves as “Western monks,” and borrowed terms, such as “Buddha” and “Bodhisattva”, to describe God and saints.

When Jesuit missionaries, like Matteo Ricci, recognized that Confucianism formed the ideology core of Chinese society, they adjusted their missionary approach by adopting the path of “replacing Confucianism with Buddhism”, actively attaching themselves to Confucian ethics. Matteo Ricci denounced the Buddhist concept of “reincarnation” as “delusion”, accused the Buddhist concept of “emptiness” as “nihilism”, and regarded the worship of Buddha statues and incense offerings as idolatrous behavior prohibited by the Ten Commandments (Ricci 2014). However, these critiques of Buddhism often carried cultural biases and were even peppered with unfounded accusations and denigratory terms, which led to a strong reaction from the Buddhist community. At that time Buddhism already had a profound influence in Chinese folk culture, triggering numerous local religious conflicts and ideological debates.

2.2. The Exclusivist Debate Since the Early Modern Period: From Nationalist Confrontation to Criticism of Core Doctrines

During the Republican era (1912–1949), Christianity was introduced on a large scale into China based on treaty privileges, while there were also a few radical missionaries, such as James Hudson Taylor, who openly proclaimed that “Buddhism is the religion of the devil”. They erupted into conflict with Buddhism over land and devotee resources, most notably, the 1920s temple property disputes in Guangdong. To counter the expansion of Christianity, Buddhist circles published articles to criticize the Western-centered bias of Christianity, such as “Shi’er Men Lun Guan Zuozhe Men yu Bai Lun Po Shen Pin Tongyi zhi Jiaokan ji Cuipo Xiandai Tian, Ji, Hui deng Jiao zhi Yingyong” (《十二门论》观作者门与《百论》破神品同异之校勘及摧破现代天、基、回等教之应用 A Comparative Study of the Author Analysis in the Twelve Gate Treatise and the Refutation of God in the Hundred Verses Treatise, with Applications to Critiquing Modern Christianity, Catholicism, Islam, and Other Religions), “Fojiao zai shijie zongjiao shang zhi diwei ji qi jiazhi“ (佛教在世界宗教上之地位及其价值 The Position and Value of Buddhism Among World Religions), and “Lüe ping ‘Zhu jiao de yan jiu’” (略评《诸教的研究》A Brief Critique of “Studies on Various Religions) (Zhang 1942). Moreover, polemics between the two sides persisted in periodicals, such as Hai chao yin (海潮音 Sound of the Sea Tide) and Zhen guang za zhi (真光杂志 True Light Magazine), with language devolving from scholarly critique into personal invective. Unlike the doctrinal disputations of the Ming-Qing era, these debates were deeply mired in the quagmire of cultural hegemony and national political identity, leaving profound lessons for religious dialogues of later generations.

After 1949, changes in the political environment shifted the center of religious debate to Hong Kong and Taiwan, China. Although these discussions were no longer influenced by politicized attacks, doctrinal differences led to a focus on textual examination and philosophical discernment, which still often lacked rational argumentation. From the 1950s to 1970s, when Hsing Yun reignited interfaith dialogue with the article, ”Fojiao yu Jidu jiao zhi bijiao” (佛教与基督教之比较 A Comparison of Buddhism and Christianity) (Xing 2019), prompting responses from Christian figures, such as Wu Enpu and Gong Tianmin. Subsequently, debates emerged between Shi Yinshun and Shi Shengyan against Gong Tianmin’s article, “Fojiao xue yanjiu: Yiwei mushi yanjiu foxue de baogao” (佛教学研究:一位牧师研究佛学的报告 Buddhist Studies: A Priest’s Report on the Study of Buddhism) (Gong 1963), and Du Erwei’s Jieshi fojing yuanyi (揭示佛经原意 Revealing the Original Meaning of Buddhist Scriptures) (Du 1969) and Fojiao yuanyi de faming (佛教原意的发明 The Discovery of Buddhism’s Original Meaning) (Du 1977). These debates largely consisted of one-dimensional interpretations aimed at defending each religion’s stances. However, they did reflect core theological differences and offered valuable insights for future Buddhist–Christian dialogue studies.

2.3. Rethinking Exclusivism: Latent Possibilities of Dialogue in Exclusivist Attitudes

As illustrated by the above cases, exclusivism is not merely a doctrinal dispute, as articulated in Western dialogical theories. Rather it emerges as a multifaceted phenomenon shaped by historical circumstances, cultural power struggles, the necessity of faith community construction, and the interests of social strata: In the early stages of Christianity’s entry into China, it relied on political power to expand its influence, inevitably competing for resources with Buddhism, which had already deeply rooted for centuries. Religious groups frequently define themselves by delineating the boundaries of the “other”—such as the Catholic Church banning ancestor worship or Buddhism labeling Christianity as “tīrthika” (外道 a proponent of non-Buddhist views)—to reinforce internal purity. Moreover, competition for social resources between Buddhist monastic economies and Christian public service activities often framed economic conflicts as ideological opposition. These dynamics further amplified doctrinal divisions.

However, exclusivism does not entirely exclude dialogue. Although Master Yin Shun criticized Christianity, he emphasized that “All existing noble religions aim at self-reflection and inner purification—transforming cruelty into compassion, ignorance into wisdom, and conflict into peace. To achieve this ideal, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism are all the same, differing only in depth and completeness” (现存的高尚的宗教，都是反省自己的，要实现自己身心净化的。残忍化而为慈悲,愚痴化而为智慧，懦怯化而为勇猛；矛盾与动乱，化而为和谐安宁。要实现此一理想，耶、回、梵、佛教，都是一样的，不过浅深偏圆不同而已。) (Yin 1992, pp. 28–29).

Thus, when religious traditions examine others based on shared ethical values like “love” and “compassion”, interfaith dialogue may be able to achieve a paradigm shift from exclusivity to inclusivity. This insight provides intellectual support for overcoming the limitations of exclusivist attitudes.

3. Dialogue Practices Between Christianity and Buddhism Under the Attitude of Inclusivism

Inclusivism affirms the core truth of one’s own religion while acknowledging partial truths in others. This stance advocates incorporating valid elements from other faiths into one’s own framework. For example, Christianity, represented by Karl Rahner’s “anonymous Christian” theory, interprets the salvific possibilities of non-Christians as “implicit Christian grace”; similarly, Buddhism uses concepts like Buddhadasa’s “Two Truths” (二谛 Conventional Truth and Ultimate Truth) or Masao Abe’s philosophy of “absolute nothingness”, to integrate differences into a unified system (Li 2021). This inclusive attitude was particularly evident in the early twentieth century, during Buddhism’s modernization efforts and Christianity’s push for indigenization.

3.1. Dialogue and Practice of Buddhist Inclusivism: From Institutional Borrowing to Doctrinal Syncretism

During the Republic of China era, amid rapid social change and cultural clashes with the West, Chinese Buddhism was faced with the disintegration of traditional modes of existence and the challenge of modernity. To adapt and revive itself, Buddhism engaged in inclusive dialogue with Christianity as a reference point.

3.1.1. Innovation of Organizational System

In organizational reform, Yang Wenhui drew inspiration from Christian educational models to reform the monastic system. Tai Xu introduced Christian-style institutional management to build the “Humanistic Buddhism” (人间佛教) organizational system. Later, Hsing Yun integrated Christian global networks to develop Fo Guang Shan, forming an autonomous reform path of “external reference and internal integration”.

In the late Qing Dynasty and early Republic of China, Chinese Buddhist layman Yang Wenhui (1837–1911) collaborated with British missionary Timothy Richard (1845–1919) to translate key Han Chinese Buddhist scriptures—including Dasheng qixin lun (大乘起信论 The Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana) and Fahua jing (法华经 Lotus Sutra)—into English. He actively drew on the Christian educational model in China and founded “Qihuan Jingshe” (祇洹精舍) in the 1890s—the first modern Buddhist educational institution in China. This marked the beginning of Buddhism moving beyond religious antagonism and embracing tolerance toward others while pursuing modernization in organization and education.

Building on this foundation, Master Tai Xu (1890–1947) incorporated Christianity’s institutional practices into Buddhism, transforming traditional monastic communities from “forest-dwelling” to “socialized” communities. This led to the development of “Humanistic Buddhism,” a modern Buddhist framework. Although Tai Xu’s initially held critical views toward Christianity (Long 1997). However, faced with the shortcomings within Buddhism and the need for development, in 1915, he explicitly expressed his appreciation for Christianity in terms of its institutional rituals and charitable activities (Tai 2005b, p. 13). In his article, “Jianshe xiandai Zhongguo Fojiao tan” (建设现代中国佛教谈 On Constructing Modern Chinese Buddhism), he said that after some scholars studied religious education abroad between 1928 and 1929, they advocated integrating Buddhist education into the national system and established remedial classes for monks with limited education (Tai 2005a, p. 228). Subsequently, he also founded the Wuchang Buddhist College and the Han-Tibetan Institute of Buddhist Studies. He adopted the Western credit-hour system and created a “Social Service Department” to train “Buddhist social workers” in medical care charity, and education. These reforms formed the practical system of Humanistic Buddhism: education as foundation, service as path, and the human world as a place of practice.

As society evolved, Buddhism responded through modernization and an engaged approach. Its inclusive nature aligned with the rise of Christian inclusivism after the Second Vatican Council, fostering deeper interreligious dialogue. Venerable Master Hsing Yun (1927–2023), embodying Buddhism’s spirit of openness, continued Venerable Taixu’s legacy by incorporating Christian insights into Fo Guang Shan’s structure, education, and global outreach. Simultaneously, he promoted intra-Buddhist harmony, interfaith mutual learning, and the resolution of social conflicts—efforts that catalyzed Buddhism’s modernist transition and deepened the roots of Humanistic Buddhism in contemporary society (Du 2010, p. 255).

3.1.2. Innovation in Doctrinal Comparison

In line with organizational-level exchanges, Buddhist and Christian doctrinal dialogue has also gradually deepened, evolving from early intellectual comparisons focused on social reform to more comprehensive doctrinal discussions rooted in Buddhist wisdom.

During the early Republic of China era, amid national crisis and the spread of Western thought, traditional Confucian authority weakened. Intellectuals sought new spiritual foundations by integrating local and foreign cultural resources. Reformers, like Liang Qichao and Tan Sitong, were among the first to compare Buddhist and Christian teachings from a social reform perspective. Liang Qichao highly praised the Christian doctrine of the Trinity for laying the theoretical foundation for equality among all people. He also believed that these ideas could be combined with Buddhist teachings to reform society. At the same time, he also affirmed that the idea of the Last Judgment had “unique advantages” in terms of moral restraint (Liang 1995). However, most of these reformers considered Buddhism doctrinally more complete. Their somewhat appreciative view of Christianity stemmed solely from its inspirational role in China’s reform movement, which they then sought to harness for driving social change.

The Buddhist revival movement progressed as social changes in the People’s Republic of China developed, and the focus of doctrinal dialogue shifted from the intellectual community to Buddhist leaders within the Buddhist community. The emphasis of comparison also shifted from serving social reform to comparing doctrines. This was precisely the inherent demand of Buddhism to seek a modern interpretation of its doctrines beyond organizational reform. Like Master Tai Xu, through comparison with Christianity, he demonstrated the rational core of Buddhist doctrine. He believed that Christianity’s “creationism” was trapped in the “dualistic” mindset. If God is an eternal entity, He falls into “Eternalism” (常执); if He separates Himself from the world after creation, He falls into “Nihilism” (断执) (Tai 2004). However, he acknowledged that Christianity’s “love your neighbor as yourself” and Buddhism’s “compassion and altruism” had consistency at the practical level.

In the age of globalization, the coexistence of multiculturalism has become a central theme of our time. Building on Tai Xu’s inclusive attitude, some Buddhist leaders have moved toward a more “harmonious” form of dialogue. Like Master Jing Kung (1927–2022), who actively advocated the concept of “all religions are one family” based on the all-encompassing wisdom of Buddhism, he believed that the founders of all religions were embodiments of truth, and its core purpose was to teach humanity to be virtuous. Therefore, he proposed using the Christian “Ten Commandments” and the Buddhist “Ten Virtuous Precepts” as teaching materials for spreading universal ethics (Du 2010, p. 256).

Li Yuansong (1957–2003), founder of “Modern Chan Society,” took a decisive step in the mechanism of Buddhist–Christian dialogue, transitioning from “theoretical comparison” to “practical experience”. He led five face-to-face exchanges and nine written dialogues between the Modern Chan Society and the Lutheran Theological Seminary (Li 2002). Confronting the doctrinal differences, he advocates adopting a phenomenological suspension strategy that emphasizes similarities in faith experience. Furthermore, based on his experience of practicing the Pure Land method, he replaced “Amitabha Buddha” with “the inconceivable mysterious power of the Dharma-realm”, and then transitioned to the idea of “the Supreme Being”, to reconcile between the existence of the Supreme Being and Buddhist Madhyamaka thought. Although the above attitudes of dialogue are always taken from an inclusive perspective and both sides disagree in many aspects, based on the concrete experience of practice, they offer an innovative “experience-based” example for religious dialogue.

3.2. Dialogue and Practice of Christian Inclusivism: From Historical Experience to Doctrinal Analogy Construction

In the early twentieth century, Chinese Christianity faced indigenous Nationalism and anti-Christian trend movements. To facilitate indigenization, Christianity critically absorbed successful factors in the development of the Chinese indigenization of Buddhism. The process presented a gradual process of moving from drawing lessons from historical experience to making doctrinal analogies.

3.2.1. Textual Interpretation and Dialogue Field Construction

The practice of Western missionaries, from the textual interpretation to actual field construction, laid the foundations for Buddhist and Christian dialogue.

According to Timothy Richard, all other religions had a universal revelation from God. When translating Dasheng qixin lun (大乘起信论 The Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana), he incorporated Christian theological concepts—translating “Buddha” as “God”, comparing “Buddha” to Plato’s “archetypes and ideas”, and analogizing Mahayana Buddhism’s transcendence of Hinayana to the New Testament’s fulfillment of the Old Testament (Li 2003). This is still a one-way “Ge Yi” (格义 Matching Concepts), but the first systematic attempt to incorporate the core concepts of Mahayana Buddhism into the Western theological discourse, providing an early case for the comparative study of the texts.

The Norwegian sinologist Karl Ludvig Reichelt (1877–1952) was the first missionary to study Chinese Buddhism systematically. Both a missionary and a religious scholar, he inaugurated a unique practical paradigm of Christian–Buddhist dialogue in China. He drew on the architectural styles of Buddhist temples and Taoist temples to build Jing Fung Shan (1923–1927) in Nanjing and Tao Fung Shan (1931–) in Hong Kong, places where Buddhist monks were welcome to visit and reside, and where he preached to Buddhists through dialogues. Therefore, these places served as both venues for communication among monks and venues for interfaith communication: he has innovatively integrated Buddhist rituals into Christian activities, such as adopting the Buddhist form of “circumambulating the Buddha” to “circumambulating the cross”, so as to maintain the sacredness of physical practice; transforming the Pure Land Buddhist method of “praying to Buddha” to “praying to Christ”, emphasizing the pious effect of oral chanting (Wang 2005). These ritual innovations were formulated based on his theology, which insisted on the theory of universal revelation, that is, the light of God had already been manifested in Buddhism, that Buddhists were “friends on the path of seeking the truth of the universe”, and that “Jesus, Sakyamuni, Confucius, and Lao Tzu all suffered from the failures of saving all living beings and did not possess the truth for themselves” (Reichelt 1931, p. 2).

It is clear that Reichelt has shown an unprecedented tolerance and openness in both theory and practice, but fundamentally, it remained a dialogue on the framework of Christian understanding. As he said, “all the light contained in Mahayana Buddhism is in Christ, and it is only in Christ that the light can be realized in true and genuine perfection” (Thelle 2010, p. 74).

3.2.2. Learning from Buddhism Within Indigenization Stance

During the Republic of China era, a new generation of Chinese Christian leaders gradually emerged in the church. Influenced by non-Christian movements and the revival of Buddhism, these leaders began to take a “indigenization stance” and actively engage in dialogue with Buddhism at the levels of cultural adaptation, dialogue methods, and mutual interpretation of doctrines, thus forming a “Learning from Buddhism” inclusive approach.

One of the pioneers in dialoguing with Buddhism from the perspective of cultural adaptation was Wang Zhixin (1881–1968). He systematically sorted out the indigenization experience of Buddhism in Jidutu zhi foxue yanjiu (基督徒之佛学研究 Buddhist Studies by Christian) (Wang 1924), proposing that Christianity should emulate Buddhism’s path of integration with Chinese culture, promoting the transformation of Christianity from “Christianity in China” to “China’s Christianity”. He systematically distilled the experience of Buddhism taking root in China—the contextual transformation of classic translations, the integration of the intellectual system with the literati class, and the adaptation of institutional construction.

Xu Baoqian (1892–1944) went further, learning from the experience of Sinicizing Buddhist doctrine to advocate for Christianity to transition toward “Mahayana Christianity” (大乘基督教) with a focus on social redemption and practical concern. In Jidujiao yu Zhongguo wenhua (基督教与中国文化 Christianity and Chinese Culture) (Xu 1934), he emphasized that the key to Christianity’s development in China lies in strategic adjustments rather than emphasizing cultural differences and contradictions. Thus, he attempted to draw on the transformative logic of Buddhism’s Mahayana and Hinayana traditions to propose the concept of “Mahayana Christianity”, to promote Christianity’s transition from the “Hinayana” focus on individual salvation to the Mahayana emphasis on “social concern.” Although this concept remained largely a formal analogy, failing to deeply incorporate core Buddhist principles, like “pratītyasamutpāda-śūnyatā” (缘起性空 dependent origination and emptiness), its significance lies in elevating the discussion on the Christianity indigenization in China from a technical level of adaptation to a strategic level of structural transformation.

Regarding methodology, Xie Fuya (1892–1991) deconstructed exclusive barriers with Eastern philosophy, while Wei Zhuomin (1888–1976) reconstructed the local faith context through spatial semiotics, jointly pioneering a “deconstructive-reconstructive” approach to address Christian exclusivism. Xie Fuya distilled the core principles of interreligious dialogue from the Buddhist concept of “non-attachment to self”, identifying the root of Christian exclusivism as “egocentric absolutism.” Therefore, he advocated applying the Buddhist concept of “śūnyatā” (空 emptiness) to resolve sectarian conflicts and promote the transformation of religious practice into an ethical community (Xie 1980). Wei Zhuomin was enlightened from the cultural symbols of Buddhist “sacred mountains” and advocated building Christian pilgrimage on mountain tops or in wooded areas, thereby establishing Christian pilgrimage centers adapted to China’s national conditions. His vision was to transform Christian holy sites into venues for practicing Chinese cultural life, thereby integrating Christianity into the daily lives of the Chinese people (Wei 2000, pp. 136–137).

In terms of doctrinal analogy, Xu Songshi (1900–1999) developed a “dual-track mutual interpretation” comparative paradigm. As a scholar versed in Confucianism, Buddhism, and Christianity, Xu Songshi adopted a dual-track approach of “using Buddhist principles to interpret theology and Confucianism to explain ethics”, arguing that Buddhism’s rigorous logical system is more suitable for interpreting the Christian concept of God, while Confucian ethics are more compatible with Christian moral teachings. Specifically, in his works Jidujiao de Fowei (基督教的佛味 The Buddhist Flavor of Christianity) (Xu 1935) and Zhonghua minzu yanli de Jidu (中华民族眼里的基督 Christ in the Eyes of the Chinese Nation) (Xu 1941), he proposed that “tathatā” (真如 thusness) and “God” both signify the ultimate reality of the universe. While Buddhism emphasizes the static ontology of “śūnyatā and non-action” (空性无为), Christianity highlights the dynamic redemption of “dynamic salvation through incarnation”. Regarding the self-power and other-power, he argued that both traditions mutually correct and complement each other: Christianity could assimilate Buddhism’s spirit of diligent spiritual practice, while Buddhism may adopt Christianity’s “other-power salvation” to extend compassion toward the vulnerable. Concerning the origin of evil and the nature of the human mind, he appropriated the Buddhist framework of “One Mind, Two Doors” (一心二門) from the Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana to explain the genesis of evil. By positing that the human mind simultaneously contains purification (清净) and ignorance (无明), he interpreted the tension between “original sin” and “free will” in Christian theology.

As Lai observes, “Although Xu Songshi borrowed some Buddhist terminology and methods, this did not mean he completely interprets Christianity through a Buddhist lens. He attempted to strictly define the scope of interpretation to avoid forced analogies, striving to explore core doctrines in search of potential convergence between the two traditions” (Lai 2008, p. 64). Although he failed to delve into doctrinal structural differences, the dialogue remained largely at the level of superficial analogy. However, this “limited analogy” infused Christian theology with Eastern philosophical thinking, and it is regarded by scholars as an important breakthrough in “Theology Indigenization”.

3.3. The Internal Tensions and Revelations of Inclusivism

The practice of Inclusivism mentioned above has promoted self-renewal between Christianity and Buddhism. However, the dialogue remains essentially focused on external forms and has not really gone beyond the framework of “instrumentalization of the Other”. This prevents both sides from delving into their core doctrines to think creatively and develop their respective beliefs. This attitude gives rise to the following tensions in interreligious dialogue:

First is the tension between local adaptation and doctrinal purity. The incorporation of external rituals in religious dialogue facilitates initial engagement but often leads to interpretive difficulties due to differences in core doctrines. For instance, Tao Fung Shan originally attracted many Buddhists, yet doctrinal conflicts led both sides to question its authenticity, ultimately marginalizing it into an ambiguous existence that was perceived as neither a Buddhist temple nor a Christian church. Second is the tension between crisis-driven responses and proactive development. Dialogue practices emerging from external crises tend to be defensive in nature, and Indigenization, under such defensive circumstances, inevitably limits the depth of dialogue. For example, under the crisis of the “non-Christian movement”, Christianity has focused more on whether Christianity is compatible with the spirit of Chinese culture, rather than actively exploring the deep resonance between Buddhism and Christianity at the level of ultimate concern. These tensions are essentially a contradiction between the “limits of inclusiveness” and the “depth of dialogue”, which both drive the evolution of dialogue forms and reveal the need for further development of inclusiveness. That is, on the basis of recognizing differences and equal respect, it is necessary to balance adaptation and adherence, defense and initiative, practice and theory, for a lasting dialogue.

Additionally, it is worth noting that from a macroscopic perspective of historical evolution, although these thoughts mostly show an inclusivist tendency, within specific ideological contexts, the same subject sometimes exhibits a certain pluralistic spirit at different stages or levels. This is particularly evident in the practices of figures who possess both a specific religious identity and scholarly attributes. For example, both as a missionary and religious scholar, Karl Ludvig Reichelt allowed Buddhist rituals and Christian ceremonies to coexist in practice, a form of “spatial pluralism” that, to some extent, regarded Buddhism as an equal partner. Xu Songshi, a scholar with Confucian, Buddhist, and Christian backgrounds, acknowledged the independent value of Buddhist thought at the methodological level, viewing it as an organic resource for constructing a Chinese theology. This tension between “methodological pluralism” and an “inclusive stance” reveals the richness, complexity, and multilayered nature of religious dialogue thought.

4. The Evolution of Pluralist Dialogue Theory and the Paradigm Breakthrough in Chinese Christian–Buddhist Dialogue Practice

With the continuous encounters between diverse religions, the theory of religious pluralism has undergone an evolution from “seeking common ground while reserving differences” to “self-consistency amid differences.” However, China’s pluralistic practices of Buddhist–Christian dialogue had already manifested to a certain extent prior to these theoretical developments. These practices not only reveal some deep-seated dilemmas in pluralistic dialogue theories but also demonstrate breakthroughs in unique practical paradigms.

4.1. The Theoretical Evolution of Pluralism

John Hick was a prominent figure in religious pluralism. He drew inspiration from Kant’s philosophical framework of “Appearances and Things in Themselves“ to construct an “ultimate reality” model of pluralism. By setting up an essentialist framework of “ultimate reality”, he attempted to provide an ontological foundation for the equality of multireligion, yet in his specific interpretations, he ended up relativizing the truth claims of different religions. Based on process philosophy, process theologian John Cobb proposed that there is “diversity in ultimate and practical goals”: the purpose of religious dialogue is not to find a common essence, but to achieve “complementary transformation” of different religions through interaction while preserving their differences (Cobb 1982).

Whether following Hick’s quest for commonality or Cobb’s complementary emphasis on difference, both approaches remain entangled in the binary logic of sameness and otherness. Buddhist scholars, adopting a Madhyamaka perspective, deconstruct this dualistic framework. Judith Simmer-Brown, drawing from Nāgārjuna’s tetralemma (破四句) in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (《中论颂》 Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way)—neither from itself, nor from another, nor from both, nor without cause do phenomena arise (诸法不自生，亦不从他生，不共不无因，是故知无生)—proposes a śūnyatā-informed epistemology as dialogical praxis. This dismantles reified linguistic binaries like “identity/difference” and “one/many,” advocating instead for positionless dialogue: participants must bracket ultimate doctrinal claims, co-establish provisional consensus through pratītyasamutpāda-śūnyatā, thereby activating self-reflection while maintaining the tension of difference (Simmer-Brown 2000).

Unlike the approaches mentioned above, which are based on metaphysics or the theoretical methods of a specific religion, German theologian Perry Schmidt-Leukel proposed the “Fractal Theory of Religious Diversity” drawing on fractal theory in mathematics and natural sciences (Schmidt-Leukel 2017). The theory suggests that religious systems also have a structure of self-similarity on several levels: there are different types of diversity at the interreligious level, such as Hans Kuhn’s three-part division of distinguishing prophetic, mystical religions, sapiential religions; within a single religion, there is diversity similar to that found across religions, but with different emphases; at the micro level of the individual, religious diversity and recursive patterns are also rooted in common characteristics of human thought and transcendental structures. A person may have different religious personalities at different stages of life, and even multiple religions may coexist in the same individual. This theory shifts the focus from “seeking common ground while preserving differences” to “discovering self-similarity in differences” to promote a transformation in the paradigm of dialogue. It demonstrates that religious truth is neither monolithic nor fragmented, but rather exhibits similar fractal and recursive structures.

Paul Knitter breaks through the theoretical debate of traditional pluralism and focuses the dialogue on the ethical practice dimension, advocating “global responsibility” as a unifying bond to foster coordinated action among religions on pressing issues such as the ecological crisis and social justice.

The development of the above pluralistic dialogue theory reflects the cognitive evolution of humanity in dealing with religious differences: it echoes the paradigm shift in Western philosophy from modern universalism to postmodern contextual thinking, and implicitly resonates with Eastern Buddhism’s deconstruction of monistic essentialism through the concept of “śūnyatā”.

However, the practice of pluralistic dialogue between Chinese Buddhists and Christians does not conform to a single theoretical model, but often involves dynamic adjustments among multiple dialogue frameworks.

4.2. Practical and Theoretical Reflections on the Multicultural Dialogue Between Christianity and Buddhism in China

Since the modern era, some pioneers have transcended the previous instrumentalization of “the other” and explicitly acknowledged the equal value and independent subjectivity of various religious traditions, engaging in dialogue that delves into core doctrines. Among them, Zhang Chunyi and Xu Dishan’s explorations were particularly notable: the former reconstructed theology with “Buddhicized Christianity,” while the latter used literary creation to reconcile differences in faith. Their complementary explorations formed a dual paradigm of philosophical inquiry and aesthetic expression, together constituting a unique Eastern model of interreligious engagement. In the development of their thoughts, they reflected the aforementioned pluralistic dialogue theories to varying degrees, while also demonstrating the advantages and existing dilemmas of different dialogue theories in practice.

4.2.1. Zhang Chunyi’s “Buddhized Christianity”

Zhang Chunyi (1871–1955) was a scholar active in early Republican China who possessed profound knowledge of traditional Chinese culture. Initially a Christian, he interpreted Christianity through the lens of Chinese philosophy and worked toward theological indigenization. Later, he converted to Buddhism and devoted himself to establishing the idea of “Buddhized Christianity”.

Zhang Chunyi’s pluralistic view of religion is grounded in his idea of “The Principle is Non-dual, yet its Teachings Manifest Myriad Forms” (宗体不二、教相万殊), which holds that the essence of all religions is unified, while their manifestations vary according to cultural and historical contexts. In his early work, he advocated the idea of complementary pluralism, arguing that “all religions contain fragments of truth that need to be verified by each other” (Zhang 1923, p. 2). He acknowledged that although Buddhism had more comprehensive doctrine system, its practical application was insufficient for addressing worldly suffering, especially for the lower classes. In contrast, Christian doctrine was genuine and accessible, beginning with confession and repentance, and could be understood even by the illiterate (Zhang 1921, p. 26). He remarked, “Within the single Gospel of John alone, there already contains many Chan insights and endless levels of the Hua Yen realm. What makes the Gospel special is that it ‘can convey profound truths in simple words’” (Zhang 1921, p. 24).

However, later influenced by the Tiantai school’s classification of religions, he incorporated Christianity into the “upāya” (方便法门 skillful means) system. Although he maintained that all religions lead to the ultimate truth, he believed differences exist in how effectively each religion conveys this truth. He considered Christianity inferior in terms of depth and comprehensiveness compared to Buddhism and, therefore, required reform. Although his thought presents a similar cognitive structure as John Hick’s, Zhang Chunyi employs the Madhyamaka concept of “śūnyatā” to dissolve essentialism, equating “God” with “The One True Dharmadhātu” (一真法界). This represents both a rejection of the personified entity and a transcendence of the presuppositional nature of Hick’s “ultimate reality”. After deconstructing the external entities, Zhang Chunyi attributed the essence to the “self-mind”, believing that “everything in the universe is the fickle manifestation of one mind. Outside the Mind, no Dharma exists; Beyond Dharma, no Mind can be found (心外无法，法外无心)” (Zhang 1921, p. 50). This effectively applies Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka tetralemma, denying both the existence of God as an independent entity (non-other-arising) and the notion of pure subjective construction (non-self-arising).

In Christology, Zhang Chunyi later rejected the uniqueness of Jesus Christ, viewing him as one among many “Christs” (enlightened beings), whose particularity lying in the thorough realization of Prajñā-śūnyatā (wisdom of emptiness). He also dismissed the Christian atonement theory, interpreting Jesus’ passion as a bodhisattva’s compassionate manifestation akin to Mahayana Buddhism’s “body-offering”—emphasizing moral exemplarity over theological salvation. In Trinitarian theology, this approach illustrates the “fractal diversity” theory: by drawing an analogy between the Buddhist Three Bodies and the Trinity, it posits that the Father corresponds to the Dharmakāya (法身佛 cosmic essence), the Son to the Nirmāṇakāya (应身佛 phenomenal manifestation), and the Holy Spirit to the Sambhogakāya (报身佛 meritorious embodiment). This reconstruction seeks to transcend the traditional personalistic debates of trinitarianism, moving toward a non-substantial model of “no difference among mind, Buddha, and sentient beings” (Zhang 1921). In soteriology, Zhang utilizes Yogācāra’s Manas-Vijñāna (末那识 ego-consciousness) and Ālaya-Vijñāna (阿赖耶识 storehouse consciousness) to interpret original sin, replacing “justification by faith” with the Chan Buddhist concept of “sudden enlightenment as rebirth (顿悟即重生)”, defining salvation as the “seeing of the true nature” (明心见性)—a process that transcends dualistic oppositions (Su 2007).

Zhang Chunyi’s Buddhist–Christian dialogue practice reveals the complex tensions that arise in dialogue practices involving religious pluralism: while he initially incorporated Hick’s “pluralistic salvation”, his later one-dimensional interpretation failed to truly respect the uniqueness of Christianity. Therefore, Su Yuantai believes that “in his later years, Zhang Chunyi’s thinking may have shifted from religious pluralism to Buddhist inclusivism” (Su 2007, p. 311). However, Lai Pin-chiu believes that “although there are obvious differences between early and late Buddhist Christianity, the goal has always been to establish a Christianity that belongs to the Chinese people, to transform Christian theology with Mahayana Buddhism, and to rediscover the truths of the New Testament” (Lai 2008, p. 197). “Therefore, the entire process is based on a pluralistic view of religion, attempting to reconcile Christianity with Chinese religions in order to produce a religion that is closer to the truth” (Lai 2008, p. 197).

From the above development of Zhang Chunyi’s thought, his theory may be defined as “Buddhism-oriented weak pluralism”: it possesses a pluralistic consciousness that deconstructs religious absolutism but fails to transcend the local culture and achieve truly equal development. This theoretical tension precisely reveals the issues in the indigenization process of “pluralism” in China’s religious dialogue practices—when Western-contextualized “pluralism” is applied to specific faith practices, it inevitably encounters dual constraints from “cultural identity” and “religious commitment”: as an academic researcher, Zhang can construct an epistemological model of “plural equality”; however, as a committed Buddhist, he must balance openness to other traditions with fidelity to his own. When this balance proves difficult to maintain, the model often risks slipping into inclusivism.

4.2.2. Xu Dishan’s Literary Dialogical Practice

Xu Dishan (1894–1941) was a renowned writer and comparative religion scholar. Born into a Buddhist family, he later converted to Christianity and married a practicing Buddhist. Though teaching at a seminary, he primarily concentrated on the study and transmission of Chinese religion. Against this complex background, his approach to the relationship between Christianity and Buddhism holds significant revelatory value.

According to him, the purpose of religion was to encourage people and society to strive for goodness, even if there is neither paradise nor hell (Xu 1922, p. 31). Religious figures must put their religious ideals into practice (Xu 1923, p. 1). Therefore, “Xu’s vision of religion is humanistic and people-oriented” (Lai 2008, p. 278).

Xu Dishan’s Buddhist–Christian dialogue practice is grounded in love, using “literary media” to highlight shared ethical practices, thereby opening new paths for pluralism. He created numerous literary works on religious themes, with a primary emphasis on love and forgiveness. Whether the main characters are Christian or Buddhist in orientation, they all emphasize sincere, sacrificial love toward themselves or God. For example, in “Kongshan lingyu” (空山灵雨 Empty Mountain Spiritual Rain) (Xu 2015), the interactions between the couple serve as a backdrop for transforming theological speculation into a life of mutual understanding based on love. They argued that religious doctrines and rituals degenerate into “empty forms” instead of wisdom if they are detached from the authenticity of life. Despite their different beliefs, Xu Dishan and his wife respected each other. As Lai pointed out: “For Xu Dishan, the alternating use of Christian and Buddhist terms, images, and symbols did not cause contradictions or conflicts in faith or reason. It seems that in love, Christian and Buddhist ideas can harmoniously present themselves in practice” (Lai 2008, p. 296).

In addition, by focusing on the altruistic actions of the protagonists of the novel, Xu Deshan showed that the commonality of Confucian benevolence, Buddhist compassion, and Christian sacrifice in practice beyond doctrine, forming a “fractal structure of good deeds.” In the work “Zhuiwang laozhu” (缀网劳蛛 The Spider Mending Its Web) (Xu 2015), Shang Jie, a Christian, rescued an injured bandit but was misunderstood and stabbed by her husband. She responded with “unconditional forgiveness”: “Everyone makes mistakes, but no one can deprive others of the self-correction opportunity. In “Yu Guan” (玉官Yu Guan) (Xu 2015), Yu Guan became a missionary, and combined various ethical ideas: when treating villagers, alleviating disasters, or mediating disputes, she emphasized that “virtue is more pleasing to God than prayer”; when adopting orphans, she quoted, “Compassion is like water, knowing no distinction between kin and stranger”; she also adapted Bible stories into Min Nan folk songs, like “The Filial Son Seeks His Mother”, integrating religious teachings into clan ethics. In the work “Shangren fu” (商人妇 The Merchant’s Wife) (Xu 2015), when Xi Guan adopted an abandoned infant, she referred to it as “a cause and effect given by Bodhisattva”, yet interesting enough, her actions mirror those of Christian charitable institutions. Xu Dishan’s thought shows the “fractal structure of good deeds” of various religions, which is characterized by self-similarity of “altruism, resilience, and inclusiveness”. At the same time, it echoes Paul Knitter’s emphasis on ethical responsibility.

Compared to Zhang Chunyi’s philosophical integration, Xu Dishan’s contribution is to explain that religious harmony does not necessarily stem from metaphysical unity but can originate from love and understanding in everyday life. This approach offers an innovative model for dialogue in contemporary pluralistic societies: using life as the soil, the literature as the bridge, and emotions and ethics as the common language—it shifts religious dialogue from abstract theological debates to concrete emotional interactions and ethical practices, thereby paving the way for a path of “Aestheticized Pluralism” for dialogue.

4.3. Theoretical Reflections and Revelations of Pluralist Dialogue Practices

The above practices of pluralistic dialogue demonstrate that a single theoretical model cannot fully encompass the complexity of religious interaction. Dialogue participants often have to adjust dynamically between “seeking common ground”, “preserving differences”, “fractal analogy” and “ethical practice” depending on the specific context. Zhang Chunyi’s religious view of “The Principle is Non-dual, yet its Teachings Manifest Myriad Forms” reflects Hick’s theory of dialogue, but when going further, the comparison of core doctrines, the internal tension forces Zhang Chunyi to choose to deconstruct Christianity with Buddhist thought. He deconstructs the entity of God with wisdom of śūnyatā, but the one-dimensional deconstruction put him in danger of falling into inclusivism.

Xu Dishan’s ideas particularly demonstrate the feasibility of fractal theory and Knitter’s theory, especially fractal theory as a neutral analytical tool that can be applied at different theoretical stages. However, its limitations in conducting fractal dialogue in a literary manner are evident in the process of religious integration. For example, in the work The Spider Mending Its Web, Shang Jie’s “view of destiny” blurs the ontological differences between Buddhist “karma” and Christian “divine providence,” and this symbolic reconciliation may obscure genuine religious tensions. These ideas reveal the deeper nature of religious dialogue: the constant search for a balance between commitment to faith and open-mindedness. The driving force behind religious dialogue may lie in the tension between “difference and similarity” and “unity and diversity”.

5. Dialogue Practices and Breakthroughs Under Comparative Theology and Comparative Religious Studies Approaches

Based on the limitations of traditional dialogue theories, which are often constrained by a priori theoretical assumptions and struggle to delve into the specific doctrines of different faith traditions, Francis X. Clooney, an expert in comparative theology, proposes replacing a priori dialogue theory classifications with a posteriori comparative approach to overcome this static, essentialist dialogue impasse. The core is to move away from preconceived value systems and promote the renewal and deepening of self-understanding among different faith traditions through in-depth mutual learning and dialogue on specific doctrines (Clooney 2010). Chinese scholar Lai Pan-chiu’s Dasheng Jidujiao shenxue-Hanyu shenxue de sixiang shiyany (大乘基督教神学-汉语神学的思想实验 Mahayana Christian Theology-Thought Experiments of Sino-Christian Theology) (Lai 2011) follows this path, advancing the development of Chinese theology through mutual learning between Mahayana Buddhism and Christian doctrine.

However, Clooney emphasizes engaging in dialogue within specific textual contexts and advocates for an equitable reading of classical texts. He particularly proposes five strategies for textual interpretation. Lai Pin-chiu elevates Mahayana Buddhism from a comparative object to a resource for reconstructing Christian theology. He attempts to integrate the philosophical categories of Mahayana Buddhism into Christian theology, transforming Buddhism from a comparative other into an interpretive tool. The aim is to revise mainstream theology in Chinese churches with Mahayana ideas, extending comparative theology from theoretical dialogue to promoting reform in local churches. In a sense, he promotes the deep integration of Christian theology and Eastern thought, providing a model of “creative transformation” for interfaith dialogue.

Moreover, contemporary Chinese studies on the dialogue between Christianity and Buddhism mostly follow the comparative theology or comparative religious studies approach, engaging in diverse explorations.

5.1. Lai Pan-chiu’s Mahayana Christian Theology: Innovation in Chinese Theology from a Comparative Theology Perspective

Lai Pan-chiu’s Mahayana Christian Theology takes comparative theology as its approach, engaging in deep mutual learning between Mahayana Buddhist resources and core Christian doctrines to reconstruct theological expression in the Chinese linguistic context. Although this idea shares similarities with Zhang Chunyi’s approach of using Buddhist resources as a bridge to interpret Christian doctrine and facilitate the indigenization of faith, the comparative theological approach allows for a deeper exploration of the text and avoids the risk of diluting the core teachings of Christianity through excessive Buddhist influence. Its innovative thinking provides valuable intellectual resources for creative transformation through equal dialogue between Buddhism and Christianity.

In his specific research, he employed the Huayan concepts of “non-obstruction between phenomena” (事事无碍) and “mutual identification and interpenetration” (相即相入) to re-examine the Christian doctrines of perichoresis (mutual indwelling) within the Trinity and the two natures of Christ. “Mutual identification (相即) pertains to the ‘presence and absence’ (有无) of intrinsic substance (自体), while mutual interpenetration (相入) pertains to the ‘presence and absence’ of dynamic function (力用). Through this framework, the perichoresis of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit may be understood as follows: The Three Persons can be conceived as Three Phenomena (三事), each maintaining its hypostatic existence (体位) without confusion or exchange; yet their dynamic operations (力用) are utterly interpenetrating—distinct yet indivisible” (Lai 2011, p. 191). The Huayan principles of “One is All” (一即一切) and “All is One” (一切即一) precisely elucidate the dynamic relationship of “differentiated yet interpenetrating perichoresis” among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

At the same time, drawing on the Mahayana Buddhist concept of “upāya” (方便法门), this work explores the issue of inclusivity in Christianity in the context of doctrinal differences. In Buddhism, doctrinal classification (判教) refers to a theoretical system through which various schools systematically categorize, synthesize, evaluate, and contextualize all teachings of the Buddha. The aim was to dispel apparent contradictions among different doctrines, thus establish the legitimacy and superiority of their respective denominations (Lü 1979, p. 331). According to Mahayana Buddhism, all teachings are essentially expedient means, and different sects are expedient methods created for different followers. Similar ideas can be found in Christianity, such as Origen’s allegorical interpretation of Scripture, and the idea in the Epistle to the Hebrews that “believers vary in their ability to receive instruction, and that certain profound truths are difficult for the immature to understand, and these are also difficult to explain in words” (Hebrews 5:11–14). Through a comparative study of the two, the revelation for Christianity is that “Christians of different denominations should not view doctrinal differences as something that must be eliminated but rather should positively appreciate the diversity of doctrines among different denominations, understanding that the unity of the church does not negate diversity” (Lai 2011, p. 97). Since each doctrine has its own scope and target audience, Mahayana theology should look for possibilities between different doctrines. For Buddhism, it can also draw on the “scripture context” approach of bible criticism (Lai 2011, p. 67)

In terms of human nature and the doctrine of sin, Lai Pin-chiu analyzes Barth’s ideas on the inherent goodness of human nature and the sinful nature of the human body using the doctrinal classifications of the Huayan and Tiantai schools. “Barth’s discussion of human nature and sin is examined from the perspective of the resurrected Christianity, which corresponds to the Huayan School’s approach of preaching from the perspective of those who have already attained Buddhahood” (Lai 2011, p. 220). From the perspective of what God has already accomplished in Christ, the resurrected Christ has complete humanity and a body, but no sin. But why then is it said that Jesus Christ had a sinful body? This is in fact similar to the Tiantai sect’s convenient explanation from the perspective of practitioners, that is, from the perspective of practitioners who are still cultivating and have not yet attained enlightenment. This interpretation places original sin and human nature in a more dynamic and harmonious relationship. The author even argues that “since Barth’s Christology possesses both the characteristics of the ‘Perfect Teaching’ (圆教) advocated, respectively, by Tiantai and Huayan, it can be said to be the Perfect Teaching in a more profound sense” (Lai 2011, p. 221).

Eschatologically, through comparative study with Buddhist salvation theory, the author finds that Christian notions of salvation are extremely rich and share commonalities with the practice of Buddhist compassion. “For the Triune God is the God of salvation from the beginning to the end, continually rescuing with compassion and wisdom. His salvation encompasses not only the entire creation but also the various levels of life” (Lai 2011, p. 277). In the Eastern Orthodox tradition, this idea finds an even deeper expression. In Western theological circles, process theology and Buddhism have had creative exchanges on the issues of ecological crisis and broader salvation. These views may not be shared by everyone, but at least it is part of the Christian tradition and has critical and constructive significance for a narrow view of salvation, such as anthropocentrism (Lai 2011, p. 277).

The above studies not only demonstrate the unique interpretive power of traditional Chinese cultural resources to solve Christian theological issues but also highlight the creative value of interreligious dialogue to deepen understanding of faith. However, comparative theology itself confronts limitations: the absence of a meta-theoretical framework to subsume differences often reduces dialogue to fragmented practices. So, in the work Mahayana Christian Theology, “the author does not intend to construct a ‘systematic’ Mahayana Christian theology; the research conducted in each chapter is merely ‘experimental’” (Su 2011, p. 232). Therefore, “there is no unified Christian ideology/principle/theology capable of integrating the content of each chapter. For example, in Chapter 6, when discussing the concept of sin and anthropology, Barth’s views are used as a blueprint; in Chapter 7, when discussing the Kingdom of God, Tillich’s perspective is taken as the starting point” (Su 2011, p. 233). The limitations inherent in Lai Pan-chiu’s approach essentially reflect the inevitable challenges of comparative theology in cross-cultural dialogue. The importance of his work, however, lies in his attempt to go beyond the traditional framework and forge a new path for Sino-Christian theology.

5.2. Contemporary Chinese Scholars’ Comparative Studies of Buddhism and Christianity

In contemporary times, comparative studies and dialogues between Chinese Buddhism and Christianity have mostly been focused on academic research. Most use methods of comparative theology or comparative religion and follow the principles of “seeking common ground while reserving differences” and “harmony without uniformity” in their dialogues. They try to dig into the religious resources that Buddhism and Christianity have in common to focus on academic questions and real-world issues.

However, the distribution patterns vary across different regions: Scholars in the Taiwan region of China, focus on operational pathways for Buddhism–Christianity dialogue, for instance, community service collaboration between temples and churches (such as environmental protection initiatives, post-disaster psychological reconstruction), the cross-religious spiritual practices of believers (such as Christians participating in meditation activities), and other specific cases to explore the social embeddedness of faith coordination. Hong Kong scholars employ the Tao Fong Shan Christian Centre as its primary research hub, conducting focused investigations into historical trajectories and case studies of Buddhist–Christian encounters. The main journals that publish results of Buddhist–Christian comparative studies are Logos & Pneuma: Chinese Journal of Theology (道风：基督教文化评论) and Ching Feng (景风). In the early stage, the academic community in China mainland had relatively limited research results, but in recent years, the number of achievements has gradually increased, with in-depth comparative studies conducted at such levels as ontology, epistemology, doctrinal comparison, and spiritual practice experience. However, current research is dominated by single articles, with systematic works being rather scarce, and innovative research on dialogue theories as well as empirical studies still weak, limits the adaptability of the theory to local religious practices (Shang 2018, p. 327).

Overall, research in this field presents three features and challenges: firstly, it has shifted from superficial form comparisons to creative mutual interpretation of doctrinal cores, but with a prominent fragmentation tendency and a lack of interdisciplinary integration and systematic theoretical framework; secondly, the emphasis remains on traditional philosophical categories that do not adequately address contemporary problems such as the ecological crisis, the ethics of artificial intelligence, and social justice; thirdly, there is a significant fracture between theoretical construction and practical verification—current research mostly remains at the level of abstract theoretical deduction, yet neglects to embed religious dialogue theories into specific social contexts, failing to form a closed-loop mechanism of “local experience collection—theoretical model abstraction-practical field testing-cognitive paradigm revision” (Shang 2018, p. 328). This imbalance between “Theory comes first” and “practice lags behind” results in research outcomes being unable to effectively deal with the complex needs of local religious practices and also limits the practical transformative capacity of the theory of interreligious dialogue. Future research may break through the limitations of traditional philosophical topics, target contemporary dilemmas, such as climate justice and technological ethics, promote Buddhist–Christian wisdom from abstract dialogue toward collaborative construction of interreligious practice schemes, and ultimately form a research paradigm with both theoretical penetrability and practical intervention power, effectively addressing multiple challenges in the civilizational transition period.

6. Summary

The history of dialogue between Christianity and Buddhism in China reveals the dynamic evolution and indigenization of religious dialogue paradigms. It not only demonstrates the impact of different attitudes on self-development in encounters with others and the complex state of Western religious dialogue theory in specific practices, but also provides valuable insights into contemporary Buddhist–Christian dialogue from an Eastern perspective.

Firstly, in the process of encountering “the Other”, different attitudes toward dialogue and theories of dialogue can have varying degrees of influence on the development of the self. An exclusionary attitude toward others is likely to lead to conflict and hinder one’s own development whereas a tolerant attitude often fosters self-renewal. During the Republic of China era, both religions promoted their own revival or indigenization under an attitude of tolerance, but this also exposed the limitations of the cognitive framework of “instrumentalizing others”. Embracing “the Other” through open-minded pluralism can effectively catalyze creative self-development. Explorations, such as Zhang Chunyi’s “Buddhicized Christianity”, Xu Dishan’s “aestheticized religious pluralism”, and Lai Pin-chiu’s “Mahayana Christian Theology”, exemplify this approach, collectively offering contemporary religious dialogue distinctively Eastern paradigms.

Secondly, examining the entire history of dialogue reveals that the tension between the non-substantiality of śūnyatā and the personal substantiality of God is the core challenge of Buddhist–Christian dialogue. Influenced by their historical context and theoretical objectives, scholars, such as Xu Songshi, Zhang Chunyi, and Lai Pin-chiu, developed three typical approaches: “indigenization interpretation”, “Buddhicized Christianity”, and “comparative theology”. Xu Songshi acknowledged that śūnyatā reveals the lack of inherent nature of phenomena, but insisted that God, as the ultimate reality, possesses personal nature and is the source of “true emptiness and wondrous being” (真空妙有). This represents a limited acceptance of Buddhist śūnyatā from a Christian-centric standpoint. In contrast, Zhang Chunyi rejected the substantial reality of a personal God, positing instead that God is “thusness manifesting according to conditions” (真如随缘示现), while Christ constitutes an “incarnation of bodhisattvic compassion” (菩萨应化)—ultimately, provisional manifestations of śūnyatā itself. His position stems from a Buddhist-centric stance, maintaining that Christianity requires Buddhicized reform to realize ultimate truth.

Lai Pin-chiu transcends the presuppositions of “Christian superiority” or “Buddhist relativism,” arguing that Christian essentialism arises from a static understanding of “God’s mode of existence,” while “pratītyasamutpāda-śūnyatā” (緣起性空 dependent origination and emptiness) suggests that “true existence is a dynamic network of relationships.” Therefore, God’s “uniqueness” should be understood as “the uniqueness of love manifested in relationships,” rather than the exclusion of other faiths, thereby forming a dynamic personalism. These explorations offer the following insights for contemporary dialogue between Buddhism and Christianity: the tension between śūnyatā and personal substantiality needs to be alleviated through concrete contextualized practices, such as ethical integration, or systematic methodological frameworks.

Thirdly, from the specific content of the comparison between Buddhism and Christianity, the theory of diversity fractals emerges as a neutral analytical tool applicable across various stages of interreligious dialogue. In terms of ethical structure, Xu Dishan’s practice demonstrated the self-similarity between Buddhism’s “compassion and wisdom” and Christianity’s “love and truth”. In the realm of redemption theory, Lai Pin-chiu demonstrated the common idea of “upāya” (方便 skillful means) in Christianity and Buddhism, as well as the fractal structure of transcendence and engagement in the world constructed by “non-abiding nirvāṇa” (不住涅槃) and “incarnation”. Li Yuansong’s experiential account further revealed that the similarity between Christian mysticism’s “divine conception” and Chan Buddhism’s “sudden enlightenment” (顿悟) in terms of how ultimate reality manifests in individual consciousness. Through the fractal diversity of religions, we not only focus on similarity analysis, but also emphasize the recursive patterns of similarity between religions and within religions through mutual learning, thus contributing to construct a dialogue system for the coexistence of differences between religions with a neutral attitude.

Fourthly, although the above dialogue theories each have their own advantages, dialogue practice also explains their limitations. Zhang Chunyi ultimately falls into the trap of inclusivism, revealing that if one merely uses “śūnyatā” for one-way deconstruction, excessive relativization may occur, undermining the uniqueness of the Christian doctrine. Therefore, it is necessary to replace unidirectional deconstruction with bidirectional mutual construction, eliminating the presupposition of reification while preserving the irreducible nature of differences. Xu Dishan’s ideas demonstrate the advantages of fractal theory and Knitter’s theory; however, his tendency to downplay differences may obscure the distinct boundaries of religious identity in practice. Lai Pin-chiu’s approach, though insightful, reveals the challenges faced by comparative theology due to its non-systematic nature.

Building upon the strengths of the aforementioned dialogue theories and the limitations of a single dialogue theory, this paper attempts to propose a methodological concept of “Śūnyatā-Fractal” (空性分形). This concept aims to organically combine the deconstructive advantages of śūnyatā wisdom, the advantages of fractal theory in the systematic construction of “self-similarity structures”, and the ethical practice’s concern for reality, to form a dynamic chain of “deconstruction-construction-practice”, in order to open an Eastern path that combines philosophical criticality, systemic generativity, and practical orientation. At the level of deconstruction, the deconstructive function of śūnyatā dismantles the barriers to dialogue created by essentialist views of truth, thereby opening for genuine dialogue. Within this open space, the principles of “self-similarity” and “recursive generation” of fractal theory are used to construct a dialogue model that accommodates coexisting differences. In this context, the recursive nature of similarity suggests that dialogue itself is a dynamic, multilayered generative process that can continuously absorb new elements and adapt itself, thereby effectively avoiding the risk of nihilism that results from one-sided deconstruction, and the fragmentation often resulting from conventional comparative studies. Ultimately, the focus of the dialogue should shift toward concrete ethical practices, such as responses to ecological crises, social justice, and bioethical debates. By grounding dialogue in specific, context-sensitive practices, we can mitigate the abstract tendencies of śūnyatā-based deconstruction and prevent fractal construction from becoming overly formalized or instrumentalized.

The “Śūnyatā-Fractal” model is currently only a conceptional framework whose specific practical implementation remains to be further explored and constructed. Nevertheless, existing research has already provided preliminary insights. For instance, You Bin introduced a “four-part” dialogue structure grounded in fractal theory, proposing that dialogue occur between Christian dogmatics, spirituality, ethics, liturgy, and traditional Chinese culture, suggesting an underlying fractal relationship among these elements (You 2022). These methods are consistent with the idea he mentioned earlier, he advocates for a “grand theology” consciousness: “Within the contemporary Chinese socio-cultural context, Chinese theology should embody a comprehensive and integrative character, engaging with China’s ancient, multilayered, multifaceted, and systematically rich cultural heritage. If we provisionally term this approach, it would be characterized as a ’grand theology’—transcending denominational, academic, or purely intellectual theological systems” (You 2015, p. 30). Because “in general, the characteristics of contemporary theology, such as intellectualization, fragmentation, and detachment from practical application and daily life, are opposed by many judicious theologians in the West. These are also characteristics that should be avoided in the process of theological development through dialogue with Chinese culture” (You 2015, p. 34). However, to establish such a theological system, fractal theory of similarity can only serve as an analytical tool for two-way dialogue. Its exclusive use risks overlooking fundamental doctrinal differences. Therefore, the exclusivist tendencies inherent in substantialist thinking require the analytical intervention of Śūnyatā-wisdom into core doctrines. As exemplified in Lai Pan-chiu’s Mahāyāna Christian theology, this approach employs Buddhist concepts, such as pratītyasamutpāda-śūnyatā, doctrinal classification (判教), and upāya (方便), to excavate novel theological insights within Christianity. As part of the construction of a grand theology, ethical comparisons based on fractal structures can be applied to real-world contexts for empirical validation. Practical applications include initiatives in poverty alleviation, charitable activities, and cultural development.

In summary, the practical journey of Buddhist–Christian dialogue in China has demonstrated a paradigm shift from exclusivism to mutual learning based on pluralism and has also presented an Eastern model for global religious dialogue. It shows that the dynamic process of seeking balance amid the dialectical tension between essentialism and relativism, and between seeking common ground and respecting differences, constitutes the main driving force behind dialogue. Moreover, true dialogue does not aim to erase differences but rather to transform them into creative resources for addressing shared global challenges.