對漢學家以及對中國文化史有興趣的人而言，探索中國如何與外國世界打交道或互動，一直都是關注的焦點。本文認為調查研究的參數由兩個象徵所建構：長城和絲路。因此，問題的答案就是：不管中國和什麼樣的異文化打交道，都要建牆及鋪路。無論其與外來者的互動為何，皆被嚴厲監控在交叉的路與牆之間匯合的地方。在此視野下的許多文章裡，本文將聚焦於鐘鳴旦的批判與創發。鐘氏不只是一位對重建中西互動史有興趣的歷史學家，他所提出的批判觀點也使我們得以評估目前對這些互動詮釋的各種走向。基於對每個詮釋走向效用與成就的承認，他特別指出這些走向在方法論上的局限，也提出一個新的架構，希望藉此讓詮釋者能避免類似的錯誤發生。這也就是他所謂的「互動與合作架構」。本研究受鐘鳴旦所描述的互動與合作架構以及當代「文化基督徒」現象之間的密切關聯所吸引。「文化基督徒」現象是否可以作為鐘氏建構本土化過程
理論的具體理解？「文化基督徒」是否應被視為當代華人教會與基督宗教的柱石？本文即是對上述諸類似問題所作的省思。

Understanding how China dealt or interacted with the foreign world had been a perennial question for sinologists. This essay employs the Great Wall and the Silk Road, two symbols deriving from the cultural and historical vestiges of China, as yardsticks for this investigation.It further argues that in response to the alterity of the outside world,
China built the wall for its protection and the road for its interactions.
Every subsequent interaction with foreignness has consisted in strictly
monitoring the meeting point where the Silk Road and the Great Wall intersect. The argument uses Nicholas Standaert’s theory on the interpretation of cultural encounters. The theory in question has been
employed after an assessmemt of existing trends of interpretations of
those interactions for which he suggested “interactive and cooperative
framework” to be most appropriate. To counter check Standaert’s claims,
we looked at the affinities between “the pillars of the Chinese Church”
as defined in Standaert’s interactive and cooperative framework and the
modern phenomenon of “cultural Christians”—a term referring to a
group of Chinese intellectuals and scholars interested in Christianity as
a cultural phenomenon. We further ponder on whether the latter could
represent a concrete realization of the inculturation process Standaert
has theorized. Should “cultural Christians” be considered to be modern
“pillars” of the Chinese Church or Christianity? The reflections in this
paper are on these and other similar questions.