在基督宗教思想史上位格概念被採用來指稱主體性的源頭，主要用來討論上帝，而上帝可以做為人的理想典型，因為基督宗教相信人有上帝形象，因此討論位格就相當於討論人。 在西方神學傳統裡，當論及三一上帝時，主張「三位格」從一個源頭分化出來，結果突顯出各位格的獨特性。在東方神學傳統裡，當論及三一上帝時，焦點在於「三位格」之間的關係，以致強調位格之間的關係性。 大體而言，關於獨特性與關係性有兩種思考模式。其一，在位格的獨特性基礎上界定其關係性，就好比唯有兩個明確的點之間才能拉出一條線來。其二，在位格的關係性基礎上界定其獨特性，就好比一個點的位置是建立在那些從此點引伸出來的線上。 點與線的比喻呈現出個體與群體的相互依存性。當人的獨特性被高舉而犧牲關係性時，結果就是現代西方社會所常見的現象；而當人的關係性被過於強調以致犧牲獨特性時，這在傳統東方社會裡則相當常見。在東方與西方的繼續對話當中，如何不讓極端個體主義摧毀關係性但亦非擺向集體主義與如何抗拒個體的獨特性被邊緣化而不至於失去團體意識，實在是重要議題。 當應用於跨文化對話的「自我」與「他者」時，第一種思考方式優先處理自我的獨特性，而根據其獨特性導引出與他者的關係。那些把自己視為世界中心的人們傾向採用這種思考方式，不論是頑固的中國傳統主義者或者帶有侵略性的西方帝國主義者皆然。另一方面，第二種思考方式把焦點集中在他者與自我的關係，而從中尋找自我的獨特性，諸如那些關切「西方眼中的中國」或「中國眼中的西方」者傾向採用這種思考方式。當今的問題是，在面對全球化的跨文化趨勢時，如何找出第一種思考方式與第二種思考配合運用的最佳組合。

In the history of Christian thought, the concept of ”person” has been adopted to denote the origin of subjectivity. For most discussions, the concept of person refers to God (e.g., the three persons of the Trinity), which could be dealt with as an ideal type of human being as the image of God. According to the Western theological tradition, when discussing the ”Trinity,” the focus is on oneness. Then the three persons are differentiated from oneness, so that the uniqueness of each person is emphasized. But according to the Eastern theological tradition, while discussing ”Trinity,” the focus is on threeness. Then, after the relationship between the three persons has been the focus, the relationality of each person is underlined. There are two ways of thinking about both the uniqueness and the relationality of a person. First, the relationality of a person should be defined on the basis of its uniqueness. For example, it is possible to draw a line only if there have been two distinct points already. Second, the uniqueness of a person should be defined only on the basis of its relations. That is to say, the uniqueness of a point solely depends upon what kinds of lines can be derived from it. The image of point and line displays the interdependence of individual and community. That the uniqueness of a person has been overemphasized at the expense of relationality can be observed in modern Western society. And that the relationality of a person is overstressed at the expense of uniqueness can be seen in the traditional Eastern society. In the continuing dialogue between East and West, how to prevent from radical individualism but not to swing to collectivism, and how to be against the marginalization of personal uniqueness without losing a sense of community are important issues. While being applied to ”Self” and ”Others” in the Cross-cultural dialogue, one the one hand, the first way of thinking is to deal with the uniqueness of the ”Self” first, and then derive relations with others from which according to its uniqueness. Those who have regarded themselves as the center of the world tend to think in the first way, no matter they are rigid Chinese traditionalists or aggressive Western imperialists. On the other hand, the second way of thinking is inclined to focus upon the relations brought in by ”Others,” and then endeavor to find out the uniqueness of the self. Those who care about such as ”China in the eyes of the West” or ”the West in the eyes of China” tend to think in the second way. The dialogue itself must be a learning process of finding the best balance of both ways of thinking. The question for the time being is what will be the best composition of the first and the second way of thinking in a world of cross-culture as a global village.