Chapter Three
Confucianism and Christianity

Jen and Agape

Colin Hoad

“Do to others what you would have them do to you”

[Matthew 7:12]

“Do not to do others what you would not like yourself”

[Confucius, “The Analects” 15:23]

Schools of Thought

            Given the nature of religion and philosophy, one train of thought will invariably break out into many others. This has been the case with both Confucianism and Christianity. The split between the Orthodox and Catholic Church was followed up by the split with the Catholic Church to form the Protestant movement, which then splintered into many separate denominations. Ironically, still further denominations seeking ecumenicism have also been set up. Confucianism is no different; after the period of the Warring States, Confucianism was faced with the conflict of Buddhist and Taoist thought, and so Neo-Confucianism developed, and within this a myriad of different schools, among them the Rationalists of Chu Hsi and the Idealists of Wang Yang-ming. Thus, when we ask of the relevance that Confucius’s philosophy has for Christians, we do not want to divulge into the relevance of each individual strand of Confucianism to each individual denomination of the Christian faith! Such a task would take a lifetime. Furthermore, there are facets to Christianity and Confucianism alike that go beyond ethics, morality and spirituality. The organisational hierarchy of the church, the historical significance of Confucianism, politics, and various rites and ceremonies, whilst important in their own right, serve as obstacles to a study such as this. Therefore, in this section, we will examine the underlying concepts of jen in Confucianism and agape in Christianity to further our understanding of the relevance each has for the other, and how this impacts Christians with regard to the ethical philosophy of Confucius.

The Noble Man

            Confucius, in his interpretation of life, generated the personal ideal, namely the chun-tzu. This was largely a redefinition of an existing term in Chinese. It used to mean an aristocrat, someone who held favour with the Emperor and was of a distinct family lineage; however, Confucius saw the rôle of the Noble Man as one of intellectual and moral perfection. Such a person was above the law and order of petty men, and was a goal to which anyone, if they were strong enough of character, could aspire. In becoming a chun-tzu, the key lay in following Tao (The Way), and it was a continuing life-long struggle of Confucius to make this Tao prevail.

            Time is not a linear concept in the China of Confucianism. It is viewed by the seasons and the dynasties, subject to temporal rulers – “in Confucian East Asia, time belongs to the Emperors and Kings.”[i] Into this setting comes the school of Confucianism, where we see that in the Lun Yu, it is not a case of the ‘Sermon on the Mount’, but rather a scholarly, collegial, intimate discourse. Confucius was not a preacher in the Christian sense. He was a gentleman among gentlemen, questioning authority rather than directly challenging it, and he himself “becomes paradigmatic”[ii] of the chun-tzu. The things expected of him are reverence and respect, filial piety, generosity of heart, a liberal mind, consideration for others, trust, determination, courage and a sense of priority and sequence. However, above all, he is expected to cultivate jen in his heart, which is the perfection of te (virtue). It is this self-cultivation that provides us with a comparative study with agape. Dr. Yao warns that particular minutiae of jen and agape will blind us to their universal similarities, and this is why this study will seek to see the ‘big picture’.

Understanding Jen

            The history of the concept of jen goes beyond the beginning of Confucianism, since it existed as a principle before Confucius’s time. Yet, as with chun-tzu, Confucius was the first to attach pre-eminent importance to it. He placed it as the highest ideal, not only human excellence, but a transcendental principle. Many people are often puzzled by the statement in “The Analects” which claims that “the Master seldom spoke on profit, on the orderings of the Province, and on jen”[iii] – but this is not as enigmatic as first it appears. What this means is that Confucius rarely spoke of the concept himself, because it was one which was imbued with much more meaning than he dared speak of. Furthermore, its frequency of reference within the Lun Yu (which would seem to contradict the statement) is as a result of his disciples being eager to get down as much as they could about jen on the few occasions he spoke on it. After all, Confucius himself was not the author.

            In essence, Confucian teaching is the knowledge of jen and what it is that embodies jen. It is an underlying principle and substance, a primary motive for action and behaviour, and the essence of human nature and Heaven. Whilst it may be indefinable in the conventional sense, it is not unknowable. Confucius knows what it means, and is thus more concerned with what embodies jen rather than stating what it is.

            Confucianism also contains a key tenet known as shu (The Golden Rule), and some scholars like Robert Allinson have equated shu with jen. However, Confucius himself says that shu is but a part of jen rather than the two being synonymous. Shu maybe jen, but jen is not shu. Another Confucian concept is that of chung (sincerity and loyalty grounded in altruism). Again, however, chung is but a part of jen like shu. Jen encompasses both of them and more besides. Neo-Confucian thinker Chu Hsi provides a helpful explanation of this in saying that shu and chung are different emphases of jen rather than separate halves or elements in their own right. They are essential to jen, but they do not constitute the single thread of Confucianism itself.

            Jen, as is the case with agape, has gone through subsequent development since Confucius. Wing-tsit Chan charts jen’s process from kindness from above (Tian) to benevolence amongst mankind, to perfect virtue inside the individual, to love, to affection, which in combination becomes universal love, characterising Man’s mind, to become one body with the Universe and the generative or productive force of all things[iv].

            In summary, then, jen can be viewed as a single principle with three interlinked dimensions: human-cosmic unity, moral-metaphysical goodness and practical-universal love. Jen may be humanity, virtue and love – all three essentially one, distinguishable but not separable[v] (much like the idea of the Christian Trinity). Once one has become a person of jen, one has transcended the temporal realm, has become a fulfilled human being and is thus integrated with the cosmos. This is sagehood, a stage beyond that of chun-tzu, and can help with the transformation of Heaven and Earth – and thus the person possesses eternity. Jen unifies Confucian cosmology, metaphysics, philosophy, politics, education, ethics, aesthetics and religion.

            In conclusion, for the Confucian, jen is seen at three levels. The metaphysical plane sees jen as the principle of the universe, aiding the growth and evolution of all things, spiritual and material, and emphasizes not the giving and receiving, but the harmony and unity which jen is both the way to and source of. The psychological level makes jen the “stuff of human consciousness”[vi] in which the world shares, embodied universally, making everyone of equal value. At the ethical level, it is the root and source of the virtuous life, the external appearance of jen. It is both provider and activator for virtue, giving the ability for human morality. It must be preserved and cultivated by learning and practice in order to grow. Having reaches this summary of what jen is to the Confucian, before we even begin our comparison with agape, we can see how the two are inextricably related, putting Confucianism at a level that makes it relevant to Christians of today by the very nature of its similarity.

Understanding Agape

            The Christian concept of agape is not as complex, by definition, as that of jen. It is understood by the Christian fraternity to mean a love between God and Man, and a love between humankind for one another, the latter being a manifestation of the former. It is a self-giving love, whether it be from God to Man, from Man to God, or from Man to Man, and it is, as Jesus commanded, a love “with all [one’s] heart, mind, soul and strength.”[vii] Since God is wanting in nothing, His love is entirely self-giving. Man’s response to this love is to in turn love God – and one of the most important ways of loving God is to love all humankind.

            Perhaps the best definition of agape comes in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians: “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.”[viii] In one doctrine, agape combines a transcendental compassion from God to humans; a religious devotion from one human to another; and ethical care from one human to another – agape is all of these things.

            However, loving God, loving one’s neighbour and the Golden Rule are not Jesus’s invention – he draws on and develops earlier Old Testament tradition, surpassing righteousness with love. By combining God’s love and neighbour-love in one expression, namely to “love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength and to love your neighbour as yourself”[ix] Jesus gives the original Ten Commandments their true meaning in love. God’s love is individual and personal, less based upon ancestry and race, more about faith, compassion for suffering and the forgiveness of sin. Salvation comes through faith.

            Furthermore, agape can be seen as exceeding all other forms of love, since “anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.”[x] It is a ‘selfish’ love, requiring all other human concerns to be laid aside in its favour. Jesus’s commandment to love enemies shows how little human barriers mean to God – all are to be saved in Christ. As we shall see, it is elements of agape such as this that make it differ from Confucian jen. All forms of love stem from God, and in return, all love is a response to Him. In the Christian triad of faith, love and hope, “the greatest of these is love.”[xi]

Conceptual Comparison and Contrast

            When dealing with concepts such as jen and agape, one will face difficulties, since both are in some way or another problematical in defining. Whether it be 13 different definitions[xii] for jen in Confucian circles, or the inability within the Christian faith to settle one way or the other regarding agape as human love or divine love or both, the hardship prevails. However, for the purposes of comparison, this demonstrates a similarity – neither tradition, for reasons of their own, is prepared to state categorically (and in unison) what their fundamental theme’s nature or character is. The point about religion or ‘philosophies of life’ is that they are open to interpretation – and none more so than Christianity and Confucianism. In seeking relevance within Confucianism for the modern day Christian, the fact that jen has different explications can be seen as a boon rather than a hindrance.

            The primacy of the concept appears in both faiths. Jen must be in the heart if one wishes to be a true Confucian; self-cultivation is all about jen, and one must set out to reach the deepest ground of one’s nature. Agape precedes every good action, attitude or behaviour, it is the only way to eternity, and it is the sustainer of faith – being in the heart rather than just in behaviour. However, one must always bear in mind that, whilst the two concepts take the pride of place as primary themes, they are of a different origin. Agape is from a divine source, whereas jen is united to humanity; as such, enlightenment comes as a continual process in Confucianism, whereas in Christianity there is no ‘enlightenment’ due to the division between Man and God as a result of sin. Whilst jen can guide the Confucian to transcendence, agape cannot bridge the gap between Man and God – only God can do this because of Jesus’s atonement.

            Both are creative concepts, however. Agape is rooted in God’s creation and grace, and is part of the continual creation of human goodness and human relationships. Similarly, jen is based on the unity between humanity and the universe, and the same continual creation of goodness, virtue and relationship pervades the doctrine of jen as with agape. In the pattern of Confucian Learning, we see many similarities with agape’s way to God: investigating society and the world (understanding all mankind), extending knowledge of the physical and metaphysical (Christian philosophy), making one’s will sincere (purity of intention), rectifying one’s heart (letting the Spirit in), cultivating the character and personality (Christian ‘refinement’), regulating the family (honouring parents and loving them), governing rightly (justice and righteousness) and bringing peace to the world by example (Christian values).

            In terms of the special relationships between humankind, both jen and agape have denominational concepts to describe and incorporate them into themselves. Confucian ai is remarkably similar to Christian philia, the general love towards others; familial love is another part of both jen and agape, where the Confucians call it chin and the Christians storge. Whilst agape would presume God’s love to be superior to these other relationships, it does not reject them out of hand. Confucianism actively embraces them as parts of jen. The third form of love, hse in Chinese, eros in Greek, is the only sort that does not make its way into either concept.

            Sexual love is viewed slightly differently by the two traditions, but neither accepts them as wholly part of its religious theme. In Christianity, sexual love should be bound by marriage, or else it becomes a sin.[xiii] Marriage itself is a symbol of Jesus’s relationship with the Church[xiv] and in married love there is a reverence for Christ[xv] as witness by the marriage vows. For the Christian, there must be an order to sexual desire, and this strong force can be used to reinforce love for Christ – but there is a danger of its overshadowing agape. Confucians look down on fornication, and are more concerned with the moral value of sex than its biological one. Those Confucians influenced by Taoism will look on sex as the interaction of the cosmic forces of yin and yang, but even they will maintain that sex does not play an essential part in jen. The lack of a divine dimension to sex in Confucian thought means that it has even less of an importance to the Confucian Way. However, unlike Christianity, there are few laws or rules governing sexual propriety, and since Confucians place much emphasis on the enjoyment of life, they see sex as a pleasure to be enjoyed, but at the same time to be wary of – if for one moment it were thought that sex might dissuade one from the pursuit of jen, then it would be abandoned.

            The concepts of agape and jen are neither mutually exclusive nor wholly self-contained. Their realisation or actualisation draws on the fact that they are not passive processes, and are continually transforming both people and their environments. In love, agape can create a new people in a transformed world, just as in self-cultivation, jen can create harmony between human beings and the universe. From these few initial comparisons and contrasts, we can see that there is indeed a great deal of common ground between agape and jen. As we continue this study, we shall see how this ground broadens, and with it the horizons that Christians can have with regard to Confucianism’s relevance to them.

Jen and Agape as a Way of Life

            In Ancient China, the equivalent of a class system could be summed up by two distinctions: the JEN[xvi] and the min, and the good and the base. JEN at this time denoted the aristocrats (those who held favour with the Emperor) and min referred to the masses. For Confucius, the idea that by being JEN one could ipso facto be good was abhorrent – he felt that to be truly good was an ethical achievement, and not something which could be obtained by title or by birth. Thus, his formulation of jen became a metaphysical concept, showing that to be truly ‘noble’ in the sense of virtue rather than class, one had to fulfil jen. It is as a result of this that the Confucian way of life has developed.

            Living such a life means that one falls into the Confucian category of chun-tzu, a Noble Man or Woman (where ‘noble’ does not hold the connotation of aristocracy). Tu Weiming has pointed out that “it is not too difficult to become a chun-tzu but hardly anyone is qualified to be called a jen-JEN [a person who embodies jen]”[xvii] because chun-tzu is often equated with beginning the Confucian Tao to transcendence. By this assertion, Tu does not mean that a chun-tzu is lacking in jen, since Confucius states that “a chun-tzu never disregards jen, even for the space of a single meal”[xviii]; what he means is that chun-tzu is an attainable state, but at the same time a progressive one. A chun-tzu certainly does not disregard jen, since this is his/her only way towards becoming a jen-JEN – but the actual attainment of jen-JEN is an incredibly difficult one, and this is why the chun-tzu must spend his or her whole life striving for it. In this sense, jen and a chun-tzu are indeed inseparable.

             Confucianism, like Christianity, is very accessible to all people. Jen is within everyone’s reach, despite not being an automatic process. For some, it is a “person-making process”[xix] since it is both the result and the transforming force in people’s lives. The concept of ‘Sage’ is raised into a spiritual realm, and is a model existence, as explained by Confucius: “It is not mine to see a sage. Could I behold a chun-tzu, I would be content.”[xx] The process of self-cultivation is therefore an endless one, by contrast to Chan Buddhism and Chinese Taoism who both contain elements of sudden enlightenment. A person devoted to learning (in terms of moral and spiritual growth) becomes a chun-tzu who has grasped Tao, and he or she in turn becomes a sage if jen is adhered to for the rest of their life. The continual practice of jen is what makes for the Confucian life.

            For the Confucian, needs and desires need not be subjugated, provided they are in accordance with jen and are pursued righteously. Only by active engagement with the world and its people can jen be truly cultivated (unlike Taoism’s belief that the world is corrupt and one should thus cut oneself off from it), and in addition to this, one must find one’s own way towards attaining jen. A closer read of the Lun Yu demonstrates that Confucius would often define a concept, sometimes even jen, in order to fit the person he was addressing. A Confucian is never ashamed to admit to his or her mistakes, and seeks their immediate correction. Jen in the Confucian life is not simply a matter of eschewing vices – it is a pursuance of virtues as well.

            Now, if we take a step back from this discussion of different cultures and philosophies and simply look at the Confucian life without adherence to its origin or purpose – we can see a life that does not differ so drastically from that of a Christian. The Confucian, by pursuing jen and seeking harmony with all things is certainly not transgressing anything that Christians hold in their way of life to be wrong. The chun-tzu is a continual process of self-cultivation and the bringing of Confucian virtues on others – and the fact that he or she does this because of Confucianism rather than Christianity should not, in terms of lifestyle, be the problem. Then, when we take into consideration the fact that both Confucius and Mencius advocated teaching others what has been learnt for the aid of self-cultivation in others, and living a life to influence others by example, we see a distinct comparison with Jesus’s word concerning evangelism. Taking the message of God to others is all part of following Christ. There is much for the Christian to learn from the Confucian Way of Life, regardless of the religious implications on this occasion.

Christian Law and Confucian li

            Of the Four Cardinal Virtues (jen, yi, li and ch’i[xxi]) jen is the only one that “spoken of separately is one of several, but spoken of collectively…embraces all four”[xxii] since it is parent and master of all virtues, and as a virtue “enters the realm of religion.”[xxiii] Yet, for it to do this, there is a need for external demonstration of this ‘virtue of virtues’. This is where the Confucian virtue of li comes into play. It is most commonly translated as ‘propriety’, covering everything from the principles of ancestral worship to the governing of conduct and the regard of other people. Similarly, Christianity has for itself a number of laws governing conduct for Christians, with examples ranging from the original Ten Commandments right down to acts of sexual immorality and, in the case of Jews to whom the Old Testament originally belonged, the foodstuffs that are permissible for eating. In both traditions, there has been a concern about the conformity between fundamental principles (jen and agape) and their externalisation. Confucian li and Christian Law have been the proffered answers, and here we will find a number of similarities.

            The faith of Judaism at the time of Jesus’s birth had reached an incredible 613 Commandments, 365 of them negative, the remainder positive, and these had been compiled on top of the original Ten by Pharisees who, for the most part, did not practice what they preached. Coupled to this was the fact that the common people could not remember all of them, despite what was expected of them. Love, it seemed, had become more of a burden than a glory. Jesus, in contracting all of these commandments into the hitherto cited ‘love God, love your neighbour’ maxim, can be seen as a similar sort of attempt at simplification as Confucius himself made to the tradition of ju chia. What Jesus and Confucius sought to do was transform law to love, li to jen, in order for virtues to spring forth from natural goodness, be they the 5 Confucian / 4 Cardinal Virtues or the fruit of the Spirit. Incidentally, when we compare the 5 Confucian Virtues with the fruit of the Spirit, we see a tremendous similarity. Paul calls “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control”[xxiv] the fruit of the Spirit, and at the same time, Confucius calls “courtesy, liberality, faithfulness, sincerity and kindness”[xxv] the Five Confucian Virtues. The point that both Jesus and Confucius needed to make clear to their followers was that without ‘inward feeling’ in the form of agape or jen, outward characteristics meant nothing. Isaiah prophesied that men would “honour me [God] with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.”[xxvi] In the words of Ninian Smart, “the very complexity of the Law meant that there were many, many externals in the Jewish religion, but like ancient li they were useless without the sincerity of inwardness.”[xxvii] Later State manifestations of Confucianism disregarded Confucius and Mencius, by placing authoritarian versions of li as a priority rather than concentrating on the fundamentals of jen – but then, for a government, strict law and rule has always been easier to embrace than the social and moral nourishment of its people.

            From this, we can easily see that Christians and Confucians alike have much to share with their principles of religious and philosophic law. In both cases we see how the placing of virtue and inwardness outweighs outward rules, but at the same time is the way in which these rules are made. The ultimate must embrace a new world and a new humanity if it is to fully bring to life the teachings of its masters.

Love: Universal or Neighbourly?

            Perhaps the most significant aspect of jen and agape in their comparisons is the focus on altruistic love. In Confucianism, “ethical love can be essentially identified with transcendental love”[xxviii], whilst for Christians, divine love is the source of ethical love – and without neighbour-love, one cannot share in the divine. The general pattern is that whereas Confucians begin with ethical love, which will in turn lead to transcendence, Christians begin with transcendental love, and this will in turn lead to ethics. Benevolence to the Confucian is an extension of virtue, whilst for the Christian it is a further response to God’s love. The question, when searching for relevance in Confucian doctrine for the Christian, is what can be learnt from a love that is universal rather than one that is neighbourly.

            To begin, it must be clarified that self-cultivation, whilst perhaps giving the impression of an self-centred idea as a result of its name, is neither extreme egoism as invented by Yang Chu, nor is it a complete retreat from the world as propounded by Taoist master Chuang Tzu. Jen can and indeed must be practised by helping others – a Confucian cannot hope to become a chun-tzu (let alone a sage) if he or she does not interact benevolently and beneficently with others. It is Confucius’s redefining jen as universal love that marks him out as such a prominent ethicist. Jen’s universal application and extension enables it to theoretically triumph the entire world.

            Though jen is indeed taken to be universal by the majority of scholars, a debate has raged across the field of Confucian Studies in recent years. Several renowned Confucian scholars, including Wing-tsit Chan, have maintained that rather than being universal, jen is preferential and partial, making the part of love in defining jen a weakness rather than a strength. This misunderstanding, as many see it, has arisen from an early line in “The Analects”, which reads “a person of jen dedicates himself to the root. When the root is firmly established, the Way will grow. Filial piety and brotherly respect are the root of jen.”[xxix] At first glance, it seems that jen, far from being universal, is an expression of familial love and nothing more. However, the truth of the matter is that the word ‘root’ in this extract is the Chinese word ‘ben’, or ‘starting point, beginning’. Therefore, to practice jen, one must start with the family and then extend this love. What Confucianism maintains is that if one cannot love his or her family, then he or she is not fit to love the world. Jen must be seen as a sequence, beginning with familial altruism and then flourishing into love for others and integration with the world. Ai is a general, unrefined love or fondness, whilst jen is a universal, ethical love. As it says in the I Ching (Book of Changes), “[the sage] rests in his own position and cherishes generous benevolence [jen]; and hence he can love,”[xxx] the essence of which is that jen is the root and ai the branches.

            In a sense, one might almost assert that jen is human nature, whilst ai is human emotion; jen is equal to love, but love is not equal to love – love is a part of jen, but not the entirety. Love is an expression of jen, and where love is partial, jen is universal. There are, of course, different emphases of love as we have seen with chin and hse, but jen encompasses a love for the family, a love for all mankind and a love for all things in that sequential order. Dr. Yao cites the cult of Moism as one of the main reasons as to why Confucian jen is viewed as partial. Mo Tzu expounded a central teaching of ch’ian hsiang ai, namely “if you want to be loved, love others; if you don’t want to be harmed, don’t harm others.” This philosophy received a scathing attack by Mencius, because it violated what jen stood for. What Mo Tzu was describing was primitive self-referential altruism – namely, that one should be kind for the benefit of oneself and not for the benefit of others. This was hateful to Confucians, because familial love was seen as the microcosm of jen, and such love was by no means about benefit. A father does not love his son in expectation of favours from him, nor vice versa. The love witnessed in a family is extended to the whole world in Confucianism, so that a microcosm becomes a macrocosm, and Mosim was not at all like this. However, because Confucians opposed Moist thought, commonly held to be universal love, they were perceived as being against universal love as a concept – when in fact they were the ones who truly understood what universal love was.

            The key to this universality in jen comes two-fold. Firstly, the personal extension through self-cultivation makes jen the overriding feature in a person’s make up, and thus influences what they do and how they act. This leads on to how secondly, jen works as an example to others by those who practice it. Confucius believed that we as human beings are born with a ‘natural’ love. Rather than demand an abandonment of this love, Confucius states that we should build upon it and create the ethical love that in turn becomes one’s nature. Rather than a social norm, love for others is all about transcendence, as we shall see later.

            Thus, as a Confucian brings jen into the human heart by self-cultivation, the Christian gains agape in his or her heart by God’s grace. Jen, once manifested within the human heart, by fulfilment will cause love for others which develops into transcendence; agape causes a love for God in the human heart, and this is why Christians in turn love others, and by faith, are granted salvation and subsequent transcendence. Here we see both the greatest divide and at the same time one of the greatest links between the two traditions. For a Christian, Confucianism is like a science, an aid to individual satiation, leading to personal goodness, but only an individualist ethic. For a Confucian, agape is goodness without a goal, conditional too much upon the Transcendent. Both these views are confused ones, and they have resulted from a divergence over the idea of love itself. The details may well prove to be divergent, but the concepts themselves still stand.

Friendship, Enmity and Fear

            The concept of love is a powerful and perennial one, but with it come other connotations whose presence in both traditions stand as a testament to their importance and to their significance by comparison. Love in one of its forms is friendship. The opposite to love is enmity or hatred, and the lack of love seemingly produces fear. As we shall see, it is not quite so black-and-white as this, but to appreciate both traditions it is necessary to understand these concepts also.

            Both traditions have held high importance with friendship. This is largely a result of Grecian influence, since in the Ancient World, friendship was one of the most important forms love could take. In the modern world, this has changed somewhat, as C. S. Lewis states, “to the ancients, friendship seemed the happiest and most fully human of all loves; the crown of life and the school of virtue. The modern world, in comparison, ignores it.”[xxxi] For Christians, friendship provides an ideal opportunity for the sharing of faith in Jesus Christ, but its importance has lamentably continued to decline. The opening to “The Analects” expresses Confucius’s joy at “men of kindred spirit coming from afar”[xxxii] but for later Confucians, with the decline of friendship, it has become a means to an end, namely that it aids one’s own self-cultivation by taking on good points and avoiding bad points in a friend. Whilst Confucius himself prized friendship he, like Jesus, warned against  the wrong sort of company, namely those who might dissuade one from jen (or in Jesus’s case, agape). In terms of relevance, we can see that friends provide a melting pot for belief and discussion in both traditions, and that socialising with the right sort of person can aid development, be it in faith or self-cultivation.

            With the issue of hatred, there is a very real lesson for Christians to learn from Confucianism. Whereas the Christian faith teaches us to eschew hatred and love our enemies, without giving a focus for our own feelings, Confucianism gives a rôle for hatred. “Tse-kung said ‘Has the chun-tzu his hatreds also?’ The Master said ‘He has his hatreds.”[xxxiii] Negative as it is, everyone is well aware of how difficult it is to completely shut off an emotion. Confucius did not say that hatred had no place, but rather that one should hate what is un-jen rather than who. Our hate should be channelled towards the shortcomings of people instead of the people themselves. Thus, when a person sins, a Christian could well find it easier to hate the sin rather than the person. Forgiveness is all well and good, but the mother whose daughter has been raped is unlikely to feel forgiving – Confucianism says we should vent out such feelings on the act of wrongdoing itself instead of the person. “A chun-tzu does not harbour the feeling of hate or desire to hurt”[xxxiv] because he learns how to channel this negativity out of his system instead of allow it to brew up inside of him.

            In the Christian religion, fear is inextricably linked to God. It is either a fear of losing God or of God Himself. “Perfect love drives out fear”[xxxv] but at the same time, Christians remain in awe of God and His power. The more one fears, the more one is likely to obey. Confucians divide fear into two, namely ju and wei. The former is a lack of courage, and has no place in the life of a chun-tzu; the latter is a fear of respect, and this has everything to do with a chun-tzu: “the ­chun-tzu holds three things in awe. The Tian Ming (Mandate of Heaven), the great men, and the precepts of the sages.”[xxxvi] This is much the same as the Christian who holds the Will of God, the saints and the words of Jesus in awe. The fear in Christianity that equate to ju, such as the medieval images of Hell, serve no purpose to Confucianism – they are but an “incidental accompaniment of a humanistic ideal”[xxxvii].

Jen and Agape: Soulmates or Checkmate?

                From these observations, we can elucidate a number of patterns. Jen is liken to agape in the sense that both are the concurrent themes of each others’ traditions. There is nothing in Confucianism that is not touched by jen, and similarly nothing in Christianity not touched by God’s love. As two notably benevolent doctrines, it would seem reasonable to assert that there would be a number of similarities; we would not be proved wrong. They both teach us to be kind to our fellow man, with jen going even further to elicit a dedication to the well being of all things, not just human beings. What we find is that jen can indeed teach things to Christians. The concept of agape is wholly related to God. Jen, being a humanistic concept does not have this to take into account. If a humanistic tradition such as Confucianism can posit a love, not only for all mankind, but for all things also, there must be something beyond a belief in the Transcendent that makes such a process in some way natural. The model of the family as a starting point to then be extended can indeed prove a useful idea for the Christian, as can the avoidance of hatred that Confucians resort to. It would, of course, be wrong to use agape and jen synonymously. One is divine, the other human, but it must be admitted that there are more than a few similarities to make the concepts bedfellows rather than antitheses. What differentiates agape and jen most is, perhaps, their availability: “if you say that you cannot stride over the North Sea carrying Mount Tai under your arm, you are true to your words because you indeed have no ability to do so. However, if you say that you are unable to do a little service like breaking off a branch of a tree for an elder, you merely do not want to rather than have no ability to do so.”[xxxviii] If we truly will it in our hearts, we have the ability to pursue jen; but if we seek agape, then it is the Will of God alone and His divine grace that will decide whether or not we attain to it. In Confucianism, humans can gain that which exists in humanity, namely jen; in Christianity, humans can only gain that which is divine, namely agape, if it the Divine makes it so.