Chapter Six
Confucianism and Christianity

Modern Interpretations of Confucius' Philosophy

Colin Hoad

“Confucianism underlay the political system which kept China in a conservative straitjacket, promoting a way of life which made the rigours of hierarchical order the aim and resting-point of a culture which sprung from the certainties of agricultural obsession.”

[Hugh Baker, “Times Literature Supplement”, 1998]

 

“Anyone who has read the sayings of Confucius carefully and without prejudice will surely find it difficult to recognize the die-hard conservative and arch-villain that he has sometimes been made out to be. Confucius is perhaps yet another instance of the proverbial prophet.”

[D. C. Lau, “Introduction to The Analects”]


The Great Divide: Confucianism and Christianity

            In the introduction to this study, we affirmed that Confucianism, depending upon one’s personal outlook, may be seen as a philosophy or a religion. Dr. Yao says that “Confucianism is treated as a full religion, comparable with Buddhism, Taoism, Christianity or Islam, as evidenced by the activities in Hong Kong and Indonesia,”[i] but that at the same time, for the general public it remains a “traditional philosophy”. However, today, in the wake of Maoist oppression, more and more interpretations of Confucianism are emerging, and many of them are from dedicated scholars. The old-fashioned view held by people like Mr. Baker is fast disappearing. In this chapter, we will look at various understandings of Confucius’s philosophy, and see how they apply to Christians of today.

            To begin, let us examine the theologian Anders Nygren. He has come up with a view of religion that for many people may seem to fit the mould of Confucianism and Christianity. He has taken the Greek words eros and agape and from them generated a theory that categorizes religions into two separate areas. The eros-religion is based upon the Platonic tradition, “the desire of the soul of man to attain salvation by detachment from earthly objects of desire, by seeking after heavenly things.”[ii] This religion is egocentric, with a view of humans sharing their own divinity, with the possibility of anyone being able to enter the eternal by rejecting earthly distractions. By contrast, he asserts there is an agape-religion, in which God’s love is the centre, and thus the religion is theocentric. “Every effort of Man to exalt himself to the Divine is regarded as an act of presumption…The gulf between God and Man can only be bridged by God Himself.”[iii] For Nygren, these two worldly traditions began as separate, but with the progression of history, have intertwined with one another.

            On face value, it would indeed appear that Confucianism is of the eros tradition, whilst Christianity is of the agape one – and that since the two are supposed to be thesis and antithesis, there is little, if anything, for them to share in. Jen is humanity, concerned with human progress and SELF-transcendence. Agape is a theistic love, with its source firmly rooted in the Divine. Where jen is realized in the human community, agape looks beyond this community. However, it simply would not do either Confucianism or Christianity justice to say that they are synonymous with Nygren’s eros/agape theory. Jen may well be humanity-based, but it is not selfish by its very definition. Agape may be theocentric, but there can be no denying the humanistic elements to Christianity. Furthermore, Confucians advocate the rejection of self-centredness and Christians do not see human endeavour as entirely fruitless. Human agape is indirectly anthropocentric, and Confucian jen is implicitly linked to Tian. Thus, we can avoid using the Nygren theory when looking at how to interpret Confucianism – since it is both unhelpful if we seek relevance for Christians, and at the same time unjust to the traditions it deals with.

Objectivity: A Lesson From History

            There comes a time when the metaphorical record must be set straight. Since the abandonment of Forbidden City isolationist foreign policy, the West has been privy to China’s current state of affairs and its history. With the left-wing fervour of the early to mid-twentieth century, philosophers like Confucius, Mencius, Chu Hsi and Wang Yang-ming were slandered for their conservatism and dedication to things past. It was through this hazy Marxist aura that they began to interpret China’s history, and the image of Confucius as a spanner in China’s works was born.

            Ming China is cited as “the ultimate extreme in Chinese despotism”[iv] and, unfortunately for Confucians, one of the most prominent eras for Confucianism as a State orthodoxy. The Imperial despots like T’ai-tsu and Ch’eng-tsu claimed to enshrine the Confucian ideal, but all the while they were the ones persecuting the real Confucian scholars. The so-called ­chun-tzu who masqueraded in the Chinese Court were nothing of the sort – they were front men for the Emperors in order that they could present an image of Confucian superiority. Anyone who truly adhered to Confucius’s ethical philosophy was pilloried for it. However, because of the Ming image of Confucianism, people have accused the Confucians of being either naïve or authoritarian. This is not so. Those chun-tzu who were able to survive constantly blamed the Emperor, and from this psychological attack, they themselves put their own beliefs into a risk of being outlawed.

            The obvious question is, if Confucians were true to their Master, they would have stood up to the Emperor and invoked Mencius’s ‘right to revolution’. William Theodore de Bary has the answer to this conundrum that has perplexed Confucians to this day. His book, “The Trouble With Confucianism” seeks to understand how it was that Confucians were so powerful, and yet at the same time powerless. His findings give us a very clear idea, and quell the problems that have been levied against Confucianism. Firstly, there is a great deal of misunderstanding with regard to the openness to new ideas. The only real conservatives in China’s history have been the Emperors themselves. In terms of receptiveness to ideas, Confucians were among the most open – the Confucian Learning expects it of people. Confucius himself taught that “learning without thought is labour lost”[v] and believed that “when a man is not in the habit of saying ‘what shall I think of this? what shall I think of this?’ I can indeed do nothing with him.”[vi] There can be little doubt that, from the style of teaching to the words of Confucius, new ideas are the life and soul of Confucianism. The reason they have been tied to a lack of receptiveness is because of their position within the Imperial Court, nothing more.

            Secondly, the society of China had no middle class – one was either a peasant or a member of the bureaucracy – there were few positions besides this. The pursuit of learning that Confucians taught was very difficult to enter into – because there were not people in a position to follow it. As a result, Confucians became China’s scapegoat. Their label of ‘elitist’ came only because it was the upper classes alone who had the time to devote themselves to learning. Their fragmentation in neo-Confucianism between Rationalists and Idealists also hindered their progress with China.

            Every political message has two pre-requisites. The first is a charismatic, persuasive leader. The second is a motivated and rallied crowd. The message itself is unimportant – history of the twentieth century that gave us Bolshevism and Nazism has taught us that much. Unfortunately for Confucians, their message was enlightened, but the two pre-requisites were lacking. A Confucian is, by very definition, of meek and humble character – as Julia Ching stated, their magnetism did not lie is charismatic speeches, but in merit and respect. William Theodore de Bary’s theory explains the problem as a vicious circle:

            The Confucian has his message, and he in turn gives this message to the Imperial family. They, for the most part, reject it, and the Confucian is left with his message. He cannot get it across to the people as a whole, because he lacks the power to rally them, and they the time to listen. Thus, they in turn are unable to challenge the Imperial family for not accepting the Confucian’s message. He is left with his message, which he continually tries in vain to put across to the Emperor, and the process starts over again. He is forever unable to have it accepted by the Emperor on the one hand, and heard by the people on the other. Caught in this clef-stick, China continues to be ruled by a self-indulgent Monarch, and the people continue to labour under him. Confucians meanwhile struggle to give their message to a world that seemingly doesn’t want to listen.

            From this, we see that Confucianism has proved useful in the hands of those who wish to abuse it. It has, because of this position, endured harsh criticism for problems which for the most part it had nothing to do with. Confucius’s ideal of the Commonwealth State simply does not ever reach realization, because the Emperor is too steadfast in his position, and the Confucians too virtuous and mild for their own good. One cannot help but sympathize with a tradition whose followers have always remained true to their Master, following the virtuous path, but have always along the way been persecuted, not only for doing it, but for being around at the same time as other Chinese problems. As we shall see in the next section, interpretation has evolved into a living philosophy for today’s world, and that the efforts of Confucians in the past have not gone to waste – their labours will forever be remembered, and with the passage of time, the wounds they were ungraciously afflicted with will be healed.

[BACK]
[CHAPTER 1][CHAPTER 2][CHAPTER 3][CHAPTER 4]
[CHAPTER 5][CHAPTER 6][CHAPTER 7][CHAPTER 8]



[i] Yao, Dr. Xinzhong, Letter to Colin Hoad dated 01/09/2000

[ii] Nygren, Anders, “Agape and Eros – A Study of the Christian Idea of Love” (London, 1932)

[iii] Nygren, Anders, “Agape and Eros – A Study of the Christian Idea of Love” (London, 1932)

[iv] de Bary, Professor Wm. Theodore, "The Trouble With Confucianism" (Harvard University Press, 1996)

[v] “The Analects” (2:15)

[vi] “The Analects” (15:15)