Ruist (Confucian) Receptions of Jesus in Late Imperial China

7 Ruist (Confucian) Receptions of Jesus in Late Imperial China RYAN PINO & BIN SONG he history of encounters between Ru (Confucian)107 and Christian traditions in China is a long and storied one, commencing with fits and starts in the seventh century CE when a delegation of Christians arrived from Central Asia at the court of the Tang dynasty. The exchange between the two traditions attained a more explicit and enduring form, however, with Jesuit missions to China in the latter half of the sixteenth century. Building on these missionaries’ scholastic engagement with Ruism for the sake of evangelizing literati steeped in the Ru Classics, the Western enterprise of historicizing Ruism (along with other Chinese traditions) and recording its intersections with Christianity also arose. This has evolved to the present to include scholarship of both varying secular academic and Christian missiological types. Perhaps because of the Christian roots of this enterprise, while a substantial amount of scholarship has attended to the historical interaction between Ruism and Christianity, the vast majority has approached the encounter with Christianity foregrounded. As a result, scholarship on Ru-Christian encounters, whether historical or theologically constructive, has largely prioritized the efforts of missionaries and Chinese Christians to contextualize the Christian faith in China, with Ruism being a major influence in such a context. In contrast, far fewer attempts have been made to survey Ruist receptions of Christianity. Unsurprisingly, then, in the more specific case of Ruist receptions of the person and teachings of Jesus himself, studies are even fewer and farther between. This gap in scholarship is understandable, not only due to the backgrounds of many scholars writing about Ruist-Christian encounters, but also to the distinct natures of the two traditions. After all, only Christianity is overtly evangelistic and an import to China. The downside of not framing the encounters in an equally Ru-focused way, however, is that scholars may occlude adequate observation of Ruist perspectives rooted in historical events, intellectual trends, and economic and sociopolitical realities within the broader Chinese context. At the same time, an equal hazard can be anticipated if historians of Ruism neglect encounters with Christianity in Chinese history due to an assumption that such encounters were altogether peripheral and polemical. Thus, because Ruist receptions of Jesus have been so understated, a single chapter cannot cover all the ground needed to fill the significant gaps in scholarship, nor can a comprehensive reception history be attempted here. After all, these receptions have been as sundry as the receivers have been many. Instead, we aim to outline some of the major identifiable types of Ruist receptions of Jesus in the history of Ru-Christian encounter, hopefully to provide a framework and impetus for further, more focused research along similar lines. Accordingly, we identify Ruist receptions of Jesus under the following six types: Copyright 2023. Cascade Books. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. T 1. anti-Christian rejection 2. skepticism 3. ambivalent hospitality 4. reformist/comparative appropriation 5. “Confucian Christian” acceptance 6. Christian-exclusivist replacement The last two types are conversional in nature, often entailing a religious allegiance to Jesus in some sense, such as through creedal self-identification as a Christian, or church affiliation. The other types are more ambivalent or adverse in kind. However, even these less accepting types are not mutually exclusive, as each type is broadly generalizing and can overlap with others on a spectrum. A given individual’s overall reception of Jesus may even manifest more than one type simultaneously. Some of these types have also been period-specific (especially the fourth and sixth) due to larger trends in Ruism vis-à-vis the state at a given historical moment, while others have found expressions throughout various epochs of Chinese and Ru history, including during both the Ming and Qing dynasties (ending in 1911), during the Republican period (1911–1949), and so on. Accordingly, we organize our discussion of these types more or less chronologically and focus primarily on the late imperial EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 7/10/2023 9:52 AM via FORDHAM UNIVERSITY AN: 3610319 ; Gregory C. Jenks.; Interfaith Afterlives of Jesus : Jesus in Global Perspective 2 Account: s8944763.main.eds 79 period (from circa the seventeenth to the early twentieth century). Thus, a caveat needs to be added from the outset: since types 4 and 5 appear either at the very end of or after the imperial period (i.e., post- 1911) and hence exceed the due scope of this chapter, our treatment of these two types is much shorter than others. Most importantly, what all types demonstrate collectively is that there is in fact no clear dichotomy between wholesale acceptance and rejection, but rather that each Ruist reception of Jesus has been unique to itself, shaped both by broader trends in Ruism at a given point of history and by individual contexts and concerns. Through the following taxonomic and historical treatments, therefore, we intend simply to furnish a basic framework for scholars to advance within a largely uncharted area. ANTI-CHRISTIAN AND SKEPTICAL RECEPTIONS OF JESUS IN LATE IMPERIAL CHINA Within the paltry picture we have painted of scholarship on Ruist receptions of Jesus, it should be noted that a number of important historical studies of Chinese-Western relations can provide at least a partial foundation. Most significantly, several have highlighted a major mode of Ruist response to Christianity in late imperial China: anti-Christian polemics.108 Yet because of the topical and temporal limits of such studies, they have been largely episodic in nature. They have also tended to focus on Ruist reactions to Christianity in general as a foreign tradition of learning and a metaphysical supposition of a transcendent Creator in contrast with dominant Ruist (especially Neo-Confucian) positions on these matters. Nevertheless, they do highlight a number of receptions of Jesus specifically, at least in the extent to which such receptions speak to these more general points of contention. For example, Paul Cohen has identified a centuries-long “anti-Christian tradition” in imperial Chinese history rooted in an antithesis between “orthodoxy” (zhengdao) and “heterodoxy” (xie / zuodao). This antithesis, moreover, was informed by the ideal of the ancient sages (shengren / shengxian) and revered in Ru tradition,109 and indeed, the notion of sagehood plays a role in nearly all Ruist receptions of Jesus. Accordingly, starting with the earliest of polemical texts, such as Ru astronomer Yang Guangxian’s I Cannot Do Otherwise (Budeyi) in 1664, Jesus was assessed in comparison with such exemplary figures as the sage-kings Yao and Shun, virtuous rulers like King Wen and the Duke of Zhou, as well as Kongzi (Confucius) and Mengzi (Mencius). And by these particular standards, Jesus was often found wanting. Some Ru were simply perplexed by claims about Jesus as God incarnate and of God as triune, seeing no need to accept such apparent paradoxes when China’s past sages were fully human but nonetheless comparable with, or even seemingly superior to, Christ in virtuous attainment. On this score, Jesus was especially derided as a criminal executed for sedition, as this was thought to be incongruous with a truly sagely character, much less a divine one. One later representative of such anti-Christian polemics, Liang Tingnan (1796–1861), in his “Discussion of the Obstacles Confronting the Entry of Christianity into China” (Yesujiao Nan Ru Zhongguo Shuo), levels the critiques that Jesus’ teachings are shallow and suspect, and also that his miracles are no different from Daoist priests’ magical performances. Moreover, Jesus’ apparent proscription of concubinage is chided as contradictory to filial piety, which is an important virtue in Ru tradition and in Chinese culture broadly, due to the potential of having no descendants to continue one’s lineage. 110 Another withering rejection is that of Wei Yuan (1794–1856), who charges in his scathing “Examination of Catholicism” (Tianzhujiao Kao) that Jesus was actually an inheritor of the teachings of demon-like Rakshasas of Hindu tradition and was killed not by crucifixion, as traditionally claimed, but rather by a traitorous wife.111 In a particularly heated (though perchance stoked) exchange with Protestant missionary Griffith John (1831–1912), one Ru scholar allegedly exclaimed, “If you say anything derogatory of our holy sage (Kongzi), I assure you I would rather go to hell with him than with your Jesus Christ to heaven!”112 More recently, D. E. Mungello has identified other key factors underlying anti-Christian sentiment in late imperial China. Among these, at least three were directly related to Ruist influences of some sort: “Confucian religious skepticism and agnosticism” about spirits and deities, Neo-Confucian cosmology (i.e., a nontheistic, qi-based monism), and the conflict between Christian monogamy and Chinese concubinage practices at the time.113 A fourth major factor, ethnocentrism, was also partially influenced by a conception of Ru orthodoxy as handed down from the ancient sages via Kongzi and his disciples in a chain called the “Lineage of the Way” (Dao-tong); consequently, such a view of Ru tradition colored the way some received foreign teachings, for by virtue of being foreign such teachings’ proponents were de facto nonparticipants in the Dao-tong.114 Thus, among the many possible points of contention, it was Jesus’ foreignness—and not necessarily the manner of his life or teachings—that was objectionable to many Ru in late imperial China. Despite the undeniable influence of certain Ru perspectives on Dao-tong, however, this raises a critical question: is such ethnocentric thinking really fundamental to Ruism in general? Clearly not, for other Ru of the period did not find Jesus’ foreignness a barrier to openness or even acceptance. To the contrary, they saw this point as having no real bearing on the coherence of Jesus’ life and teachings with the Ru tradition. To these figures we now turn. EBSCOhost - printed on 7/10/2023 9:52 AM via FORDHAM UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use 80 AMBIVALENT HOSPITALITY Lest one assumes from the above that Ruist receptions of Jesus in late imperial China were altogether negative, it is important to note that both hospitable and conversional responses were also to be found. Indeed, were it not for both types, Jesuit efforts in China would have likely floundered, if not failed, from the outset. Because of Ruism’s dominance both intellectually and politically at the time of the Jesuits’ (and later, Protestants’) arrival, the acceptance, authorization, and friendship of various Ru officials were necessary for missionaries to take up residence, travel within the empire, and commence evangelistic work. Furthermore, because of the stratified nature of imperial Chinese society, Jesuits and later missionaries made it a top priority to gain the favor, and hopefully conversion, of literati elites. This was a major reason for Matteo Ricci’s fateful decision to adopt a strategy of supplementing Ruism and displacing Buddhism, to study the Ru Classics, and to dress in literati garb. (Prior to this he had worn robes resembling a Buddhist monk’s.) These efforts—combined with the introduction of European mnemonic techniques, cartography, and astronomical knowledge—impressed a number of Chinese literati, gaining both curiosity and support. Nevertheless, largely because of dominant notions of sagehood and an impersonal understanding of “Heaven” (Tian) or the “Lord on High” (Shangdi), missionary presentations of Christianity to Ru literati often foregrounded moral teachings rather than more provocative or particular details. Thus, Ricci and his fellow Jesuits often avoided displaying the crucifix in official circles and delayed discussions of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection until later in the catechesis of potential literati converts. As a result, among the numerous Ru scholars and officials who befriended Ricci and company but did not embrace Christian doctrines, it is not clear in each case how much was disclosed about Jesus specifically.115 Tellingly, it was not only at the behest of a literatus acquaintance that Ricci swapped his Buddhist garb for a Ruist persona, but it was also after numerous conversations with the Ru scholar Zhang Huang that Ricci was inspired to seek parallels between the Ru Classics and Christian principles in a way that sidelined controversial doctrines like Christ’s death.116 Even Ricci’s famous dialogue between a Chinese and a Western scholar, The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven (Tianzhu Shiyi), only briefly discusses Jesus as the incarnate “Lord of Heaven” (Tianzhu) and makes no mention of the crucifixion.117 Notwithstanding Jesuit claims about Jesus as Tianzhu incarnate, then, those who were sympathetic to the missionaries but not accepting of their entire message were, at most, willing to accept Jesus as a figure comparable to certain sages of antiquity (and thus in no small light), but not as higher than a sage. Because of this, such receptions of Jesus were hospitable but ambivalent, evidencing a certain level of acceptance of Jesus and his teachings as expressive of truths compatible with Ruist understandings, but not as offering anything so novel as to necessitate conversion to Christianity. If anything, Jesus may have been seen to reiterate what was already transmitted by the Chinese sages. This raises a crucial point of context. Chinese society at the time of the Jesuits’ arrival was characterized by intellectual ferment and experimentation, as well as a loosening of Ru orthodoxy in certain circles of influence. While some Ru were staunch defenders of a competitively exclusivist form of orthodoxy, others demonstrated a radical willingness to harmonize diverse teachings like Buddhism and Daoism (and, likewise, newer imports like Christianity) in a way that minimized differences. Accordingly, the hospitality extended by some to Christian missionaries’ message about Christ was often an outgrowth of their larger orientation within this intellectually fecund milieu. Conversely, sharp critics of Christ, like those seen above, often expressed this criticism in line with more broadly conservative positions on the nature of Ru orthodoxy itself. Similarly, in later periods marked by predominantly conservative attitudes politically and intellectually—such as after the notorious Chinese Rites Controversy in the early eighteenth century—correspondingly sharper criticisms of Jesus Christ were raised.118 “CONFUCIAN CHRISTIAN” RECEPTIONS In light of the above discussion, some of the most remarkable receptions of Jesus in late imperial China were by those who converted to Christianity but still unequivocally identified as Ru. (Some have even gone so far as to label such figures “Confucian Christians.”119) Among these, a number of prominent examples are relatively renowned, such as the “Three Pillars of Chinese Christianity,” Xu Guangqi, Li Zhizao, and Yang Tingyun (Xu, for instance, was a grand secretary, one of the highest positions in the Ming dynasty bureaucracy).120 While each of these individuals’ conversions was unique, they generally accepted Ricci’s notion of “supplementing Ruism” with Christianity. Consequently, their understandings of Jesus were both informed by and informative of their orientation within Ru tradition as well, including their interpretations of the Ru Classics and the ancient sages. EBSCOhost - printed on 7/10/2023 9:52 AM via FORDHAM UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use 81 One way this Ru-Christian fusion manifested was with respect to history and the Classics. Since Ru converts to Christianity generally followed the line of argument in Ricci’s Tianzhu Shiyi that Neo-Confucian interpretations arising in the Song dynasty (960–1276 CE) had obscured teachings about the worship of a monotheistic deity in the ancient Classics, their acceptance of the figure of Jesus also entailed a concomitant rereading of the Classics not widely held at the time. Thus, to the extent that these converts accepted and defended such a reading on overtly Ruist terms, they also represented a distinctive lineage of thought within Ruism in their own right. The same can be said for how some Ru Christians framed their discussions of Jesus in light of the ancient sages. For example, in an apologetic work called Shengshui Jiyan, presented as a dialogue between two scholars, Yang Tingyun (1562– 1627) defends his Jesuit friends, whom he calls “Western Ru.” At one point, the Christian scholar in the conversation is confronted: “You were born and grew up in China, and you have studied the Way of Yao, Shun, the Duke of Zhou and Kongzi. But one day, guests came from afar . . . and you rejected what you have learned and followed them.” 121 In response to this charge, which juxtaposes these foreigners’ learning with the way of China’s ancient sages, Yang cites the Neo-Confucian scholar Lu Xiangshan (1139–1192 CE): Xiangshan said: ‘Within the four seas, this mind and this principle are the same.’ If one confines them to a specific place, they are false. Their words are all in accord with the orthodox principle and there is real evidence for it. In every matter, they surely talk about Heaven, and when talking about Heaven they surely speak about a Lord. They want people to take the unselfishness of Heaven as an example, and to love themselves according to this mind, which is to love people according to this mind; this is what is meant by ‘Reverencing Heaven.’ This is the correct vein of humanity that successively has been transmitted from Yao, Shun, the Duke of Zhou and Kongzi on . . . The Westerners know Heaven and serve Heaven, in a true and real way, with diligence, not simply with ears and mouth. They share in one way . . . It completely agrees with the Way of Yao, Shun, the Duke of Zhou and Kongzi. Therefore, I rejoice to have contacts with them, and to honor their teachers and instructions. How can those who correctly and perfectly study the Way of [the sages] be said to act contrary to them?122 Yang thus draws a clear connection between Christianity and the orthodox transmission of the ancient sages, yet he does so in a more explicitly Neo-Confucian way through appeal to the universality of principle ( li) and the human heart-mind (xin), which are to be properly accorded with in following the example of Heaven, i.e., through reverencing the Lord of Heaven worshiped by Christians. His evocation of Lu Xiangshan is likely an allusion to a famous passage in which Lu argues for the essential unity of the universe and the human heart-mind: Sages appeared tens of thousands of generations ago. They shared this mind; they shared this principle. Sages will appear tens of thousands of years to come. They will share this mind; they will share this principle. In the Southern or Northern Seas, in the Western or Eastern seas sages appear. They share this mind; they share this principle. 123 Yang adapts these notions in a novel way, though, arguing that because all share the same heart-mind and principle, it is proper for all to reverence the Lord of Heaven. To do so on account of this shared heart-mind and principle is not to betray the sages of past generations; rather, it is to follow their examples more closely, for they also spoke of “reverencing Heaven.” Such a presentation rebuts any notion that the orthodox Lineage of the Way is somehow an exclusively Chinese inheritance. Instead, foreign figures like Jesus may also be links in this lineage. No doubt aware of the qualms of the literati, however, in his apologetic dialogue Yang parallels Ricci in not mentioning more scandalous aspects of the Jesus-narrative such as the crucifixion. Rather than presenting Jesus as a savior who redeems humanity from sin through his death and resurrection, Yang presents Jesus as the perfect exemplar who comes from heaven and becomes human in order to show the fullest way for all to “revere Heaven and love men” in turn.124 Later Ru Christians, who wrote in the same vein as apologist-converts like Yang would present Jesus in similar ways in responses to critics. Because of this, some have deemed these figures’ religious commitments as distinct from those of their Jesuit counterparts, labeling the converts’ faith variously as “Tianzhu-ism” or “Confucian monotheism,” implying a belief in the Christian God but with a diluted Christology.125 This reading is not entirely fair, though, because these apologetic presentations of Jesus within a sagely paradigm say just as much about the intended audience as they do about the authors. Furthermore, other types of writings by early generations of Ru Christians, such as poems, essays, letters, and diaries, evince rich reflections on Jesus’ divinity, passion, and resurrection, as well as on the need to explain these thornier points of doctrine in a Ru-accommodating way.126 EBSCOhost - printed on 7/10/2023 9:52 AM via FORDHAM UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use 82 CONTINUATION OF RU-CHRISTIAN FUSION IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY Moving closer to the twilight of imperial China, factors like Christianity’s proscription after the Rites Controversy precluded a distinctively Ru-Christian tradition from continuing in any robust sense. Furthermore, when Protestant missionaries began to seek Chinese converts in the nineteenth century, most of them were highly critical of the tradition and saw it more as a barrier to evangelism than a potential point of connection. Nevertheless, some missionaries (such as James Legge, Timothy Richard, and Karl Gützlaff) opted to build on the legacy of Catholic missions by seeking a path of dialogue with Ruism. Faced with many of the same criticisms from literati as their predecessors, though, they found few conversions in higher circles. Indeed, during the final decades of the Qing dynasty’s decline and the consequent waning of Ruism’s political weddedness to the imperial state, the vast majority of converts to Christianity did not come from literati backgrounds. This, however, has led to false impressions both that serious dialogues between Ruism and Christianity ceased until the twentieth century, and that there were few to no self-identifying Ru converts to Christianity in the late Qing period.127 Nevertheless, a closer look at Chinese-language sources from the time, including missionary periodicals like Jiaohui Xinbao (Church News), printed from 1868 to 1874, and Wanguo Gongbao (Review of the Times), printed between 1874 and 1907, reveals a surprising amount of Chinese Christian writing—pieces that are clearly conversant with Ru tradition. In fact, the total number of Chinese contributors to the two magazines above exceeded a thousand over their publication runs, and at least thirty-six different Chinese Christian authors wrote specifically on Ruism. Some individuals even wrote dozens of articles on the subject.128 A number of these Chinese Christians, moreover, described themselves as Ru and presented themselves as knowledgeable enough to carry on nuanced discussions on the Classics with other scholars. Though a number of examples could be raised here, one such figure who stands out is Zhang Ding, a Ru scholar-turned-pastor who penned a book of more than thirty chapters titled A Discussion on the Errors of Ruism (Rujiao Bian Miu), which was serialized in Wanguo Gongbao in 1878. Possibly the most extensive text of its kind by a nineteenth-century Chinese convert, Zhang’s Discussion interestingly parallels a number of arguments and strategies used by earlier Ru Christian converts from the Catholic mission (despite being written by a Protestant). In fact, its title notwithstanding, the book shows a striking amount of sympathy toward Ruism on the balance, adopting a position of supplementing what is thought to be lacking in Ruism with Christian teachings. Likewise, a striking omission in Zhang’s book is Jesus’ crucifixion. A noteworthy pattern is thus repeated. Still, extensive work remains to be done in uncovering the manner and motivations of nineteenth-century Ru receptions of Jesus such as that of Zhang Ding, as well as in examining the broader instances of Ru-Christian dialogue that such receptions engendered. RECEPTIONS OF JESUS AT AND AFTER THE END OF IMPERIAL CHINA The twilight years of imperial China brought with them unprecedented political, economic, and religious shifts that directly affected the role of Ruism within Chinese society. In the face of existential threats both foreign and domestic (not the least of which being repeated Chinese humiliation at the hands of European powers), a spate of reform-minded intellectuals began to seek new paths for strengthening and stabilizing the Chinese state. In line with this broader trend, one of the primary ways in which Jesus began to play an instigative role in Ru thought was in being seen as a reform figure: a prophet who stands against oppression and coercion, lifts up the needs and the suffering of the masses, and offers a new vision for a more peaceful and just society. At the same time, the perceived strength of European powers relative to the declining Chinese state led some to posit (partially at the suggestion of Christian missionaries who championed a Christian civilizational discourse) that one key to such strength was the guiding force of the Christian religion in Western civilization. Among the most prominent of the era’s Ru reformists who sought insights from Western culture and religion was Kang Youwei (1858–1927), a pivotal player in the abortive Hundred Days’ Reform of 1898 who continued for decades to seek the Chinese nation’s rejuvenation by retooling and revitalizing Ruism’s place within it. Informed by his studies of Christianity’s role in Western civilization, Kang envisioned reform partially through the establishment of a state religion styled “Kongjiao” (or “Confucianity”129) on par with the place of Christianity (especially Protestantism, due to its inherently reformational origins 130) in certain European nations. Kang was particularly impressed by the potential for social transformation provided by church institutions, but he was also inspired by the central and singular role of Jesus within Christianity. More specifically, Kang found the monotheistic worship of Christians to be vital to the strength of Western nations, writing, “Americans and Europeans only pray to the Heavenly God, and their temples only worship the religious founder [i.e. Jesus Christ] . . . This serves to guard their innate goodness and makes them orderly and deferential.”131 EBSCOhost - printed on 7/10/2023 9:52 AM via FORDHAM UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use 83 Rather than calling for an adoption of Christianity, however, Kang instead strove to reorient Ruism in a similar way around its founding sage, Kongzi. As a result, he promoted Kongzi as a messianic “uncrowned king,” the rightful receiver of Heaven’s Mandate, and the progenitor of true Chinese civilization, whose sole veneration could serve as a religious replacement for the dominant imperial Ruism rooted in the Neo-Confucian philosophy of Zhu Xi. With Kongzi essentially apotheosized to parallel a monotheistic deity, Kang even called for the establishment of Kongzi temples throughout the land and the removal of all other sages from existing temples.132 In light of this, Kang Youwei’s unique reception of Jesus can be rightly labeled a reformist/comparative appropriation, as his comparative learning for the sake of Ruist reform led him to reconsider and then reconfigure the status of Kongzi within Ruism in light of Jesus’ status within Christianity. One of Kang’s most prominent students, Liang Qichao, even admitted that Kang’s overt intention was to frame Kongzi as a figure on par with Jesus. 133 While various Ruist religious movements have continued to the present which partially owe their legacy to Kang’s Kongjiao movement, his own attempts were met with criticism and floundered by the 1920s for various political and well-argued philosophical reasons. However, like Kang before them, other Ru scholars have continued in diverse ways to engage in comparative learning and dialogical development vis-à-vis other traditions and figures like Jesus in the decades since—a more recent history of engagements well beyond the scope of this chapter. Finally, a sixth type of Ruist reception of Jesus, wholesale replacement by acceptance of an exclusivist Christian framework, need only be mentioned in passing. This type is largely (though not entirely) specific to the early twentieth century due to unique political realities of the time, which saw the rapid demise of Ruism’s association with the imperial political system. One example of this type would be Fan Zimei (1866–1936), a Ru scholar and one-time supporter of Kang Youwei’s reform movement. Disillusioned after the failure of the Hundred Days’ Reform and influenced by the Christian civilizing discourse of certain missionaries, Fan eventually converted to Christianity in 1901. In doing so, he initially renounced “false Confucian civilization” in favor of “true Christian civilization.”134 Such a stark dichotomy would likely not have been deemed necessary in earlier times of dominant Ru political influence, or in later times of relative decoupling of Ruism from political spheres, however; and even later in Fan’s own life he regained an appreciation for Ruism as an ally to Christianity for the revitalization of Chinese society in the face of cultural confusion, moral decline, and the encroachment of materialism. His later writings would thus echo the work of other twentieth-century Chinese theologians to seek rapprochement between the Christian and Ru traditions for the sake of theological contextualization and national rejuvenation.135 CONCLUSION As indicated by the above discussions, Ruist receptions of Jesus at various points in Chinese history have been reflective of broader concerns with respect to Ru orthodoxy at those times. Meanwhile, these receptions have also been specific to the nature and teachings of Jesus himself, particularly in relation to exemplary figures within the Ru tradition such as Kongzi and the sages of antiquity. What is compelling, then, is how such diverse receptions highlight particularities of Ru thought and practice that might not stand out otherwise. While receptions of Jesus may appear peripheral in the broader sweep of Ru tradition, they are nonetheless significant in shedding unique light on the boundaries and contours of the tradition as a whole, including on the ways in which certain self-identifying Ru have negotiated the boundaries of Ru orthodoxy and their position within it. In this regard, much important work remains to be done. Such receptions can also highlight the phenomenon of multitraditional belonging in imperial Chinese history. In the case of late Ming “Confucian Christians,” for instance, we find a wholehearted acceptance of Christianity and of Jesus himself without rejection of core Ruist commitments; and yet a definite reevaluation of Ruism, particularly in terms of how to interpret the Ru Classics, did emerge as a result. Thus, observing how these figures identified themselves as simultaneously Ru and Christian can raise insights for thinking more creatively about various forms of religious (or, for that matter, multireligious) commitment, the boundaries of tradition, and the myriad ways in which religious identity is formed and transformed through interreligious encounter, whether positive or polemical. Finally, the cases above clearly speak to how Ruism’s relation to Chinese politics at different points in history has influenced Ruist receptions of Christianity in general and of Jesus in particular. For example, while total abandonment of Ruism by late Ming converts would have been practically unthinkable, the later decline of Ruism’s influence within Chinese politics engendered new possibilities for creative, comparative, and critical Ruist receptions of Jesus. As the dynamic relationship between Ruism and the Chinese state continues to evolve still today, then, this is an important historical lesson for considering how Ruism may continue to play a part in interreligious dialogue as well. In any case, what we see exemplified here is that EBSCOhost - printed on 7/10/2023 9:52 AM via FORDHAM UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use 84 throughout Chinese history, numerous serious engagements with the figure and teachings of Jesus have played (and likely will continue to play) an instigative role in both reforming and reinforcing the contours of the Ru tradition in ways both large and small. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bennett, Adrian A., comp. Research Guide to the “Chiao-hui Hsin-pao,” 1868–1874. San Francisco: Chinese Materials Center, 1975. ———, comp. Research Guide to the “Wan-Kuo Kung-Pao,” 1874–1883. San Francisco: Chinese Materials Center, 1976. Cohen, Paul A. China and Christianity: The Missionary Movement and the Growth of Chinese Antiforeignism, 1860–1870. Harvard East Asian Series 11. Annali (Fondazione civiltà bresciana) 10. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963. Criveller, Gianni. Preaching Christ in Late Ming China: The Jesuits’ Presentation of Christ from Matteo Ricci to Giulio Aleni . Variétés sinologiques 86. Taipei: Taipei Ricci Institute, 1997. De Bary, William Theodore, et al., comps. Sources of Chinese Tradition. 2 vols. Introduction to Oriental Civilizations. New York: Columbia University Press, 1964. Gernet, Jacques. China and the Christian Impact: A Conflict of Cultures. Translated by Janet Lloyd. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Hsia, R. Po-Chia. A Jesuit in the Forbidden City: Matteo Ricci, 1552–1610. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Huang, Paulos. Confronting Confucian Understandings of the Christian Doctrine of Salvation. Studies in Systematic Theology 3. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Huang, Zhangjian. Kang Youwei wuxu zhen zouyi. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, 1974. Kuo, Ya-pei. “‘Christian Civilization’ and the Confucian Church: The Origin of Secularist Politics in Modern China.” Past and Present 218 (February 2013) 235–64. Lai, Whalen. “Jesus in the Shengshui Jiyan of Yang Tingyun.” In The Chinese Face of Jesus Christ, edited by Roman Malek, 2:517–37. 4 vols. in 6 bks. Monumenta Serica Monograph Series 50. Sankt Augustin, Germany: Institut Monumenta Serica, 2003. Liang, Qichao. “Nanhai Kang Xiansheng Zhuan.” In Liang Qichao Quanji, edited by Zhang Pingxing, 2:481–99. 21 vols. Beijing: Beijing Chubanshe, 1999. Mungello, D. E., ed. The Chinese Rites Controversy: Its History and Meaning. Monumenta Serica Monograph Series 33. Nettetal, Germany: Steyler, 1994. ———. The Great Encounter of China and the West, 1500–1800. 4th ed. Critical Issues in World and International History. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2013. Rule, Paul. “The Jesus of the ‘Confucian Christians’ of the Seventeenth Century.” In The Chinese Face of Jesus Christ, edited by Roman Malek, 2 :499–516. 4 vols. in 6 bks. Monumenta Serica Monograph Series 50. Sankt Augustin, Germany: Institut Monumenta Serica, 2002. ———. “The Life and Thoughts of 17th Century Chinese Christians.” In Silent Force: Native Converts in the Catholic China Mission, edited by Rachel Lu Yan and Philip Vanhaelemeersch, 11–36. Leuven Chinese Studies 20. Leuven: Ferdinand Verbiest Institute, 2009. Song, Gang. Giulio Aleni, “Kouduo richao,” and Christian-Confucian Dialogism in Late Ming Fujian . Monumenta Serica Monograph Series 69. Sankt Augustin, Germany: Institut Monumenta Serica, 2018. Standaert, Nicolas, SJ. An Illustrated “Life of Christ” Presented to the Chinese Emperor: The History of Jincheng shuxiang (1640). Monumenta Serica Monograph Series 59. Sankt Augustin, Germany: Institut Monumenta Serica, 2007. ———. Yang Tingyun, Confucian and Christian in Late Ming China: His Life and Thought . Sinica Leidensia 19. Leiden: Brill, 1988. Starr, Chloë. Chinese Theology: Text and Context. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2016. Sun, Anna. Confucianism as a World Religion: Contested Histories and Contemporary Realities . Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013. Swain, Tony. Confucianism in China: An Introduction. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2017. Wanguo Gongbao: Zongmu, Suoyin. Shanghai: Shanghai Shudian Chubanshe, 2015. Ying, Fuk-Tsang. “Fan Zimei: Between Tradition and Modernity.” In Salt and Light: Lives of Faith that Shaped Modern China, edited by Carol Hamrin with Stacey Bieler, 1:64–78. 2 vols. Studies in Chinese Christianity. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2009. Zürcher, Erik. “Jesuit Accommodation and the Chinese Cultural Imperative.” In The Chinese Rites Controversy, edited by D. E. Mungello, 31–64. Monumenta Serica Monograph Series 33. Nettetal, Germany: Steyler, 1994. 107. Confucianism is a misnomer devised by early Christian missionaries in the nineteenth century to refer to the Ru (“civilized human”) tradition with a primary purpose of religious comparison, just as Islam was once called Muhammadanism in a similar historical context. A detailed explanation of the history of the nomenclature of Confucianism can be found in Swain, Confucianism in China, 3–22; and Sun, Confucianism as a World Religion, 45–76. Following the reflective scholarly trend regarding nomenclature, in this chapter “Confucianism” is written as “Ruism” or “the Ru tradition,” and “Confucian” or “Confucianist” is written as “Ru” or “Ruist.” 108. Noteworthy examples include Cohen, China and Christianity; Gernet, China and the Christian Impact; and Mungello, Great Encounter. 109. Cohen, China and Christianity, 4–5. 110. Cohen, China and Christianity, 42–43. 111. Cohen, China and Christianity, 36–39. 112. Cohen, China and Christianity, 80. 113. Mungello, Great Encounter, 53–61. Other factors included the fear that Christianity was a subversive sect like the notorious White Lotus EBSCOhost - printed on 7/10/2023 9:52 AM via FORDHAM UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use 85 Society, the concern that church construction would upset the harmonious balance of nature in accordance with fengshui principles, suspicion that European priests would seduce Chinese women, and the belief that Christian missionaries practiced alchemy. 114. Mungello, Great Encounter, 53–54. 115. On some of Ricci’s friends in high places, see Hsia, Jesuit in the Forbidden City, 90, 120–25. 116. Hsia, Jesuit in the Forbidden City, 136, 224. 117. For more nuanced discussions, see Criveller, Preaching Christ; Standaert, Illustrated “Life of Christ”; and Song, Giulio Aleni. 118. On the causes and casualties of the Rites Controversy, see Mungello, ed., Chinese Rites Controversy. 119. See Rule, “Jesus of the ‘Confucian Christians’”; and Rule, “Life and Thoughts.” 120. Other notable figures fitting the ascription of “Ru Christian” include Qu Rukui (1549–1612), Li Yingshi (fl. ca. 1600), Han Lin (1601–1644 ), Zhang Xingyao (1633–after 1715), Zhu Zongyuan (1626–1666), Qiu Sheng (before 1663–after 1706), and the later diplomat Xu Jingcheng (1845 –1900). 121. Adapted from Standaert, Yang Tingyun, 200. 122. Standaert, Yang Tingyun, 200–201. 123. Following de Bary et al., comps., Sources of Chinese Tradition, 510. 124. Lai, “Jesus in the Shengshui Jiyan,” 532. 125. See Zürcher, “Jesuit Accommodation,” 50. 126. See Rule, “Jesus of the ‘Confucian Christians,’” 508–509; and Mungello, Great Encounter, 20–31. 127. For instance, Paulos Huang writes in an extensive study on Ru-Christian dialogue that “after Ricci’s dialogue with Confucians in the 17th century, the dialogue was stopped and was not begun again until the beginning of the 20th century.” Huang, Confronting Confucian Understandings, 9. 128. This was tallied with the use of several indices: Bennett, comp., Research Guide to the Chiao-hui Hsin-pao; Bennett, comp., Research Guide to the Wan-Kuo Kung-Pao; and Wanguo Gongbao: Zongmu, Suoyin. 129. Sun, Confucianism as a World Religion, 42–43. 130. Liang even referred to Kang as the “Martin Luther of the Confucian religion”—an especially apt appellation considering Kang’s admiration for the Protestant reformer. Liang, “Nanhai Kang,” 486. 131. Huang, Kang Youwei, 456. 132. Huang, Kang Youwei, 464–69. 133. Kuo, “Christian Civilization,” 250. 134. Ying, “Fan Zimei,” 67–68. 135. Notable in this regard are Zhao Zichen (1888–1979) and Wu Leichuan (1870–1944). For case studies on these and others, see Starr, Chinese Theology. EBSCOhost - printed on 7/10/2023 9:52 AM via FORDHAM UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use 86 8 The Christology of Joseph Smith A. KEITH THOMPSON I n his 2012 examination of the theology of the Mormon Prophet, Joseph Smith,136 Stephen Webb wrote that Joseph Smith knew more about theology and philosophy than it was reasonable for anyone in his position to know as if he were dipping into the deep, collective unconsciousness of Christianity with a very long pen . . . Smith identifies Jesus Christ not only with God but also with the eternal power that fuels the cosmos and the laws by which that power is regulated. Everything radiates with the energy of Jesus. This is truly the beginning of a Christological metaphysics of matter. 137 In this chapter I explore the metaphysical consequences that Webb considered flow from Smith’s Christology and some other ideas that I have considered as I have reflected on Webb’s work.138 Webb’s list includes the complete mortality and passibility of Christ, his resurrected anthropomorphism, the rejection of Platonic immaterialism (including the idea of ex nihilo creation), the idea that despite his materiality Christ nonetheless permeates all things, and a very developed notion of what imitatio dei means. My additions to Webb’s list are not really additions so much as they are consequences. That is, if Christ really does have a resurrected anthropomorphic body composed of heavenly flesh, why is it that Christianity has been obsessed with the idea of his immateriality since Saint Augustine but more particularly since Archbishop Thomas Cranmer opined in 1553 that the Trinitarian Christian God is without body, parts, and passions? Is the Christian God really impassible? Is that conclusion inescapable if we believe Jesus must be a spirit to be capable of dwelling within us? What difference would it have made to Christian reflection and theological insight if we had spent more time pondering the nature of flesh that could pass through walls and roofs and yet consume broiled fish and honeycomb? The chapter is divided into three parts. In the first I set out, Lewis-like, how Webb was surprised by the consequences of Smith’s theology,139 and what happens when we think outside established theological boxes and reconsider the nature of God and matter itself in new ways. In the second part, I discuss Joseph Smith’s theology and how it manifests consistent development unbound by the traditions that have channeled Christian theological reflection for centuries. In part 3, I suggest that breaking Webb’s shackles enables new insight into the nature of matter and light, but also into time and how a passible Father, Son, and Holy Ghost can be personally engaged in every human life. I conclude that reflection upon Joseph Smith’s theology has enabled Stephen Webb to identify a new universe for Christian reflection. THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX When C. S. Lewis became a Christian, he challenged many theological paradigms. Examples include his insistence that human beings are gods in embryo.140 Though the idea of deification or theosis is nothing new in Eastern Christianity,141 Western Christianity is full of insistence that the idea that man might become like God is close to the blasphemy with which rabbinical Jews charged Jesus during his mortal ministry.142 Stephen Webb has similarly suggested that Christian theological paradigms set in the decades following the Nicene Council in the fourth century CE have stifled the vision of Christian theologians ever since. In Jesus Christ, Eternal God: Heavenly Flesh and the Metaphysics of Matter, Stephen Webb has done that in part by drawing attention to the theology and particularly the Christology of the original Mormon Prophet, Joseph Smith. He has written, for example, that “no theology has ever managed to capture the essential sameness of Jesus with us,” 143 and he asks What if Tertullian had been more successful in his explication of the materiality of the soul? What if the monks of Egypt had won their battle in defense of anthropomorphism? What if Augustine had not read the books of the Platonists?144 But Stephen Webb concedes that it “requires something like an intellectual if not [a] spiritual conversion” to take Joseph Smith’s theology seriously because “suspicion of Mormonism runs so high.”145 Webb summarizes Smith’s theology of theosis: EBSCOhost - printed on 7/10/2023 9:52 AM via FORDHAM UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use 87