Ruist Influences on Chinese Culture, Chinese Christians, and the CUV
A religion or a culture fundamentally shapes its people through various ways, including how morality is cultivated.Footnote 1 In this case, predominantly RuistFootnote 2 ethics have formed and nurtured the personalities and ideas of a great multitude of Chinese people,Footnote 3 although all of the ‘Three Teachings’ (Sānjiāo 三教)Footnote 4 — Ruism, Daoism, and Buddhism — and folk religion (mínjiān zōngjiào 民間宗教)Footnote 5 have influenced traditional Chinese culture. Now Chinese Protestant Christian churches in East Asia have existed for over two hundred years, and yet throughout this period Ruification Footnote 6 has continued to be a very common phenomenon among Chinese ChristiansFootnote 7 and also among other East Asian Christians.Footnote 8 Consequently, Ruist influences on the Mandarin Union Version of the Chinese Bible (CUV) were unavoidable. Some of these influences are explicit and helpful for Chinese people from multivarious backgrounds to understand properly biblical concept and theology in their own Chinese contexts. For example, the CUV translated as “honour your father and your mother” in Exodus 20:12 into ‘xiàojìng fùmǔ’ ‘孝敬父母’. This Chinese phrase can be translated into English as ‘giving filial piety and respect to your father and your mother’. In this way, a specific Ruist virtue is employed to characterise this Jewish command that is central also to Christian ethics. The overlapping value may well camouflage a very different set of rituals associated with Ruist traditions, but here the differences between ‘xiàojìng’ and ‘xiàoshùn’ ‘孝順’ (translated into English as ‘giving filial piety to and obey’) suggest the significant distinction between the Jewish and Christian ethical commands and traditional Ru-influenced Chinese family values. However, some other subtler influences might be misleading, especially when the Ruist ideology is implied rather than stated explicitly.
1. Subtler Influences of Ru-Inspired Moral Self-Cultivation
Among the Ru-inspired influences, the dominant ideology of moral self-cultivation (xiūshēn 修身) has been rooted in various expressions of traditional Chinese culture for thousands of years, and continues to be one of the most influential cultural factors for contemporary Chinese people.Footnote 9 As the world-renowned contemporary New Ruist Tu Weiming argues,Footnote 10 moral self-cultivation is based on a faith in the assumptionFootnote 11 of the perfectibility of human nature, and an assertion that the “germinations and seeds” in every human can eventually yield “fruition” by the path of self-cultivation. The concept of perfectibility is claimed also to be the “common” basis for the conception of selfhood in all of the Three Teachings in East Asia. Tu asserts that there is an assumption held in common by each of the Three Teachings that “moral and spiritual self-development involves not only a convergence of stages to be perfected but also a multiplicity of ways [for it] to be pursued”.Footnote 12 This assertion is what Tu calls the “Moral Universal”.Footnote 13 The doctrines of the Three Teachings on selfhood all teach human perfectibility in their respective contexts: everyone can become a sage in Ruism; everyone can become a Buddha in Buddhism; everyone can become an immortal in Daoism.Footnote 14
2. Subtler Ruist Influences of Moral Self-Cultivation on the CUV
The concepts of the perfectibility of human nature and moral self-cultivation, or “self-salvation” (achieving salvation by one's own efforts) in Christian language, are essentially contradictory to Evangelical Christian doctrines of sin (or the “total depravity”Footnote 15 of human nature) and salvation (or “gracious moral cultivation”Footnote 16 in Ruist language).Footnote 17 Nevertheless, we can still find some influences of this Ru-inspired concept of moral self-cultivation on the CUV, in both certain explicit statements and their implied meanings. This paper will present and examine three examples of this influence: (1) “xūxīn de rén” “虛心的人” in Matthew 5:3, (2) “tiānguó shì nǔlì jìnrù de﹐nǔlì de rén jiù dézháole” “天國是努力進入的﹐努力的人就得著了” in Matthew 11:12, and (3) “lǎoliàn”老練 in Romans 5:4. In the first two examples, the Ruist influence is explicit, while in the third example the Ruist influence is implicit.
2.1 Two Indicative Characteristics of Ruist Moral Self-Cultivation
Before presenting and examining these three examples, it is valuable to identify and explain two distinctive characteristics related to the concept of moral cultivation and salvation embedded in the two constrasting “religio-ethical”Footnote 18 traditions, Ruism and Christianity.
First of all, Ru-inspired concept of moral self-cultivation, emphasizes good performance and achievement, especially in terms of moral qualities that are viewed as virtures and merits, so that the qualities become the criteria for “be[ing] human”Footnote 19 (zuòrén 做人). Accordingly, these virtures and merits are always exalted and praised as personal achievements. In contrast, the Christian concept of gracious moral cultivation (moral transformation by Christ's grace) teaches, as Grenz affirms,Footnote 20 “We can live ethically, then, only as we become the recipients of God's grace. In short, ethics is God's love for us; the ethical life comes as the gift of divine grace”. This means that God's grace and mercy, instead of personal achievement and related efforts, are always exalted and praised. In other words, the results of gracious moral cultivation are not viewed as the results of any human's good works or merits, even if we might call them virtues.
According to an often-asserted Ru-inspired concept of self-salvation, reaching sagehood or “tiānrén héyī” “天人合一” (“the complete unity between humanity and Heaven”) is an expression of an “ultimate self-transformation”.Footnote 21 This Ruist goal for humans is entirely attained by means of human willpower, efforts, and perseverance. This means that human virtures and merits are the requirements for self-salvation, or earning salvation by human efforts. According to a Christian concept of salvation based on biblical principles, however, it is not human beings but God himself through Christ who “creates the conditions” of receiving salvation for “the sinners, the godless and those forsaken by God”.Footnote 22 Therefore the characteristics of moral self-cultivation and self-salvation will be key indicators for identifying Ruist influences on the CUV in the following three examples.
2.2 Three Examples of Subtler Ruist Influences of Moral Self-cultivation on the CUV
2.2.1 “Xūxīn de Rén” “虛心的人” in Matthew 5:3
The first example of subtler form of a Ruist influence of moral self-cultivation on the CUV is the Chinese translation of “‘οἱ πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι” (NRSV: “the poor in spirit”) in Matthew 5:3. Robinson explains this phrase in his Greek and English lexicon as “those who feel themselves spiritually poor, the lowly in mind and heart”.Footnote 23 Harvey Cox considers it to mean only a negatively “despirited, or even crushed state of being, not donoting any positive virtues”.Footnote 24 Obviously, being spiritually poor is not a virtue and merit to be exalted and praised, although this “bad sense … was ennobled”Footnote 25 in this verse because “the poor in spirit” are proclaimed by Jesus to be blessed. It is also notable that “the poor in spirit” are blessed not because they are qualified by their goodness, but because they are “always in want of God's grace”.Footnote 26 In the same way, contrition does not “earn” God's forgiveness of sins, but is the result of the Holy Spirit's work within humans’ hearts through His law.Footnote 27
In the light of the above, it is worth noting that the CUV translated the phrase “the poor in spirit” into “xūxīn de rén” “虛心的人”, which means those who are “humble, open-minded”Footnote 28 or “modest”.Footnote 29 Generally speaking, being humble and open-minded is a humane virtue that many persons would exalt or praise. Take the person of Confucius (Masker Kong) as an example. Confucius is exalted and respected in Chinese cultural history as “zhìshèng xiānshī” “至聖先師” (the perfect sage and pre-eminent teacher). However, quite paradoxically it is found that Confucius himself said in Analects 7:34a: “The sage and the [person] of perfect virtue;—how dare I rank myself with them?”Footnote 30 Some commentators, such as Jiǎng Bóqián 蔣伯潛,Footnote 31 consider this expression to be a manifestation of Confucius’ virtuous humility. In other words, Confucius's apparent denial demonstrated that he was really a humble and worthy sage, free from any overweening pride. Therefore, translating this verse as humble and open-minded tends to make Jesus's teaching a positive moral teaching, presenting the virtue of humility as a condition to be blessed, and perhaps even a qualification for entering into the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 5:3 is the first of Jesus's Beatitudes, and therefore the basis for understanding the seven other Beatitudes that follow. In the CUV, this verse is not the only one among Jesus's Beatitudes that involves a problematic exposition related directly to the influence of a Ru-inspired translation. Therefore, if this verse is understood as a moral teaching, all of the eight Beatitudes could quite naturally become moral teachings. If the virtue of humility is a condition for being blessed, the other seven Beatitudes will appear to encourage Jesus's audience and readers to self-cultivate the eight different moral virtues in order to earn their blessings from God. As I argue in an article discussing the third Beatitude, Jesus's Beatitudes are not about moral teachings but about the Gospel, revealing a cyclical process of life-transformation by the Holy Spirit.Footnote 32 This process is not a demand or obligation for incorrigible, sinful humans to become qualified for God's righteousness. As Luther pointed out,Footnote 33 the Triune God's righteousness is a free “gift” promised by the Father, granted by the Son, and empowered by the Holy Spirit.
Almost all the later Chinese Bible versions, including Today's Chinese Version (TCV) and Chinese New Version (CNV), have translated this phrase according to the original meaning of “the poor in spirit”. It is also worth noting that most Chinese commentators have paid attention to the original meaning of “xūxīn de rén” “虛心的人” in the CUV, and corrected its rendering of “the poor in spirit” by Chinese translation similar to “xīnlíng pínfá de rén” “心靈貧乏的人” in the TCV when expositing it. Nonetheless, some commentators, for example Titus Chu 朱韜樞 Footnote 34 and Zhèng Zhōngxìn 鄭忠信,Footnote 35 continue to view being spiritually poor as a virtue. Others, including Liú Qīngqián 劉清虔Footnote 36 and M. Leekung Yu 于力工,Footnote 37 have stressed the importance of one's willpower, resolution, perseverance, and sacrificial effort in order to achieve and maintain the spiritual conditions of the blessed people described by Jesus in this passage. They do so even though they may not view these qualities as virtues. Accordingly, their expositions tend to imply that all the people mentioned in Jesus's Beatitudes are blessed due to their different virtues or qualifications.
Therefore, Ruist influences on this passage persist, even if the Ru-inspired translation of “‘οἱ πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι’” has been noticed and corrected. I have noted above how both the translation and exposition of this passage in the CUV has been influenced by Ru-inspired culture. It is clear that in some translators’ perspectives the interpretation and exposition interact with each other, especially when the CUV is being interpreted. In order to avoid these misreadings based on Ru-inspired concepts of moral self-cultivation and self-salvation when interpreting this passage, I found Friest's exposition significant and helpful. He points out that Jesus’ Beatitudes are not expressed in the imperative, unlike the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20.Footnote 38 Instead, all the Beatitudes are declarative sentences. In other words, the Beatitudes are not commands for believers to fulfil, but instead declare how people will be blessed by God. The word μακάριοι (blessed) begins each of those eight declarative statements. Therefore, Friest argues that “the poor in spirit” are not blessed due to being spiritually poor, but are blessed because theirs is the kingdom of heaven. In other words, they are blessed because from God they receive this gift, that is, the kingdom of heaven. If the other seven Beatitudes are understood in the same way as Friest's exposition of the first Beatitude, then the Ru-inspired implications of moral self-cultivation and self-salvation in this passage disappear. The passage is not about how well humans can perform, but about how graciously God blesses humans. Being spiritually poor is no longer the condition for being blessed, but the spiritual fruit yielded by God's gracious blessing.
2.2.2 “Tiānguó Shì Nǔlì Jìnrù de, Nǔlì de Rén Jiù Dézháole” “天國是努力進入的, 努力的人就得著了” in Matthew 11:12
The second example of a subtler expression of a Ruist influence of moral self-cultivation on the CUV is the Chinese translation of Matthew 11:12b: ‘ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν βιάζεται, καὶ βιασταὶ ἁρπάζουσιν αὐτήν’. This translation is inconsistent with Evangelical Christian doctrines of salvation, namely justification by faith, because the CUV's translation means that the kingdom of heaven is hard to enter into without endeavour, or that the one who endeavours will have managed it. This problematic Chinese translation results from a short-sighted exposition of this verse and its context, rather than from the translation of the Greek passage, but it is also true that this verse is one of the most difficult and controversial passages in the Gospel of Matthew.Footnote 39 It implies that salvation is earned by one's efforts, which reflects the Ruist influence of moral self-cultivation on the CUV.
The translations of this verse in some later Chinese Bible versions, such as Today's Chinese Version (TCV) and Chinese New Version (CNV), no longer conflict with the Evangelical Christian doctrine of salvation. Instead, the meanings of their Chinese translations are close to the NRSV's rendering: “The kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force”.
Nevertheless, some Chinese commentators, including Zhèng Zhōngxìn,Footnote 40 Titus Chu,Footnote 41 and Stephen C. T. Chan 陳終道 Footnote 42 continue to adopt the CUV's translation and its literal meaning as noted above. These commentators suggest that one can only enter into God's kingdom if one endeavours to fight against any inside and outside resistance, rather than being saved by faith. Stephen C. T. Chan qualifies this idea by explaining that the endeavour here is not for “gaining salvation”, but for removing the obstacles that prevent one from being saved. M. Leekung Yu argues that one must endeavour to live worthy of God's calling, even while he stresses that living in God's kingdom is a gracious gift received by faith.Footnote 43 Nonetheless, Chan and Yu have not adequately clarified that endeavouring is not a condition for receiving or maintaining salvation.
Huáng Zǐjiā 黃子嘉,Footnote 44 Denny Y. C. Ma,Footnote 45 and Esther Yue L. Ng 吳羅瑜 Footnote 46 collect, summarise, and analyse different translations and expositions of this passage as interpreted by many commentators in an attempt to resolve the problematic meaning of this Chinese translation in the CUV. After comparing the alternative expositions, Esther Yue L. Ng and Denny Y. C. Ma argue for a new Chinese translation. That renderingFootnote 47 is the same one also provided by Huang Zijia,Footnote 48 and is close to the meaning of the NIV's Englsih translation, “the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it”.Footnote 49 However, this is not the place to resolve controversies about various expositions, but to remain focused on subtle Ruist influences found in the translation of the CUV. I only would want to clarify here that “forceful men who lay hold” (“fán qiángyǒulìde juéqǔzhě” “凡強有力地攫取者”) in Huang Zijia's (1993) translation,Footnote 50 or “nǔlì de rén” “努力的人” in Denny Y. C. Ma's exposition, should indicate persons who respond strongly, rather than ones who pay a price and so “earn the prize”.Footnote 51 Otherwise, on the basis of that Ru-inspired rendering, human endeavour would become a condition for entering into the kingdom of heaven.
2.2.3 “Lǎoliàn” “老練” in Romans 5:4
The third example of a subtler form of a Ruist influence of moral self-cultivation on the CUV is the Chinese translation of “δοκιμήν” (NRSV: “character”) in Romans 5:4. Grimm and Wilke explain this word in their Greek and English lexicon as “approvedness, tried character”.Footnote 52 The CUV translated this word into “lǎoliàn” “老練”, which means “having rich and varied experience”,Footnote 53 “zuòshì chúnshú jīngliàn” “做事純熟精練” (skillful, proficient or well-trained in doing things).Footnote 54 This Chinese phrase “lǎoliàn” “老練” is usually used to describe and praise people who are experienced mature, because they have gained considerable skill through long-term practice and experience of certain techniques. Accordingly, this Chinese phrase tends to be linked up with the concept of moral self-cultivation, because it involves various experiences and obvious efforts in practice. However, I have not yet found any example of applying this phrase, lǎoliàn, to describe a person's character or moral quality in Chinese literature, though it might be extended to denote ‘the qualities it demonstrates”Footnote 55 according to the meaning of its context. This might be why the Chinese Worldwide Bible Version prefers to translate this phrase as “jīngdéqǐ kǎoyàn de pǐngé” “經得起考驗的品格” meaning approvedness and tested character.Footnote 56 This translation and other similar ones are recognised by some Chinese commentators, such as Denny Y. C. Ma,Footnote 57 as closer to the original meaning of the Greek word in this context.
Even if “lǎoliàn” “老練” denotes a person's character or moral quality, is such a character or moral quality cultivated through moral self-cultivation? Or is this quality cultivated by the suffering and endurance mentioned in this context?Footnote 58 Whether the CUV's translation of this phrase reflects the influence of the dominant Ruist ideology of moral self-cultivation depends on this subtle difference in exposition. The explicit meaning of the phrase might suggest self-practice (self-cultivation), but the biblical context implies that this tried character is shaped passively through suffering and endurance.Footnote 59
Some Chinese commentators, including Huáng Dēnghuáng 黃登煌Footnote 60 and Ronald Y. K. Fung 馮蔭坤,Footnote 61 stress that suffering and endurance are the means to make one's character mature by God's gracious work. However, others, such as John H. Y. Pao 鮑會園,Footnote 62 emphasize instead “tried character” as a proof of the qualification of Christians. Does this “tried character” in Pao's rendering sound like a condition for becoming a Christian, even though he does not use the word condition? Accordingly, we can still see the sign or shadow of a subtler Ruist influence on the interpretation of the CUV's translation of “lǎoliàn” “老練” in Romans 5:4.
In order to indicate how the implicit Ru-inspired rendition in the CUV should be avoided, it is worth stressing and summarising here some crucial points in expositing Romans 5:1-8.
First, the whole passage deals with Christians relying on Christ's grace (v.2a), including:
— being “justified by faith” in the present (v.1a);
— having “peace with God” in the present (v.1b);
— having “hope of sharing the glory of God” in the future (v.2b);
Often Christians focus on what they can and should do in order to glorify God, but this passage describing how they share in the glory of God. It is about how God has promised to bless and lavishly grant us His own glory. It is not about what believers should do, but about what God must do. God has promised to grant Christians this unimaginable privilege. The privilege does not depend on their goodness, but rather depends on His grace and how God so loves them. Christians do not need to do anything but accept this gracious gift.
— “boast[ing] in … sufferings” in the present (v.3a).
According to the Apostle Paul, then, Christians can boast in their sufferings because “God's love has been poured into [their] hearts through the Holy Spirit” (v.5) and “God proves his love for [them] in that while [they] still were sinners Christ died for [them]” (v.8). Furthermore, based on God's love, Christians know confidently that their suffering ultimately leads to hope (v.3b-4), which “does not disappoint [them]” (v. 5a). In other words, when Christians suffer, their confidence in the hope of sharing the glory of God does not depend on themselves or their capabilities, or even their goodness, but is based alone on God's love.
From the above passage we find that Christian theologians claim that God plans the process that produces endurance through suffering, character (or a distintive characteristic of life) through endurance, and ultimately hope through the development of character, according to the divine purpose in the lives of persons. By this process, the Holy Spirit transforms Christians into “the image of the Lord” (2 Corinthians 3:17-18). Therefore, the distinctive characteristic of life that produces hope is not only what Christians believe God wants and promises to give them, and is also a free gift from God as well as a proof of the Holy Spirit's gracious work in Christians’ lives. Such an understanding of the distinctive characteristic of life bestowed by God in the process of suffering and endurance is not expected and nor expressed in the phrase “lǎoliàn” “老練”. This is the way in which this phrase carries subtler Ruist influences in the translation of the CUV.
2.2.4 Reflections on these Subtler Ruist Influences of Moral Self-cultivation on the CUV
Through analysis and discussion of the three examples in the CUV's translation, we can see that more or less subtle Ruist influences of moral self-cultivation are present; they are explicit in the first two examples, and implicit in the third. All of these problematic translations more or less result from those general Ruist commitments, leading to some interpreters’ questionable expositions of those passages that bear out some distinctive orientations challenging even some basic Protestant approaches to soteriology and sanctification, as has been seen above, the distorted influences of those translations on the troubled expositions are undeniable. In the first example, the translation of “xūxīn de rén” “虛心的人” itself is problematic. In the second example, the problematic translation, “tiānguó shì nǔlì jìnrù de﹐nǔlì de rén jiù dézháole” “天國是努力進入的﹐努力的人就得著了”, is mainly the result of how certain persons interpret both this difficult sentence and its context. In the third example, the translation of “lǎoliàn” “老練” itself might not be problematic, but its correct interpretation depends on a more thorough comprehension of its role in the broader context. All of these three problematic translations in the CUV have been corrected by later different Chinese Bible versions, and have been directly addressed by some Chinese commentators, as illustrated and discussed above.
Added to all these matters is another aspect of interpersonal relationships in traditional, as well as post-traditional Chinese societies. It is notable that Tu WeimingFootnote 63 stresses “reciprocity (pao)” (報)Footnote 64 or “the principle of reciprocity” and “the principle of mutuality”Footnote 65 — rather than dependency — as the underlying value of Ru-inspired social relations. Yang Liensheng argues that, based on the teaching of the Ruist classic, the Record of Rites (“Lıǰ ì” “禮記”):
The Chinese believe that [sic] reciprocity of actions (favour and hatred, reward and punishment) between man and man, and indeed between men and supernatural beings, should be as certain as a cause-and-effect relationship, and, therefore, when a Chinese acts, he normally anticipates a response or return. Favours done for others are often considered what may be termed social investments, for which handsome returns are expected. Of course, acceptance of the principle of reciprocity is required in practically every society. Neverheless, in China the principle is marked by its long history, the high degree of consciousness of its existence, and its wide application and tremendous influence in social institutions.Footnote 66
Therefore, I argue that the Ruist influence of moral self-cultivation and its connections to the social investments involved in reciprocal relations are powerful ideological values embedded in many post-traditional Chinese people's mindset. These make it very difficult for some of them to accept that the kingdom of heaven is a free gift, so that it has nothing to do with morality, worthiness, and reward. Accordingly, Ruist influences even in post-traditional Chinese cultural settings not only lead to problematic translations in the CUV, but also to troubled expositions of even better or acceptable translations.
3. Conclusion: Complications Caused by Subtler Ruist Influences of Moral Self-cultivation on the CUV
The problematic translations in the CUV and some questionable expositions of their contexts resulting from specific Ruist influences and moral self-cultivation assumptions not only affect and interact with each other but also result in misunderstandings or even misinterpreting key texts. Although many Chinese commentators have paid attention to these problem, it is not easy for most lay Chinese Christians to discern them, since most of them naturally do not have a solid Protestant theological foundation attained through advanced studies of theology and biblical commentaries. Therefore, this misinterpretation of the biblical passages actually related to gracious moral cultivation and soteriology has led Chinese Christians into a cultural trap of what might be referred to as ‘Ruified Christianity’, which in it worst obstruction would prevent them from maturing spiritually. Friest, an American missionary and theological professor in Taiwan for more than thirty years, argues by his experience and observation that this is one of the critical and main factors hindering the development and growth of Christian churches in Taiwan.Footnote 67 There appears to be a connection between these post-traditional Ruist influences and one of the seemingly insurmountable difficulties that has challenged modern Protestant Chinese churches for a long time: the behavioural tendency of wearing a negative mask (i.e. promoting harmful inconsistencies between the true self and social masks).Footnote 68
As I mentioned and presented in two articles,Footnote 69 based on an extensive literature review,Footnote 70 many studies published after the 1970s have described the problem of “negatively masking” in its various degrees as a product of the relational and social structure as well as the ideology of moral self-cultivation found within Ru-affected societies.Footnote 71 This fundamental problem has prevented many Chinese persons, even after they have been Christians for some years, from experiencing a truly liberated inner transformation of character and virtue. This occurs because they, as post-traditional and modern Chinese, are still striving to achieve their Ruified Christian form of moral cultivation exclusively by means of their own efforts. Not only is it documented how their individual Christian spiritual growth is affected, but also this basic orientation reduces their capacity for interpersonal relationships within both churches and families to develop into deeper spiritual bonds within a Christian fellowship of grace, to the point that it significantly hinders interpersonal communications and even the basic operations of the church community. Here below I will elaborate how these post-traditional Ruist influences of moral self-cultivation might cause these complications, based on previous research summarised here in this conclusion.Footnote 72
Lawler points out that “being an (authentic) identity” in European and American cultural settings is conventionally counterposed against “doing an identity (performing)”,Footnote 73 the latter also being a core value of the specific values of post-traditional Ruist moral self-cultivation described above. The former expresses “who we are, really’, but the latter usually involves ‘a false expression, denying, negating or concealing who we are really”.Footnote 74 When a discrepancy is found to exist between doing (or “semblance”) and being (or “substance”), “the person is liable to be accused of pretension, inauthenticity or acting a role”.Footnote 75 In European and American cultural contexts, it is understood that semblance and substance should be consistent. If that is not the case, “that is because of some dissembling — some attempt to deceive others”.Footnote 76 Acting is taken to be “acting inauthentically” when one makes others believe that we are better than we really are.Footnote 77 Therefore Lawler argues that “reality, of course, is seen to inhere in substance (who we are really) rather than in semblance (who we appear to be)”.Footnote 78 No wonder Xunzi (active 3rd century bce), a pre-imperial rationalistic Ruist and self-proclaimed follower of Confucius, insists that “goodness can only be imposed externally through education and disciplined self-cultivation”, as interpreted by J. Y. Tan.Footnote 79 Xunzi's account of an “imposed external goodness” and Lawler's “semblance” denote exactly the same concept, but use different terms to describe it. Both reflect cultural systems where repressed forms of self appear to be unavoidable.
One could argue that Jesus illustrated these same points in the parables of the wolves in sheep's clothing and good and bad trees and their fruit found in Matthew 7:15-23. Both of these parables were intended in their first century Palestinian context to warn against false prophets and/or spiritual hypocrites. Pretence expressed by means of deceptively acting like someone one is actually not like is not merely non-identical with reality in substance, but should be also regarded as a moral evil. That is wilfully misrepresenting oneself for the sake of some public or communal benefit. While a good tree naturally bears good fruit, this does not intend to indicate that some account of good fruit assures us that the tree is actually good. A bad tree can be camouflaged by fake good fruit, since it would seem to look like a good tree. In several of Jesus’ parables, this incoherence is expressed through an unnatural juxtaposition, to wolves wear sheep's clothing, thorns bear grapes, and thistles bear figs. According to Jesus, God's transforming work (gracious moral cultivation) makes a bad tree (the “sinner”) into a good tree (“spiritually regenerated”). Good fruit then appear naturally. Self-propelled moral self-cultivation unaccompanied by God's grace in this prespective ends up replacing “bad fruit” with “fake good fruit” but that does not make a bad tree into a good one.
From another perspective, we could also affirm that in fact thorns will never yield naturally any fruit. A change of environmental factors can only change the quality and quantity of the thorns, but it cannot transform the nature of their species. When thistles or thorn bushes are decorated by fake fruit to look like fruit trees, Jesus called them “false prophets” (Matthew 7:15) or “hypocrites” (Matthew 6:1-6). The original meaning of the Greek word ὑποκριτής is “play-actor”,Footnote 80 metaphorically denoting “a pretender” or “a dissembler”.Footnote 81 Therefore the term “hypocrite” is also a metaphorical description of anyone who wears a “negative mask”. Such a pretence in semblance may be able to deceive others, but it can never change one's own human character or characteristic of life.
To sum up, I have shown above how certain subtler Ruist influences stemming from a particular set of values associated with moral self-cultivation have had an impact on the translation of the CUV. I have also indicated how some aspects of misinterpretation of these passages could have negative aspects affecting Chinese Protestants’ spiritual growth and interpersonal relationships. Finally, I have elaborated these points from other sources where the study of these related post-traditional social phenomenon in contemporary Chinese societies have had a less than salutary impact on the form of life that Chinese Protestants, families, and communities have experienced. While these concerns do not involve many other aspects of post-traditional Ruist influences in biblical commentaries and Chinese Christian communities, the specifc moral and spiritual concerns related to “negatively masking”. This problem is rooted in some particular Ruist values that deserve attention from perspectives of not only biblical translation in Chinese and their commentarial elaborations, but also some of their documented impact in psychological, sociological, and ecclesiological studies of Chinese Protestants in post-traditional modern settings.
Glossary of Names Rendered in Pinyin
于力工 Yú L.
文崇一 Wén C.
朱韜樞 Zhū T.
吳羅瑜 Wú L.
沈保羅 Shěn P.
林語堂 Lín Y.
施媛媛 Shī Y.
馬有藻 Mǎ Y.
陳終道 Chén Z.
馮蔭坤 Féng Y.
黃子嘉 Huáng Z.
黃宗儀 Huáng Z.
黃登煌 Huáng D.
黃詩茹 Huáng S.
楊國樞 Yáng K.
楊惠南 Yáng H.
楊鳳崗 Yáng F.
劉清虔 Liú Q.
蔡仁厚 Cài R.
蔡麗貞 Cài L.
蔣伯潛 Jiǎng B.
鄭忠信 Zhèng Z.
蕭新煌 Xiāo X.
鮑會園 Bào H.
謝文郁 Xiè W.
