Father and Son in Confucianism and Christianity: A Comparative Study of Xunzi and Paul by Yanxia Zhao (review)

Abstract

208 Journal of Chinese Religions Father and Son in Confucianism and Christianity: A Comparative Study of Xunzi and Paul YANXIA ZHAO. Brighton and Portland: Sussex Academic Press, 2007. xiii, 245 pages. ISBN 978-1-84519-161-0. US$67.50, ₤49.50, hardcover. This is a revision of Zhao’s doctoral dissertation done under Xinzhong Yao. She writes quite clearly and without “dissertation-ese,” though with repetition of some material. An Introduction and Conclusion frame the book’s six main chapters on 1) the Origin of Xunzi’s Secular Father-Son Relationship; 2) Sources and Background of the Pauline Divine FatherSon Relationship; 3) Classification of the Father-Son Relationship; 4) The Pauline Ethical Divine Father-Son Relationship; 5) Xunzi’s Ethical Father-Son Relationship; and 6) Ethical Issues Concerning the Father-Son Relationship. The Father-Son relationship “provides a metaphor that can cover nearly all human relationships, including those which are variously familial, social, political and religious or spiritual, in both Confucian and Christian societies” (p. 2). Xunzi and Paul were both rooted in their respective traditions, yet were “revolutionary figures” who sought to place “their traditions on a practical platform” which in turn transformed these traditions (pp. 12-15). Zhao gives a very good reading of Xunzi’s main concepts, peppered with short textual references that illuminate a thinker who is too often overlooked or dismissed in favor of others in the Confucian pantheon. Though the focus of the study is on a comparison of Xunzi and Paul, Zhao also brings in Confucius and other key Chinese figures, so the reader gets a clearer understanding of Xunzi within that philosophical tradition. The Pauline material is also by and large well done, though with a bit less familiarity, breadth, and confidence than the author brings to the Chinese thinkers. Particularly insightful is the distinction Zhao draws between Paul’s goal of inner peace and Xunxi’s goal of harmony, and how this affects their respective understandings of ethical development and proper Father-Son relationship (pp. 175-78). One problematic area is Zhao’s imprecise use of certain philosophical terms such as “utilitarian,” “consequentialism,” and “teleological,” such that her intended point is not always clear. E.g., most Western ethicists would not accept the assertion that “it is a general practice to divide moral theory into consequentialism and non-consequentialism” (p. 162). A detailed comparison, to be successful, requires both a great number and breadth of shared philosophical or religious traditions. While we can legitimately compare Xunzi with another post-Confucian thinker, or Paul with John, past attempts at comparing Confucian and Christian traditions often result in either superficial, glittering generalities or, if one aims at a more thorough investigation (as Zhao admirably does), some inevitable overlooking or skewing of some key aspects of one or both thinkers. While Zhao was not entirely successful in avoiding these pitfalls, this critique should not be seen as a nullification of her investigation project itself. Quite the opposite. This book was quite good at discerning resemblances and some cultural commonalities and has brought this level of cross-cultural inquiry indisputably Book Reviews 209 to a deeper level. Zhao maps similarities of Paul onto Xunzi better than the reverse, probably because of some significant overlooked or underdeveloped aspects of Pauline theology. Space does not permit a full such listing, but perhaps the following points could be helpful to ongoing work from other scholars in the area of further dialogue between Chinese and Christian traditions. Some areas of Christian (and Pauline) thought that need to be better probed in relation to Xunzi’s thought are differing understandings of just how each tradition understands sin and personal salvation (soteriology) and the ultimate “end” of human nature in union with the divine. Zhao asserts a supposed commonality between Xunzi and Paul, holding that both believe human nature to be evil. I believe this is a real misunderstanding of Paul, who holds instead that the original nature of humans was good, not sinful, though fallen and marred by sin. Another important difference that merits closer attention is that the “divine” for Paul is a monotheistic personal God, and not the somewhat ambiguous “Heaven” of the Chinese tradition. This theology...