David Marshall: "Son of Heaven"

I have three items for my write-up today on Chapter 5 of David Marshall’s True Son of Heaven: How Jesus Fulfills the Chinese Culture. Chapter 5 is entitled “Son of Heaven”.

1. On page 55, Marshall states: “Lao Tse wrote that he who was ‘without thought of self’ would be able to ‘accomplish his private ends.’ Chinese history is full of notable examples. Confucius passed up official posts to remain untainted. In the shadow of Qin’s burial mound, Han Wei founded the great Han Dynasty by listening to people and avoiding pretense of god-hood. Nationalist founder Sun Yat-Sen won a revolution but in the interest of peace, allowed his rival to rule. In the Gospels we find evidence that God had the same idea: that Absolute Power could accomplish great things in the guise of weakness.”

The impression that I have gotten from what I have read so far of Marshall is that he believes that the positive moral elements of the Bible constitute evidence for its divine-inspiration (albeit not the only evidence). But how can one say that, when people in non-Christian cultures and religions are able to arrive at the insight that (say) humility is good, an insight that conflicts with people’s tendency to exalt and to benefit themselves? I’m open to saying that God is able to instruct people throughout the earth, in all sorts of cultures. Marshall argues this, on some level, when he presents Christianity as ingrained within all people, explaining the presence of Christian-like themes in different cultures. I personally am not going that far, however. I’m just acknowledging that God may illuminate people throughout the world about certain moral principles.

I guess my problem is with an apologetic argument that a specific religion (Christianity) is from God and is authoritative because it has good principles. Even if Christianity takes good principles further than other religions do, I think that an atheist can easily make the argument that Christians are arriving at moral insights on their own, without divine revelation. As I’ve said, I’m open to the concept of divine illumination, but my problem with Christian apologetics is that there is often a variety of ways to interpret so-called evidence, and not all of those ways support Christianity being the one authoritative religion.

2. In my post here, I mentioned some of the inadequacies that David Marshall believes are present in Confucianism, weaknesses that (according to him) Christianity does not have. I forgot to mention one inadequacy, which Marshall discusses on pages 59-60. Confucius said that, if you’re a government official, and you learn that your son has been embezzling funds, then you should bend the rules for your son’s sake. There’s much to admire about such grace and loyalty to family. But, as Marshall points out, this outlook has caused problems, such as nepotism. Emperor Qin went the other direction, according to Marshall, when he elevated rules over relationships, as he “made public office a prize to be won through diligence rather than birth.” Marshall can see strengths and weaknesses in both perspectives. Marshall believes, however, that “this conflict disappears” for followers of Jesus, who base their roles on the love of God that fills them, and who feel free to rebel when human authority goes too far.

I guess my issue here is with Marshall’s implication that Christianity makes ambiguity go away, in terms of the issue of justice and mercy. I don’t think that it does. For one, the question of when people should receive mercy and when they should get justice—-and how to balance mercy and justice—-is not always cut-and-dry, even from a Christian perspective. In my opinion, if a son of a Christian official embezzled funds, that official probably wouldn’t want for his son to go to jail, since that would result in the son having a record that could impact the rest of his life, the son facing threats in jail, etc. And yet, the official would desire for his son to learn that certain things are wrong, and he’d fear that the son facing no consequences at all would not help him in the long run. What should the official do? It’s complex. Christianity may offer some principles as guidelines, but it doesn’t make ambiguity go completely away.

Second, I can understand why Marshall believes that Christianity is a revolutionary religion, a religion that promotes rebellion against authoritarianism. After all, Jesus overturned tables in the temple, as Marshall notes more than once. At the same time, Marshall should at least wrestle with the fact that prominent strands of Christianity have historically promoted submission to unjust authorities, on the basis of such passages as Romans 13. John MacArthur is not getting his idea that the American Revolution was a bad idea out of the clear blue sky! He’s drawing from an influential Christian tradition.

3. On page 60, Marshall states: “It’s one thing for a leader to call himself ‘lord’ from a palace surrounded by walls and bodyguards…But suppose a rebel should march openly into the capital. Suppose his followers shout praises to God for the ‘new order’ he brings. Suppose only a band of weak-kneed fishermen and a couple rusty swords stand between him and the Emperor. Imagine, to top it off, he won’t let his side fight. What can you say about a revolutionary like that? Either he is a fool. Or he has a plan.”

Marshall may be expressing his admiration for Jesus here, or he may be making an apologetic argument—-that Jesus would only do something that weird if he was who he said he was. Perhaps it’s both. Can I think of another explanation for why Jesus would rebel and not even allow his disciples to fight—-as if Jesus had a death-wish? Why would any rational person—-especially someone who imparted wise teachings—-do such a thing? Perhaps Jesus did indeed expect for his death to accomplish something in terms of the imminent kingdom of God. Scholars have debated this, but there are some, such as Albert Schweitzer (if I’m not mistaken), who maintained that Jesus had a purpose behind proceeding towards his death. But does that mean Jesus was right? There are many people who die for causes. That doesn’t mean that their causes are divinely-authoritative.

At the same time, I would like to believe in a silver lining: that Jesus accomplished something with his death. I have problems with that being mixed up with Christian exclusivism, but perhaps I can believe that Jesus’ death was redemptive, on some level, without being the sort of person who believes that people have to believe one way in this life to avoid going to hell.

David Marshall: "The Teacher and the Tyrant"

In this post, I’ll blog about Chapter 3 of David Marshall’s True Son of Heaven: How Jesus Fulfills the Chinese Culture. This chapter is entitled “The Teacher and the Tyrant”. I have two items:

1. On page 28, Marshall states:

“Kindness towards inferiors was not a common attitude in Confucius’ day. Kings murdered to steal wives or even for target practice. The prevailing sentiment was that the best purpose a subject could serve was to die for his lord. Confucius taught that the first duty of a king was to care for the common folk, though.”

Overall, I enjoyed Marshall’s chapter on Confucius, for I had not read much about this particular religious figure up to that point. The reason why that passage on page 28 stood out to me, however, was that it made me think of an implication that Marshall often makes in the books of his that I have read so far. Marshall often points out areas in which the Bible or Christianity is superior to other religions—-superior in the sense that it is more humanitarian, or meets spiritual needs more effectively—-and his implication seems to be that the Bible or Christianity is divinely-inspired and authoritative on account of this. But does a person arriving at a revolutionary insight that we should treat people well mean that the person is divinely-inspired? Would Marshall say that Confucius’ religion was divinely-inspired and authoritative? (See here for an article that refers to Confucius’ other revolutionary thoughts.)

I seriously doubt that Marshall would say that Confucianism is on the same level as Christianity in terms of divine inspiration. In subsequent chapters, Marshall discusses what he considers to be weaknesses of Confucianism, such as Confucius’ God being overly distant, and Confucius’ tendency to ignore women, when husbands “need a teacher who sets an example [of] how to love and respect women—-who cares for virtue in women” (page 43). For Marshall, Christianity does not have these inadequacies of Confucianism, for Jesus bridged the gap between heaven and earth as well as modeled a respectful treatment of women.

Marshall also maintains that Christianity does not have the inadequacies that have resulted from the abuse of Confucianism (abuse that cannot necessarily be blamed on Confucius himself). Marshall praises Confucianism for its emphasis on honoring parents, but, in China, that concept has been abused, as (for example) some believe that a son should die if his father wants him to do so. (UPDATE: Marshall goes on to say on page 43, however, that Confucius thought people should obey their parents even when the parents are wrong.) For Marshall, Christianity has the sorts of positive concepts that are in Confucianism, such as honor for parents and Jesus’ covenant-faithfulness (which is not to say that Confucianism believes in Jesus, but rather that it emphasizes faithfulness to one’s family and obligations). But Christianity also is revolutionary in that it challenges authority when it is unjust.

Marshall obviously believes that Christianity is superior, but is he also open to the possibility that, on some level, people in other cultures and religions can be divinely-inspired, too? He talks at great length about what he considers to be truth in other religions—-a belief in a Supreme God, a hope for atonement, etc. Could that be due to God’s inspiration, in his opinion?

As an undergraduate, I once talked with a religion professor of mine about Christian exclusivism. He was an Evangelical Free pastor, but he also was learned about other religions and open-minded. Our class had just watched The Message, a movie about Muhammad, and it intrigued me that Muhammad stood up for the worship of one God as well as social justice. I wondered if Islam could have been inspired, in some sense, by God. Some of my evangelical friends said that Islam was from Satan and was a counterfeit (and this was years before 9/11), but I was interested in my professor’s take. He essentially said that we do not know on whom God’s spirit can rest. Who is to say that God is not in other religions, inspiring people to know him a little better and to take a stand for what is morally right?

2. Now I’ll turn to the “fact-checking” part of my post, and I am open to gentle correction, since I know little about Chinese religion. On pages 30-31, Marshall says that Confucius hoped for a sheng ren, a holy man or sage who would benefit others and would even be willing to accept death in order to effect benevolence. While later disciples believed that Confucius was a holy man, Confucius did not consider himself to be such. Marshall quotes Confucian scholar Chen Jingpan, who states that this ideal Sage for whom Confucius hoped “was thought of as being in the same category as the Divine Being of whom the Superior Man should always stand in awe.” According to Marshall, Confucius did not believe that he found such a person in his time. But Marshall, of course, thinks that Jesus fulfills that expectation.

I did some google searches, and I found some interesting things. Professor Nick Gier of the University of Idaho states in his notes here that Confucius thought that anyone had the potential to become a junzi, which is an ideal person. Regarding the sheng ren, Gier has the following notes: “Sheng ren sage[;] god-like—-true mediators between heaven and earth[;] Yao, Shun, Yu and King Yen[;] focus: cosmological”. The part about the sheng-ren being god-like and a mediator stands out to me, since that sounds like the Christian conception of Jesus.

Gier refers to places in Confucius’ Analects in which Confucius denies being a sheng ren (7:26, 34; 9:13), but he does believe that Confucius’ deems himself to be a junzi in 9:13 (which I cannot see, but you can check out Confucius’ Analects for yourself here). Bier quotes Zaiwo, who wrote in Mencius that Confucius was superior to Yao and Shun, and Bier says that these were sage kings, which may mean that they were considered by Zaiwo to be sheng rens. But I do not know if Confucius considered them to be such. Marshall says that Confucius did not think that they deserved such a lofty title!

I found on the wikipedia article about Confucius the following: “Confucius stressed the development of lǐ through the actions of sage leaders in human history”. “In the early Confucian tradition, lǐ was doing the proper thing at the proper time, balancing between maintaining existing norms to perpetuate an ethical social fabric, and violating them in order to accomplish ethical good. Training in the lǐ of past sages cultivates in people virtues that include ethical judgment about when lǐ must be adapted in light of situational contexts.” In wikipedia’s article on li, we read: “Acting with Li and Ren led to what Confucius called the ‘superior human’ or ‘the sage’.”

There was a pro-Islamic cite that quotes Confucius, but, unfortunately, it did not provide a reference:

“The superior man honors / respects / acknowledges ( WEI ) three things ( in his life ). He acknowledges the Decree of Heaven ( wei Ming ). He honors the Saying of Sages ( Sheng Ren ) and he honors the Great Leaders ( Ta ren )’. The small/common (men) ignore (the teachings) of the Sages, despise their teachings or gain no benefit from it.”

If this is an accurate quote, and if the wikipedia article is correct, then Confucius probably believed that there were sages or holy men before his time, for they left a tradition that he thought could help others to become holy men, or good people. He may have even thought that anyone had the potential to become that. But he recognized that the standard was high, and he felt that he fell short.

David Marshall: "The Sun Rise from Mount Tai"

In this post, I’ll blog about Chapter 2 of David Marshall’s True Son of Heaven: How Jesus Fulfills the Chinese Culture. This chapter is entitled “The Sun Rise from Mount Tai”. I’ll use as my starting-point something that Marshall says on page 19:

“Throughout history, China has felt the Presence of One whose nature images carved in wood or even words carved in stone seemed inadequate to express. He wasn’t like ‘gods’ and ‘goddesses’ of popular legend. I doubt China took most of its myths much more seriously than we take soap operas. As Frena Bloomfield said, the Chinese gods ‘Are there to be fooled, and the Chinese are there to fool them.’”

In a similar vein, Marshall on page 17 refers to a monument on Mount Tai that is blank because an emperor was dissatisfied with all of the inscriptions that his scholars proposed. On page 19, Marshall states that the emperor was left without words when it came to the Supreme God, and that there are no idols for Tian (heaven), as exist for other gods.

On pages 19-20, Marshall elaborates on the Supreme God of China. He quotes passages from Chinese literature warning against trifling with heaven and affirming that heaven hears all that is secret and cannot be deceived. Contra those who believe that Tian is an impersonal force or “An abstract concept of universal harmony”, Marshall quotes passages in Chinese writings that present Tian as intelligent, loving, and actively interested in humanity. He also refers to Chinese creation stories.

The passage with which I opened this item, the one on page 19, appeared to downplay the importance of gods and goddesses in China, as if the Chinese people have not taken them seriously. Elsewhere in this book, however, Marshall seems to grant that they are quite important to many Chinese people. On page 45, he states:

“In regard to the occult, the example China’s First Teacher [Confucius] set was incomplete. He steered clear of both gods and human demagogues—-both sensible policies. But China as a whole has seldom been able to avoid either entirely. Mt. Tai became cluttered with idols, and the minds of the people with demeaning superstitions. Why? Because China knew her ‘Heavenly Parent’ only from a far distance. Her wisest teacher, who felt an ideal father was distant from his son, also sensed no special closeness to God. He did not know how to bridge the gap between Heaven and earth, or fully understand why it needed to be bridged.”

Here, Marshall is saying that idolatry exists in China as an attempt to bridge the gap that many Chinese people feel between humans and the Supreme God, who is considered to be distant.

On page 53, Marshall says:

“But in the grain of Jewish Scripture were hidden germs of revolution, too. ‘Do not make for yourselves any carved image, of animals below, of stars above…’ Some may think the idea of a Jealous God to be outdated or provincial. But the hostility of the Jewish prophets to ‘idolatry’ was the most subversive concept in the ancient world. It sounded radical to Israel’s neighbors, and when these teachings reached a China that had accustomed itself to lesser gods than Huang Dian Shuang Di, it sounded just as radical. ‘Pluck the tablets of the family altar and throw them in the fire. Take a sledge hammer to all the gods on Mount Tai but one. Leave your idols of stick and stone and worship the One True God who made Heaven and Earth.”

Here, Marshall appears to be saying that idolatry is so endemic to China that the anti-idolatry message of the Hebrew Bible is revolutionary to the nation. That differs somewhat from what I take to be Marshall’s usual argument in this book: that Christianity fits Chinese culture because Chinese culture has prominent elements that are similar to Christianity.

Now I’ll do a little “fact check” on what I read in Marshall, though, as I’ve said before, I am open to correction, and I do not consider anything I write here to be the final word. I also can’t vouch for how good my sources are, but I’m consulting them to see if there is an alternative to the picture that Marshall presents.

Marshall’s presentation to Tian as personal appears to check out. The wikipedia article on Tian quotes primary sources (i.e., Confucius) that acknowledge a personal dimension to Tian, as Tian is one who makes decrees, has a will, can reject, etc. And yet, there is also a sense in which the Supreme Being, Shangdi, is regarded to be transcendent rather than imminent, and so he rules through lesser beings (see here). But there may be diversity or nuance in how the Chinese conceptualize Tian, for some members on the China History Forum maintain that prominent Chinese philosophers regarded Tian as impersonal rather than personal (see here).

A while back, I wrote a post that discussed an essay in Understanding Poets and Prophets: Essays in Honour of George Wishart Anderson by A.C.C. Lee, entitled “Genesis 1 from the Perspective of a Chinese Creation Myth”. I’ll quote something that I say there, since Marshall talks about Chinese creation stories:

“The myth of P’an-ku states that P’an-ku came from primordial chaos, and that he separated the yin (earth, female, darkness, coolness) and the yang (heaven, maleness, brightness, warmth), which entailed the separation of the heaven from the earth. When P’an-ku died, his body became the things on the earth—mountains, rivers, etc. People were transformed from the parasites on his body—from ‘the finest essence of breath which becomes the human spirit’ (page 194). Notwithstanding their lowly origin, however, humans are still ‘invited to unite with heaven and earth’ (page 195). Lee sees similar themes in Genesis 1: separation, humans having a lowly origin while containing a noble sort of breath within them, etc. But Lee also acknowledges differences: the Chinese myth does not have a god who is from outside of nature, plus it lacks creation ex-nihilo. (Lee may believe that creation ex-nihilo is the teaching of Genesis 1, but I am not certain if that is Lee’s stance. But there are many scholars who argue otherwise, maintaining that, in Genesis 1, God is organizing chaos into cosmos, rather than creating material out of nothing.)”

There appear to be strong differences between the creator P’an-ku and the God of Genesis 1, for P’an-ku comes from primordial chaos and dies, and his body becomes things on the earth, such as rivers and mountains. But there are some Chinese stories about Shangdi and Taiyi preceding P’an-ku (see here). The story of P’an-ku reminds me of Purusha in the Indian Rig Veda (see here). I’d like to use that point as a launch-pad to ask a question. There are different kinds of creation stories throughout the world: creation ex-nihilo, creation from chaos, creation from a cosmic egg, creation from the body parts of a primordial being, etc. See here and here for details. Marshall has often implied that the appearance of Christian-like themes in different cultures supports the truth of Christianity. My question is this: Why can’t the cross-cultural appearance of un-Christian-like themes support the truth of non-Christian-like accounts of creation? Perhaps commonalities across cultures have a sociological or an anthropological explanation, rather than being evidence that the truth of Christianity is written on people’s hearts.

Regarding Mount Tai, perhaps Chinese people do revere Shangdi or Tian when ascending it. I do not know. But the wikipedia article on Mount Tai says that the supreme god on that mountain is the Emperor Lord of Mount Tai, and that some traditions say he is a descendant of Pangu (whether he was from one of the parasites on Pangu, like other human beings, I do not know). On the blank monument, all the wikipedia article says is this: “The Wordless Stela stands in front of the Jade Emperor Temple. Legend has it that the emperor who commissioned the stela was dissatisfied with the planned inscription and decided to leave it blank instead.” It does not say why the stela was left blank, but there could very well be more to the issue than wikipedia tells us.

Overall, Chinese religion appears to be complex. Marshall probably acknowledges that, but he believes that there are salient elements of it that prepare the Chinese people for Christianity. Sure, there are elements that overlap with Christianity, and I’m sure that those elements prepare certain Chinese people to embrace the Christian religion. But Marshall acknowledges that there are also elements that repulse people from Christianity, and that there are many Chinese people who do not believe that Chinese religion is consistent or compatible with the Christian belief system. Can we truly say that the Chinese religion is a tutor to Christ, when the Chinese religion is so complex and far from monolithic?