Chapter One: Comparing the Christian Commandment of "Love" With Confucianism
So, what do we find in Confucius (551–479 BC)? A great deal of commendable insight. According to Confucius, "We must love others as ourselves; we must wish for them what we wish for ourselves." With the presence of such love, "the entire world will resemble one family, all people will embody one person." Such phrases and thoughts fill the moralistic Chinese texts: “Xiao,” “Lunyu,” “Mencius,” “Zhongyong,” “Daxue,” “Xiaojing,” “I Ching,” “Wujing,” “Shijing,” “Chunqiu,” “Zhu Xi,” “Liji”.[9] When reading such reflections on love, one cannot help but recall the New Testament sayings: "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'" (Gal. 5:14; Matt. 22:35–40; Luke 10:27; James 2:8; 1 John 13:34–35; 1 Cor. 13; Eph. 5:2; Col. 3:14; Gal. 6:2; 1 Tim. 1:5; 1 John 4:7–9, 11, 12, 16, 20, 21, 2:10, 11; 1 Pet. 1:22, 3:8–9; 2 Pet. 1:7; Heb. 13:1…), "Whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them" (Matt. 7:12; Luke 6:31; Acts 15:20). If the word of God commands us to "do good to all" (Gal. 6:10), then we also read in Confucian texts that "one must love all"[10] and similar sentiments.
And yet, the Confucian teaching on love is far, far from identical with Christ’s, which is, in comparison with that, completely unique and new.
Not wishing to be overly verbose, I will refrain from discussing the differences in the foundations of Christian and Confucian ethics (i.e., in the teachings of Christianity and Confucianism regarding God, humanity, and the world — therefore, in the theological, anthropological, and cosmological foundations) which must necessarily be reflected in the differences concerning such a fundamental ethical issue as the principle of love, which governs human relationships.[11] I will proceed directly to examine the content of the teachings of both perspectives on this matter, avoiding unnecessary elaborations.
In Confucian morality, we observe the element of "self-interest," an invitation to "adaptability," and the preaching of a dry “meanness” and "dry, heartless" truth, akin to vindictiveness.
a) To the Sovereign, for instance, such advice is given: "If he loves his relatives and kin, they will neither envy nor complain, and will begin to defend his dignity and wealth with a united spirit." Similarly, self-serving motives are indicated to him in determining his relationships with "noblemen," "city governors and officials," as well as with "foreign dignitaries and ambassadors." "In order to gain the love of his relatives and kin, he must respect their nobility, supplement their private incomes with royal grants, and love and hate what they love and hate," and so on.[12] In some cases, when a matter is reduced to a self-serving basis, nothing can prevent it from being reduced to the same in others. This is indeed the case and is being established. It has long been firmly established in science that regarding the motivation of moral actions among the Chinese, we must acknowledge a utilitarian impulse, and we should recognize the very "moral system of the Chinese as a system of utilitarianism. The Chinese person's character is one of calculation and profit."[13]
Meanwhile, Christianity and, in particular, the Christian commandment of love are entirely alien to even the slightest hints of self-interest or a utilitarian perspective. The Lord said: "If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? For even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back" (Luke 6:32–35). It is clear and evident.[14] This is number one.
b) The Chinese are invited to adapt, in their moral activities, and consequently in the expression of love, to the conditions, circumstances, and environment. "He who," in the words of Confucius, "loves to be constantly true to his words and agreements, yet does not learn how and where to be such, will frequently and severely be afflicted by personal harm due to this vice." "He who loves justice and sincerity, but hates cunning and deceit, and yet does not wish to learn what order should be observed here as well, will suffer from a constrained judgment and irreconcilable disputes, which will be driven upon him by both his own naivety and the deceit of others, as he is too candid and unaware of when to feign."[15]
"Pretending"! This is something completely foreign to Christianity. "There was no deceit in the mouth" of the Lord (1 Peter 2:22). "Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor" (Ephesians 4:25). This is what every Christian should keep in mind (cf. Colossians 3:9 and others). For a person who adapts to circumstances and, as a result, alternates between pretending (to put it plainly: lying) and not, truth in itself is not a desired good. "He who hates, disguises it with his lips, and lays up deceit within himself" (Proverbs 26:24). "If he speaks kindly, do not believe him, for there are seven abominations in his heart" (Proverbs 26:25). "The 'chief priests and scribes' sent deceitful people to the Savior, 'pretending to be righteous, to catch Him in some word,' but were shamed by the Lord as wicked people (Luke 20:19-26). "Flattering lips speak from a deceitful heart" (Psalm 11:3). Some "preached Christ out of envy" (Philippians 1:18). At one time, "treacherous Judah turned to Me with her whole heart, but in pretense," which was reproached (Jeremiah 3:10) and so on (cf. Daniel 11:34). To put it briefly, the revealed teaching is completely alien to the preaching of Confucian pretense, adaptability and hence unprincipledness.[16] "Let us love in deed and truth" (1 John 3:18). "Let love be without hypocrisy" (Romans 12:9). This is number two.
c) The adaptive utilitarian Chinese are then invited not to get carried away in the matter of their moral behavior, and in particular, consequently, in the matter of expressing their love – not to exceed the appropriate boundaries. In short, Confucian teaching advises the Chinese to practice "love for moderation,"[17] which echoes Aristotle's well-known view of virtue as the ability of a person to maintain a mean between two extremes.[18] "The wise man," according to Chinese sages, "always keeps to the mean, and the fool violates it."[19] "The mean is the foundation of all that exists," "it is its essence, the true condition of being. In this also lies the essence of morality, the true position or state of a person."[20] Thus, in Confucianism, there is a cold calculation, a fear of stepping beyond the golden (if one may put it this way, "lukewarm") mean. Moderation, balance!
In Christianity, we see something different. "Above all" (πρό πάντων = preferably before all, above all things), the Apostle says, "have fervent love for one another" (1 Peter 4:8) – αγάπην ἐκτενῆ, that is, “intense, strong,” constant, therefore, fervent. "You," that is, "the Angel of the Church of Laodicea," we read in the Revelation of Saint John, "are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth" (3:14–16).[21] Lukewarmness, indifferent moderation, is contrary to the Christian spirit. In particular, regarding the love we are specifically discussing, according to Christian teaching, the highest and ultimate manifestation of this love towards our neighbors is our complete self-sacrifice for their sake. "There is no greater love," as the Lord said, "than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends" (John 15:13). In this case, a Christian loves his neighbor more than himself, forgetting about his own needs and focusing solely on the welfare of others, akin to a mother who selflessly loves her children, who, for their sake, would leap into fire and water, altogether oblivious to her own peril, blind to anything that does not pertain to the well-being of her children.[22] Such a view of the highest manifestation of Christian love is completely inaccessible to the understanding of the Chinese Confucian with his moderate calculation. On the one hand, the fear of overstepping boundaries, and on the other, boundless, selfless action, completely devoid of calculation, egoistic considerations and the like. These are two actions, alien to each other and belonging to distinct realms. This is number three.
d) Finally, there remains one more area that is, in turn, quite characteristic for understanding the teachings of Confucianism and Christianity regarding love. We consider our attitude towards enemies. How is it delineated there and here? It is quite clear and definite. "When someone asked Confucius if one can repay hatred and offense with kindness, he replied, 'If someone does that, how will they repay the good? Because the respect and reciprocity we owe to those who serve us is different from the respect and reciprocity owed to those who harm us. My opinion is as follows: grievances and hatred should be rewarded with justice and fairness, but one should repay good deeds with good deeds.'" "When," according to the words of the Chinese interpreter of Confucian thoughts, "I find many just causes to hate the one who has harmed me, then I will obey reason."[23] If, after attempts at his conversion, the enemy remains incorrigible, he should be regarded, according to the precepts of Chinese morality, not as a human being, but as an animal, and should not even be counted among men.[24] Thus, for hatred and grievances – it is not good deeds, but harsh justice, that is, "an eye for an eye" and the like. Then, according to the dictates of reason, one may justifiably hate a certain individual. Furthermore, an incorrigible enemy is not a human being, but an animal. All of this is very, very characteristic.
How far Christianity is from Confucianism! "I say unto you," teaches the Savior, "love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you. That you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?" (Matthew 5:44–47; Luke 6:27–28, 32–36).[25] "Do not be overcome by evil," says the Apostle Paul, "but overcome evil with good" (Rom. 12:21). "If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also," says the Lord, "and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give him your cloak as well, and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles" (Matt. 5:39–41; Luke 6:29; cf. James 3:13). "Do not repay anyone evil for evil" (Rom. 12:17; 1 Thess. 5:15), states the Apostle. "And it is already a great disgrace for you that you have lawsuits among yourselves. Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather let yourselves be cheated?" (1 Cor. 6:7). How dissimilar is the behavior of a Christian towards enemies and offenders compared to that of a Confucian! Love, blessing, charity, prayer, overcoming evil with good, being considerate, preferring to be wronged, enduring hardships, and so forth are on one side, while cold justice (the dry "suum cuique," "an eye for an eye"), rationalized hatred, and the classification of a person as an animal are on the other. Any further comments are superfluous. On one side, the Crucified One prays for His executioners, "for they do not know what they do" (Luke 23:34), and following His example, the Archdeacon Stephen prays for his murderers, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them" (Acts 7:60), that is, for his being "stoned" (59). Following the Lord's example, the Apostles say of themselves: "They revile us, we bless; they persecute us, we endure; they slander us, we pray" (1 Corinthians 4:12-13), and so on. On the other hand, "Confucius executes Shaocheng Mao," "Confucius is offended" and resigns from his position, Confucius "divorces his wife" and so on. This is number four.
The four essential features of Confucianism and Christianity that we have noted are so significant and instructive, so characteristic and essential, as we have seen, that any further discussion of love as elucidated by Confucianism and Christianity is completely superfluous. That the Confucian and Christian teachings on love are entirely different, in essence, in their inner content, should now be clear to everyone. That the Christian commandment on love is not a reproduction of the Confucian one, but that the former, on the contrary, is completely new in comparison with the latter, can be failed to be seen and understood only by those who have either completely lost the ability to understand and see, or who consciously tell lies for special reasons and considerations. Haeckel utters an incredible absurdity, undoubtedly due to his characteristic “frivolity” and ignorance in the religious sphere. Without understanding anything about the latter, he, as we have seen, relied on Saladin, whose book quoted above, according to Friedrich Loofs’s absolutely fair statement, is “nothing other than a shameful book – by an ignorant and rude journalist of the lowest rank."[27]
And so, as far as the matter concerns Haeckel’s statement about the similarity and even identity of the teachings on love of Christianity and Confucianism, this thinker's assertion must be dismissed as entirely false and deceitful.
Notes:
9. “An Exposition of the Essence of Confucian Teaching” by Kodrat Krymsky, Beijing, 1906, pp. 11, 12. Cf. 22, 32 and others.
10. Ibid, pp. 12, 22, 32.
11. The
Christian teaching on love has been characterized by me, for example,
in the articles “The Essence of the Christian Teaching on Man’s
Relationships to His Neighbors” (Christian Reading, November 1897),
“Christian Love as the Only True Principle of Human Relationships”
(Christian Reading, March 1899), etc.
12. "Exposition of Confucian Teachings" – op cit, pp. 23–24 and elsewhere.
13. Prof. M. A. Olesnitsky, “History of Morality and Moral Teachings,” Part 2, Kiev, 1886, p. 41.
14. If anyone would like more details on this issue, we would refer them, for example, to the work of Professor I. V. Popov, “The Natural Moral Law” (Serg. Posad, 1897, pp. 149–167, etc.), and to the book by Professor A. F. Gusev, “Religiosity as the Basis of Morality” (Kazan, 1894, 2nd edition, pp. 122–156, etc.), etc.
15. “Exposition of Confucian Teachings" – op cit, page 20.
16. Cf. my article “Christian Self-Love” (Christian Reading, September 1897, pp. 357–361).
17. “Exposition of Confucian Teachings" – op citat, page 13.
18. See about this in my study “Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas in relation to their teaching on morality” St. Petersburg, 1884.
19. Prof. M. A. Olesnitsky op cit, p. 21.
20. Ibid, p. 20. Read quotations from my work “Aristotle” etc., p. 212.
21. Cf. my article “The Morally Indifferent and the Permissible” (Christian Reading, January 1897).
22. Read
my article “The Essence of the Christian Teaching on Man’s Relationship
to His Neighbors” (Christian Reading, November 1897, pp. 261–262,
etc.).
23. “An Exposition of the Essence of Confucian Teaching” – op. cit, p. 15 Cf. p. 26.
24. Quote Op. Prof. M. A. Olesnitsky p. 54.
25. The passage from Luke 6:32–35 was cited above.
26. “The essence of Confucian teaching is presented” – cited work, pp. 2, 6.
27. “Anti – Haeckel” – op cit, S 39.
Chapter 2
