Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Evangelical
If We Say Chinese Have No Sin, We Deceive Ourselves

If We Say Chinese Have No Sin, We Deceive Ourselves

Last updated on: March 29, 2017 at 10:00 pm by Brad Vaughn

If We Say Chinese Have No Sin, We Deceive Ourselves 2017-03-29T16:29:38-07:00 Brad Vaughn

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

It began last summer. I awoke to read an email suggesting that Danny Hsu’s article is “now required reading for all who work among Chinese.” Hsu is a sound scholar of Chinese history. So, I read with curiosity. According to Hsu, I (and others) “question the compatibility between Chinese culture and the idea of sin.”[1]

public domain

This was surprising news to me, since I’ve never held that belief. I fully believe Chinese can understand the biblical notion of sin.

I’m not a heretic (in case you doubted)

Hsu never accuses nor implies that I’m a heretic. But someone might infer as much if (per Hsu’s claim) I believe Chinese cannot understand sin. I say this just in case some reader accuses me of being soft on sin, which I’ve written about here, here, and here.

Key idea: Understanding “sin”, however, is not the same thing as quickly grasping the significance of one type of metaphor for sin.

In contrast to Hsu’s argument, I and others simply contend that legal explanations of sin may not best suit Chinese culture. To be clear, I affirm:

Chinese people are able to understand “sin.”
“Law” is one legitimate biblical metaphor for “sin.”

Thankfully, the editor(s) of Studies in World Christianity allowed me to write a response to Hsu, which is now published in the journal’s most recent issue.

My article is called: “If We Say Chinese Have No Sin, We Deceive Ourselves: A Rejoinder to Hsu’s ‘Contextualising “Sin” in Chinese Culture’.”[2] Here is my opening comments:

…Danny Hsu challenges the idea that Chinese cannot comprehend the Christian concept of sin due to various cultural factors, including optimistic humanism and a cultural aversion to law. Hsu’s article, however, suffers from a few fatal flaws.

Because he misunderstands my views and those of others, Hsu largely presents a straw-man argument by opposing ideas not held by those he presumes to challenge. At times, his rhetoric could subtly mislead readers to agree with his conclusions, particularly when he begs the question when talking about sin.

In this rejoinder, I correct key points in Hsu’s discussion concerning the contextualisation of ‘sin’ in Chinese culture. Given space limitations, I primarily address his comments about my arguments, although there is certainly overlap between myself and other writers whom he critiques.

For Hsu’s follow-up response, see his “Much Ado About Nothing? A Reply to Jackson Wu”, which is also in the April 2017 issue.

Subtle but Significance Differences

Hsu is an excellent scholar. His recent article in Missiology is a good reminder that many aspects of Chinese culture are a hybrid of sorts. Nevertheless, his response still misses the point that I and other make about sin and Chinese culture.

credit: public domain

Given the subtly of Hsu’s reply, I need to clarify a few misleading statements (in my opinion) on his parts.

1. Am I guilty or just confused?

Hsu states,

He [J. Wu] also argues that I have falsely accused him of saying that Chinese cannot understand the Western idea of sin (that is, a forensic-laden concept of sin). Wu states that he is not aware of anyone who says, “Chinese are utterly incapable of understanding legal metaphors.” If Wu never makes such comments, then I am puzzled as to how to understand the following passage…. [He then quotes from SGF (p. 171).][3]

Hsu misunderstands what I mean in saying “Chinese people do not think in terms of law.” When speaking of typical habits of mind, I do not deny one’s cognitive ability to think in other ways.

By analogy, Chinese struggle to understand why Americans put their parents in nursing homes. They think Americans are unloving to their parents. A Chinese person might have difficulty grasping why placing a parent in a nursing home could be loving thing; yet, (s)he can still understand the rational upon hearing a more thorough explanation about Americans’ reasons and the different social conditions that exist in America (compared to China).[4]

There is another obvious reason I do not deny Chinese’s ability to understand legal metaphors. In SGF, I myself cite instances where Chinese historically use laws to enforce or convey social standards. But I repeatedly emphasize that such laws serve other ends, e.g., the preservation of honor, shame, harmony or family solidarity. For example, I note,

The Tang Code made it illegal (and punishable by death) for (grand)children to accuse their (grand)parents of a crime. In fact, the younger generation was obligated to hide such criminal activity. She adds the Tang Code permitted families even to help family members “evade legal sanction.”[5]

I discuss Chinese views of law on pp. 88–93 of SGF.

2. “Incapable”?

Hsu says, “Wu, intentionally or not, is declaring that Chinese are incapable of understanding legal metaphors.” Again, “incapable” is simply too strong a word.

In order to communicate the gospel in meaningful ways, we need to speaking in terms that are not merely intellectually comprehensible. We must communicate in ways that naturally cohere with people’s typical patterns of thinking. This means using images and themes that connect with people at an emotive and volitional level. We should address concerns that touch upon daily problems.

One is entirely accurate to claim Chinese typically do not think in absolutist legal language (even though they can understand it). Why? People make moral decisions primarily out of a concern for relationships and face, not because of the dictates of a law-maker.

By analogy, I previously shared the story how I didn’t understand what a coach meant when he told me to “kick off.” The phrase means something different in soccer compared to “American football.” Likewise, listen in on a conversation between Americans and British English speakers. So many words have different meanings or emotive connotations (e.g., “smacking” a kid vs. “spanking” a child). The same words feel different, even if they are intellectually comprehensible.

Simply put, “law” language, at the level of worldview, is less impactful than expressions that concern “face” and relationships.

3. Worn-Out?

Hsu adds, “Wu makes the worn-out claim that translating sin as zui confuses Chinese because they do not see themselves as ‘criminals.’”

credit: public domain

“Worn-out” does not mean “wrong.” There’s a reason this claim is well worn. It’s because both Christians has experienced and largely continue to experience conversations that prove the confusion of zui with “crime” continues to exist.

This is not merely my ongoing experience. When I raise the issue, my students vigorously shake their heads in agreement and/or share similar stories about the difficulty non-believers often have with the meaning of zui. I’ve found long debates about whether someone is a “criminal” (i.e., “sinner”) have drastically reduced as I use more honor-shame language.

Yale scholar Chloë Starr makes a noteworthy observation in her review of Alexander Chow’s book:

Although one of the earliest and best known Protestant translators, Robert Morrison, translates sin, or transgression, as (fan) zui in his early translations of scripture and the prayer book, continuing earlier Roman Catholic usage of the term, he switched to (fu) zhai (debt, burden) for subsequent editions, a stance followed by the majority of nineteenth-century Protestant translators (Starr 2008: 405–6). It was presumably precisely because of problems with the connotation of criminality, and a closeness to Buddhist terms, that Morrison and others chose to use an alternative term, but the existence of other possibilities raises interesting questions over reception.[6]

In other words, both scholars and practitioners see this problem. I’m not sure why Hsu think it is “worn-out.”

4. False Inferences

For those who care about the details, I’ll mention two last items.

First, Hsu says he disproves my claim that the Chinese conception of morality has “never been theocentric and is entirely oriented towards his or her community.” I simply respond in this way––the fact that theism (in Chinese history) at a point had some relationship to morality hardly proves that Chinese morality was or is theocentric. Appeasing the “gods” could be an aspect of a community’s moral code for sure; but that fact does not suggest people make daily decisions about right & wrong are made by seeking the will of God.

Specific instances of religious thought and practice does not a tradition make.

Throughout Chinese history, governing authorities have maintained the prominent right to social power over the varied religious ideologies that have come and gone. Thus, to characterize traditional Chinese culture, we need to consider aspects of the culture that transcend specific religious expressions. Appealing to select religious phenomenon in history does not necessarily prove a pervasive attribute of traditional Chinese culture.

Second, Hsu (p. 90) inexplicably makes assertions about what I “suggest” or “imply”, although I’ve never breached the subjects of “Daoist-Buddhist synthesis of purgatory and rebirth” nor have I said Wang Mingdao has not relevance to the contemporary Chinese church.

A Constructive Conversation

I’m grateful for Hsu’s candor and rigorous scholarship. I tired of reading books and articles that tip toe around an issue and say very little. So, I appreciate Hsu’s directness and thoughtful engagement. Our discussion illustrates the importance of interdisciplinary dialogue.

Now, it’s your turn. Comments?

[1] Danny Hsu, “Contextualising ‘Sin’ in Chinese Culture: A Historian’s Perspective”, Studies in World Christianity, p. 106.

[2] If you have problems connecting to my article via the SWC page, click here.

[3] Danny Hsu, “Much Ado About Nothing? A Reply to Jackson Wu”, SWC 23.1 (2017):88.

[4] Here are two more trivial examples. As a theologian, I tend to think in certain ways (e.g., using particular methods, themes, etc.). This routine way of thinking does not make me incapable of understanding concepts from other fields, e.g. sociology, biology. Likewise, a stereotypical male jock is not incapable of understanding the concept of nurturing or fashion, even if these are not his most natural modes of thinking.

[5] Wu, Saving God’s Face, 92; citing Dora ShuFang Dien, The Chinese Worldview Regarding Justice and the Supernatural: The Cultural and Historical Roots of Rule by Law (New York, N.Y.: Nova Science Publishers, 2007), 5.

[6] Chloë Starr, Studies in World Christianity 19.3, pp. 278–79. Online: http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/swc.2013.0061.

Previous Post

March 29, 2017

What we learn from “worldly” physics

Next Post

April 5, 2017 The Physics of the Church

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Atonement Biblical Theology Book Reviews China Chinese Church Chinese Culture Chinese Language Collectivism Contextualization Culture (General) Ecclesiology Evangelism Gospel Honor & Shame (Face) Interpretation/Exegesis Justification/Righteousness Missiology Mission Methods One Gospel for All Nations Other Practical Contextualization Reading Romans with Eastern Eyes Resources Romans Salvation (General) Saving God's Face Seeking God's Face The Cross in Context Theological Contextualization Theological Education Theology Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

James says that trials of many kinds test what, producing perseverance?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Your love Your faith Your character Your patience

Books by This Author Books by Brad Vaughn

See All Titles »