Balthasar in Light of Early Confucianism

While Confucianism remains underrepresented in the field of comparative theology, recent years have seen a fortunate surge in contributions to Confucian-Christian comparison. Joshua Brown’s Balthasar in Light of Early Confucianism stands tall among them.

Stemming from his doctoral dissertation, Brown’s book rests on a straightforward but substantive contention: the early Confucian doctrine of xiao (often translated “filial piety”) can provide “a helpful lens for interpreting, clarifying, and developing theological accounts of Christ’s obedience as incarnate Son” (2). More specifically, this argument is presented by rereading 20^th-century Catholic theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar’s ruminations on Christ’s obedience to God the Father through the prism of xiao found in Confucian texts dating from the time of Confucius to the Han dynasty (approximately 551 BCE-220 CE). Three purposes for such a creative rereading are given: “(1) to affirm or confirm some of Balthasar’s interpretations of Christ’s obedience; (2) to challenge some of his positions on this theme; and (3) to expand the scope of his Christological vision” (2).

With that said, an initial concern one might raise with the framing of Brown’s comparative theological project is a potential incompatibility between comparands, as a single Catholic theologian from the 20^th century is placed in conversation with a relatively amorphous “early Confucianism” not limited to one thinker or text. The path of any comparison, even between two clearly defined points, is already fraught with perils, yet as any student of Chinese traditions will know, “Confucianism” cannot be simply defined or univocally identified, especially in antiquity. Thankfully, Brown anticipates this challenge from the outset, provides a stout defense for his comparative choices, and remains true to his rationale throughout.

In fact, this consideration informs the book’s entire structure, as the first three chapters strictly detail the historical and conceptual contexts of xiao in early Confucian texts, including its implications in the service due parents both living and deceased. Only after this does Brown turn to Balthasar, exploring through three chapters the essential influences on and distinctive elements within Balthasar’s theology of Christ’s obedience. With these parallel treatments having taken both Confucian texts and Balthasar thoroughly on their own terms, the seventh and final chapter then attempts the promised rereading.

The result is that Brown succeeds in fulfilling the three purposes above, matching rigorous methodology with original insights gleaned through the approach. The most significant of these is the expansion of Balthasar’s vision. For instance, while Brown helpfully observes that Balthasar’s theology is unique in taking as its very heart the love of God revealed through Christ’s obedience, he also finds that Confucianism can provide a more robust vision of filial obedience due to its greater emphasis on the natural bond between father and son. On this front, Brown makes a compelling case for the xiao-inspired concept of “ritual sonship” as a profound prism by which to view Christ’s obedience anew—not to mention to connect it even more concretely with Christians’ own lives and efforts at filial obedience (192-208).

This may seem a daunting digest to someone unfamiliar with either Confucian thought or Balthasarian theology (much less both), but Brown’s writing has the added virtue of being as accessible as it is scholarly. As a result, while the intended audience is primarily professional theologians, especially Balthasar scholars, this book should interest a range of readers. For example, this would be an excellent place for comparativists who focus on other traditions to begin engaging with Confucianism, as it provides a solid introduction to texts and concepts while clearly demonstrating the riches this tradition has to offer broader comparative conversations. Seminarians and students of theology will also benefit from a prime example of how future theological reflection can be done in a more consciously global and interreligiously engaged manner. Indeed, Brown himself makes a case for the necessity of such engagement due to Christianity’s ongoing demographic shift away from its historical center in the West (5-6). Finally, culturally Chinese (or otherwise adjacent) Christians will hopefully find this a helpful resource for thinking through the relationship between Christianity and various aspects of Chinese culture, even if the filial values that prevail today are not of purely “early Confucian” kinds.

On the last note comes this review’s only real critique. Although Brown identifies his primary audience as scholars of Balthasar’s theology, his overarching concern is to demonstrate how “Chinese philosophy, particularly early Confucianism, can be of tremendous value to Christian theological reflection” (208)—including, perhaps most directly, for culturally Chinese Christians. In light of this, the book could have benefitted considerably from an engagement, if even briefly, with theological perspectives of Chinese Christians who have already addressed the topic of xiao, including in its ritual dimensions. After all, within the context of Chinese Christian history, questions around xiao and its ritual manifestations have undergirded some of the most persistent Confucian critiques of Christianity. As a result, such questions have also raised profound points for theological reflection and development by Chinese Christian theologians in their attempts to reconcile faith and cultural heritage.

Even limiting one’s view to Catholicism alone, there is much to consider: for example, one might look to the momentous Rites Controversy (a debate over the religious nature of Confucian rituals of ancestor veneration, which came to a head in the 18^th century with the papal proscription of Catholics’ participation in such rituals), its eventual resolution in the 20^th century, and the subsequent surge of Chinese Catholic efforts at theological and liturgical inculturation, including the re-incorporation and adaptation of ancestor veneration in Catholic practice. Some consideration of this historical background, bringing Brown’s Confucian rereading of Balthasar into conversation with existing discourses around xiao in culturally Chinese Christian contexts, would help to highlight what is most novel and valuable about such a rereading. To be fair, though, this critique in no way detracts from the overall quality or purpose of Brown’s work; it only highlights how this work might yet illuminate paths between Christianity and Confucianism still waiting to be crossed.

Ryan Pino is a PhD candidate in comparative theology at Harvard University.

Ryan Pino

Date Of Review:

August 3, 2023