PAUL'S PURPOSE IN WRITING ROMANS (2024)

Â

LO, Lung-kwong

Theology Division, Chung Chi College, The Chinese University of Hong Kong

Â

Introduction

Â

 Paul’s Letter to Romans has beeninterpreted from different perspectives and frameworks in the long history ofinterpretation. With critical awarenessof the practice of exegesis in relation toauthor, text and interpreter,[1] Iwould like to join the collective discussion of a passage in Romans from my ownsocial and cultural locations.

Â

 I am a Chinese, the only member of afamily from Mainland China who was born in British Hong Kong. I hold twoPassports since 1997, one is issued by the People’s Republic of China for HongKong Special Administrative Region which does not grant the right of abode inMainland China and another Passport issued by British Government which does notgrant the right of abode in Britain. Having obtained primary and secondaryeducation in British Hong Kong, I got my first degree from a nationaluniversity in Taiwan, a rebellious province ofÂChina seeking for independence. Ireceived my initial theological education (M.Div.) from the Chinese Universityof Hong Kong and had my Ph.D. studies at Durham, England. I have been aMethodist minister and a social activist serving in Hong Kong and overseasChinese churches for nineteen years before I join the academic circle as a fulltime lecturer (part-time circuit minister) in Hong Kong and also as aVisiting Professor of a university inMainland China in the last seven years. I regard myself as a Chinese living inthe interface of Chinese and westerncultures, a marginal Chinese among overseas and mainland Chinese, a minister, a social activist and a scholartravelling between local churches, society and scholarly world. With thisbackground as a person on the boundaries,ÂI enter the study of the Christian Scripture, Paul’s letter to theRomans in particular, with a strong concern about the identity crisisfaced by Chinese Christian as both Chinese (overseas, marginal and Mainlander)and Christian.

Â

 In this paper I would provide ananalytical studies of the chosen text, Rm. 14:1 – 15:13, and a discussion of mycontextual and hermeneutical concerns of the passage in relation to ChineseChristians’ controversy on ancestral worship.

Â

I.ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂAnalytical Frames[2]

Â

ÂÂÂÂ This passage has drawn the attention ofmany scholars since the publication of a lengthy study of Rauer (1923).[3]Â The main issues are as follows:

1.ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂThe sitz im leben of Romans in general andthe context of the controversy of Rm.Â14:1 – 15:13ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ

in particular;

2.ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂthe identities ofthe “strong” and the “weak”;

3.ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂthe issues ofcontroversy; and

4.ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂPaul’s solution to the controversy.

Â

Abrief discussion on these concerns is provided at the following.

1.ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂThe Sitzim leben of Romans and the Context of Rm. 14:1 – 15:13

 Since thepublication of The Romans Debate in 1977,[4]there are growing consensus among scholars[5] that Romans was a letter addressed to theconcrete situation of Roman Christians.The more controversial issue is the identity of the “strong” and the “weak”which will be discussed in next section.

Â

 However, as far as the context of thetension between the “strong” and the “weak” is concerned, the issues of eatingfoods, drinking wine and observing special days are raised in a setting whichthey meet one another. According to the evidence of the characteristics of theRoman Christians which we found in Rm. 16,[6] it is quite possible that the RomanChristians belonged to different house churches organized according to theirbackground, without substantial inter-relationship. Paul's use of householdlanguage, such as proslambanw (14:1,3; 15:7, 7) and oiket8s (v.4) supportthe hypothesis that the setting of house churches is the Sitz im Leben of 14:1-15:13.

Â

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ Minear was probably the first scholarwho showed us the significance of using the information uncovered from the lastthree chapters of Romans (14-16) to reconstruct the picture of the situation inRome and to interpret the letter as a whole accordingly.[7] Herightly challenges the assumption held by most commentators that there was asingle Christian congregation in Rome where different groups of Christiansworshipped side by side.[8] Inour opinion, he rightly suggests that there were plausibly five or sixdifferent house churches existing in Rome.[9]However, he probably goes too far when he suggests that it is possible toidentify at least five distinct factions or five different positions amongthese various groups from the evidence of 14: 1-15: 13.[10]

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ

In view of Paul’s use of liturgical languages in Rm.14:10c-12.[11] and 15:9b-12,[12]it is quite probable the more specific context of Rm. 14:1 – 15:13 is relatedto a setting of corporate worship.Further discussion of the context of the passage will be included below.

2.ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂThe Identity of the “Strong” and the “Weak”

 In 14: 1-15: 13, the controversy isbetween the 'strong' and the 'weak'.Some scholars, such as Karris,[13]who appealed to the argument of Rauer,[14]have argued strongly that the 'weak' might be Christians with syncretistic orascetic tendencies, but not ordinary Jews.[15]However, the evidence that the issue involves clean and unclean foods (koinos in 14: 14, cf. katharos in 14: 20) strongly supportsthe view that the ‘weak’ were Christians who observed the Mosaic law.[16]It is probable that most of them would be ethnically Jewish but may includesome Gentiles. The ‘strong’ were mostly Gentile Christians who did not followthe Mosaic law, among whom there may be some ethnic Jews who act like Paul.[17]For convenience, these two groups of Christians are designated 'JewishChristians' and 'Gentile Christians' respectively. This way of identifying the'strong' and the 'weak' has been a point of growing consensus among mostscholars.[18]

Â

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ The most significant difficulty of thisinterpretation is the evidence that the 'weak' were vegetarians (14: 2) who notonly abstained from meat but also from wine (14: 21). However, the evidencefound in Dan. 1: 8-16; Esth. 14: 17 (LXX); Jud. 12: 1-4; Josephus V 14indicates that there were cases of Jews who abstained from both meat and winewhen they were in a situation which was controlled by Gentiles.[19]

3.ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂThe Issues of Controversy

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ The Sitz imLeben of the controversy between the 'weak' and the 'strong' is probablymore specific than many scholars have thought.Minear rightly, in our opinion, suggests that the controversy happened on the specific occasion when the JewishChristians and the Gentile Christians worshipped and had communal mealstogether.[20] The 'weak' (JewishChristians) did not abstain from meat or wine in general, they were vegetarianonly when eating with the 'strong' (Gentile Christians).[21] The crucial issue to concern a Jew wheneating a meal with Gentiles was probably how to keep the Jewish food laws insuch a situation, vis-Ã-vis the Jewish identity.[22]The controversy in Rm. 14: 1 -15: 13 probably reflects the issues related to identity crisis faced by Jewish Christiansin Rome. We think this is a more plausible suggestion than others, and willseek to demonstrate that plausibility in subsequent discussion.

Â

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ It is generally agreed that the Roman Christian movementemerged from the Roman Jewish community. It is quite possible that thesituation of the Roman Jewish community was a prototype of the situation of theRoman Christians. In the study of the situation of the Roman Jewish community,there are several findings which are specifically relevant to our understandingof the context and controversy of the Roman Christians:[23]

Â

1. The Roman Jewish community was organized as acommunity net-work[24]which consisted of several synagogues without a central governing body.

2. These synagogues were quite diverse in theirbackground and they adopted the principle of toleration and mutual acceptancein their relationship.

3. The Roman Jews had a considerable interactionwith their Gentile neighbours and alsoÂÂÂÂÂÂ

made a great effort topreserve their Jewish identity.

4. Through the Jewish community net-work,different Roman synagogues could share their resources, such as usingcatacombs.

Â

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ Moreover, the controversy reflected in14: 1-15: 13 probably suggests that there were different practices in followingJewish food laws among house churches. Their differences caused tension amongthemselves. In other words, the principle of toleration and mutual acceptancewas not yet adopted in dealing with differences among these Roman Christianswho were organized into different house churches.. This situation probablyoccurred when the Jews returned to Rome after the death of Claudius in 54 C.E..[25]When Paul wrote his letter to Rome around 55-57 C.E.,[26]he perhaps tried to address this situation.

Â

4.ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂPaul’s Solution to the controversy

ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂÂMinear is probably right to see that, inthis passage,

Â

(1) Paul did not try topersuade the 'weak' to relax their dietary or calendrical scruples, in fact,Paul endorsed them;[27]and

(2) Paul did not expect tocombine the 'weak' and the 'strong' into one group by persuading all to takethe same attitude towards food and days.[28]

Â

 Nevertheless, what are Paul’s positiveteachings directed to the controversy? They will be presented in the personae analysis of Rm. 14:1-15:13 atbelow.

Â

A. Personae Analysis

ÂÂÂÂÂÂ In 1976,David Cline published a small but very interesting book: I, He, We, & They: A LiteraryApproach to Isaiah 53, JSOT Supplement Series 1 (Sheffield, JSOTPress). In studying the poem Isaiah 52: 13 - 53: 12, he studies the identities andthe function of the personae in thetext and the relationship between them. [29]He argues strongly the impasse of historical-critical scholarship inunderstanding this poem, which has failed to provide acceptable solutions forthe enigmas of the poem[30]Â and suggests the new hermeneutic approachwhich put focus on the text in itselfand takes language as event.[31]The language creates an alternative worldwhich invites the reader to enter.[32]

Â

 We share his dissatisfaction onhistorical-critical approach in studying the letters, especially the problem ofmirror-reading method could not be avoided.[33] Since the nature of letter is dialogical in both inside the text aswell as between the text and the readers in the historical context,[34]we find Clines’ suggestion of the study ofÂpersonae could be applied tostudying letters. Especially, the letters are not simply a source for providinginformation, but usually aims at performing a process of persuasion to win thereaders to the position of the authors, usually related to actions.

Â

 Clines’ purpose of applying the approachis to show “the legitimacy of multiplemeanings” of a text, especially in reading a poem.[35]Our is different from him, the genreof poem is very different from letter. The purpose of our study is to show howthis approach could help us to understand the characteristics of differentidentities, relationship between them, and the operation of the persuasionamong them in the text as well as relate these findings to the historicalcontexts of the author and the readers, so that we could have a betterframework to study Paul’s purpose and arguments in writing the text. In thisway, we are not replacing the historical-critical method by this newhermeneutic method, but using both to supplement one another in studying Paul’sletter to the Romans in general,[36]the passage of 14: 1-15: 13 in particular.

Â

 We borrow Clines’ ideas and name thisapproach personae analysis.[37]Since the first person (singular and plural) and second person (plural andsingular) form the basic framework of interaction in the letter, our personae analysis will focus on studyingthe occurrences of the first and second person (singular and plural) pronounsand verbs. If the context requires us to pay attention to the third person aswell, we will do so accordingly. While we accept the assumption that Romans wasa letter addressed to the situation of Roman Christians, we will focus ourenquiry on. the persuasion in the letteron how Paul as the author provide solutions to the controversy faced by hisaudience. We hope that by using the interaction between the first person andthe second person within the text asthe framework for our study, we can also have a better approach tounderstanding how Paul addresses the concrete situation of Roman Christians.[38]

B.ÂÂÂÂPersonaeanalysis of Rm. 14:1 – 15:13

ÂÂÂÂÂÂ In Rm. 14:1-15:13, first person andsecond person pronouns (singular and plural) occur twenty-five times.[39]First person singular verbs[40]and second person singular verbs[41]occur four times each; second person plural verbs occur twice[42]and the first person plural verbs occur eleven times.[43]We may say that the occurrence of the first and second persons in this passageis quite frequent.[44]It is significant to pay attention to Paul's change from one person to anotherwhen he uses these pronouns and verbs in this passage.[45]

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ In the following analysis, we divide 14:1-15:13 into fivesections according to the content and the characteristics of these 'persons'.

(1)ÂÂPaul Admonishes the Jewish and the GentileChristians not to Pass Judgement on One Another (14:1 -13a)

Â

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ In this passage, there are one first person singular verband one first person pronoun in v. 11, both of which are part of the OTquotations; two first person plural pronouns in vv.7, 12 and remarkably ninefirst person plural verbs in vv. 8, 10, 13, of which seven occur in v.8.Furthermore there are five second person singular pronouns in vv.4, and 10, ofwhich four occur in v.10; and there is only one second person plural verb, whichoccurs in the first verse.

Â

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ Naturally, we start our analysis from v.1. Paul starts hisexhortation by using the second person plural imperative[46] proslambanesthe which most probablyrefers to the 'strong' mentioned later in 15:1.[47]If this is the case, Paul starts his admonition explicitly towards the GentileChristians in Rome requesting them to welcome a Jewish Christian[48]who participates in the fellowship of their house churches,[49]even though the Jewish Christian only eats vegetables when he participates inthe communal meal with them (v.2). As we have mentioned above, this could havehappened when the Jewish Christians returned to Rome after the death ofClaudius and participated in the existing Gentile Christian house churches.This evidence does not imply that the Jewish Christian was a vegetarian ingeneral. His abstaining from meat was probably because he had doubts as towhether the meat provided by the Gentile Christians was prepared according tothe Jewish food laws.

Â

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ Thus in 14:1f., Paul presupposed that there were cases ofindividual Jewish Christians who had participated in the communal meals of theGentile Christian house churches. As they ate only vegetables and abstainedfrom all meat provided by the Gentile Christians, they had dispute with theGentile Christians over their doubt and were not welcomed by them.

Â

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ ÂFrom a detailed personaeanalysis of this passage (see the complete paper on the website), we gatherthe following findings:

Â

(1) Paul directs hisexhortation explicitly to the Gentile Christians, while the Jewish Christiansare not referred to as a group. The Jewish Christians are addressed asindividuals among the Roman Christians or as part of the Roman Christiancommunity as a whole.

(2) Paul has in mind that theGentile Christians should welcome the Jewish Christians to participate in theircommunal meal. In other words, he expects that the Jewish and the GentileChristians could worship together as well.

(3) Paul admonishes theJewish and the Gentile Christians to change their attitude towards one another.However, Paul does not try to persuade them to change their different practicesin relation to Jewish ceremonial laws but asks them to accept theirdifferences.

(4) Paul emphasizes that theyare united in God in their service to the Lord, under the Lordship of Christ,and in their eschatological destiny. They are brothers one to another.

Â

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ The above findings give us quite a clear picture of thesituation of the Roman Christian community. Paul'sargument obviously shows that he does not aim at bringing the Jewish and theGentile Christians together into one congregation in which uniformity ofpractice in the communal meal and observance of days would be expected.What Paul presupposes is the existence of a number of house churches alongsideeach other, which belong to Jewish and Gentile Christians. This is consistentwith our previous understanding of the situation of the Roman Christiancommunity.

Â

 In 14: 1-13a, Paul probably wishes to restore a situationin which Jewish Christians can participate in the worship held at a GentileChristian house church. They could eat vegetables in the communal meal with no need to dispute with the GentileChristians.[50] In this situation, theJewish and the Gentile Christians should not pass judgement on one another.

Â

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ However, if this is the way in which Jewish Christians canparticipate in worship held in a Gentile Christian house church, then anotherissue arises: how can Gentile Christiansparticipate in the worship held in a Jewish Christian house church? It isquite obvious that this cannot happen unless either Jewish or GentileChristians are willing to change their practice in eating meal. Paul goes on todeal with this issue in the following passages.

(2)ÂÂPaul admonishes the Gentile Christians not toput a stumbling-block orÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂhindrance in the way of building up a Roman Christian community net-work(14: 13b-23)

Â

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ In this passage, there are two first person singular verbsin v.14 and one first person plural verb in v.19. However, there are foursecond person singular pronouns in vv.15, 15, 21, 22 and three second personsingular verbs in vv.15, 15, 20. Furthermore, there is one second person pluralpronoun in v.16 and a second person plural verb in v.13b.

Â

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ We start this section from v.13b because v.13a is betterunderstood as the conclusion of 14: 1-13a.[51]Paul changes the 'persons' from first person plural in v.13a to second personplural in v.13b, and the fact that he uses the word proskomma in vv.13b and 20 (cf. v.21) suggests that v.13b belongsto 14: 14-23 rather than 14: 1-13a.

Â

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ In v.13b, Paul uses the second person plural imperative krinate to direct his exhortationexplicitly to the strong,[52]that is the Gentile Christians. Paul admonishes them not to place astumbling-block (proskomma) orhindrance (skandalon) in the way of abrother. In the context of 14:1-15:13, the brother is a Jewish Christian. It isnoteworthy that in the NT, proskommaand skandalon are linked togetheronly in three cases (Rm. 9:33; here and I Peter 2:8).[53]

Â

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ From a detailed personae analysis of this passage(see the complete paper on the website), it appears that in 14:13b-23, Paulexplicitly directs his exhortation only to the Gentile Christians. The JewishChristians are hidden in the background. Paul brings the discussion of theobservance of the Jewish food laws to a different dimension. He asks theGentile Christians not to make this issue a test of faith for the JewishChristians. A Jew can become a Christianand maintain his observance of the Jewish food laws. In other words, Pauladmonishes the Gentile Christians not to put the Jewish Christians in danger ofbecoming either Jewish or Christian apostates.

Â

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ Furthermore, although Paul endorses the GentileChristians' understanding of the lacking of final validity of the Jewish foodlaws, he admonishes them to restrict their freedom in eating meat and drinkingwine for the sake of building up a peaceful and close relationship with theJewish Christians in Rome. Paul probably even suggests that it would be good ifthe Gentile Christians could change their practice of eating and drinkingprobably on specific occasions whenthey have a communal meal with the Jewish Christians. This would mean that whenthe Jewish Christians participate in the communal meal held at a GentileChristian house church, not only the Jewish Christians would eat solelyvegetables, but the Gentile Christians may also do the same. Cranfield rightlydescribes the situation as "the strong Christian who 'has the faith to eatany food' has more room in which to manoeuvre than the weak Christian who 'eatsonly vegetables'. He has the inner freedom not only to eat flesh but alsoequally to refrain from eating it. So for him to refrain for his weak brother'ssake is assuredly good"[54]

Â

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ Therefore, if theGentile Christians are willing to change their practice when eating in thepresence of Jewish Christians in their own house church, it would open up thechance for the Gentile Christians to follow the practice of the JewishChristians on specific occasions whenthey participate in a communal meal held at the house church of the JewishChristians. As will be shown below, this seems to be the issue discussed in15: 1-4.

Â

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ Nevertheless, although in 14: 13b-23 only the GentileChristians are addressed, the message is surely overheard by the JewishChristians as well. On the one hand, they also have to understand theobservance of the Jewish food laws from the perspective of Jesus Christ, theprinciple of love and the kingdom of God; on the other hand, they should knowthat Paul understands their dilemma and sympathizes with them. However, as for Paul, the most important thing is notto let the issue of practicing Jewish food laws, which is related to anethnic-religio-cultural practice, become a stumbling block or hindrance inbuilding up a peaceful and close relationship between the Jewish and theGentile Christians in Rome. This is an exhortation that Paul wishes todirect to both groups.

(3)ÂÂPaul admonishes the Gentile Christians to pleasethe Jewish Christians (15: 1-4)

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ This section is the climax of Paul's exhortation directedto the strong which starts from 14:1.[55]The terms dunatos and adunatos occur for the first time (15:1)to identify explicitly those who should welcome "the man who is weak infaith" (14:1) and the person so far referred to as ho asthenwn (14: 1, 2)respectively.

Â

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ The other most significant point is that Paul uses theclause h8meis hoi dunatoi to identifyhimself most explicitly with the 'strong'. In fact, in this passage, the firstperson singular verb, second person singular verb and the second person pluralpronouns and verbs are all missing. The only occurrence of the first personsingular pronoun and the second person singular pronoun are in an OT quotation(v.3). However, the first person plural pronoun occurs twice in vv.1, 2[56]and two first person plural verbs occur in vv. 1 and 4. Thus the only 'person'that occurs in this passage is 'we' which denotes Paul and the strong.

Â

 From a detailed personae analysis of 15:1 – 4 (see thecomplete paper on the website), it appears that when Paul forcefully admonishesthe Gentile Christians to carry the burden of the Jewish Christians and not toplease themselves (regardless of the effects which their pleasing themselveswould have on the Jewish Christians), but to please the Jewish Christians, heis probably suggesting that the Gentile Christians should follow the Jewishpractice in eating meal on the specific occasion when they participate in thecommunal meal held at the Jewish Christian house church (cf. I Cor. 8: 7-13).[57]This practice is very important because it is related to the "good"of the Jewish Christians and the "building up" (oikodom8, cf. 14:19) of the Christian community in Rome (15:2).

Â

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ Paul's suggestion does not contradict his position statedin Gal. 2: 11-14. In Galatians, the issue at stake is whether the GentileChristians should live fullyaccording to the Jewish way of life.[58]More precisely, the issue is whether aGentile Christian should become a Jew if he is to become a member of God'speople. Paul is strongly against this position. However, in Rm. 14: 1-23,he clearly states his view on the Jewish food laws (14:14) which are essentialfor the Jews to preserve their Jewish identity but not essential to theChristian faith and it is optional for those who have faith in Christ. The issue at stake is that the observance ofthe Jewish way when eating a meal on specificoccasions by the Gentile Christians would contribute to the unity of the Jewish and the GentileChristians in Rome.

Â

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ In fact, this suggestion is in line with Paul'sexhortation that the Gentile Christians who have the freedom of the Gospelshould not only eat meat and drink wine but equally refrain from eating anddrinking them (14: 15-21). Furthermore, by using the first person pluralpronoun h8meis to identify himselfwith the Gentile Christians in Rome(15:1), Paul is probably also thinking of his missionary principle which notonly shapes his missionary work but probably also shapes the aspirations and thevery style of his life:[59]

Â

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ "For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all,that I might win the more. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews;to those under the law, I became as one under the law-- though not being myselfunder the law -- that I might win those under the law. To those outside thelaw, I became as one outside the law -- not being without law toward God butunder the law of Christ -- that I might win those outside the law. To the weak(asthen8s), I became weak that I might win the weak. I have become all thingsto all men, that I might by all means save some." (I Cor. 9: 19-22).

Â

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ If that is the case, thereare three possible conditions on which the Jewish and Gentile Christianscan participate in worship and communal meals held at one anothers' housechurches as revealed in Paul's exhortations from 14:1-15:4:

Â

(1) The Jewish and the Gentile Christians should change their hostileattitude toward each other and should restore the previous situation in whichthe Jewish Christians would eat only vegetables when they participate in thecommunal meal held at a Gentile Christian house church. They should accept each other's diversified practice ofthe Jewish food laws and hold their unity in serving the Lord (14: 1-13a).

(2) Gentile Christians should not take the issue of observance ofJewish food laws as a test of faith. Their freedom in the Gospel should allowthem to change their practice of eatingand drinking to bring it in line with that of the Jewish Christians whenthe Jewish Christians participate in the communal meal held at a GentileChristian house church (14: 13b-23).

(3) Gentile Christians have an inescapable obligation to carry theburden of the Jewish Christians in the same way as Paul did. They should please the Jewish Christians byfollowing the Jewish way of eating meal on the specific occasionwhen they participate in the communal meal held at a Jewish Christian housechurch (15: 1-4).

Â

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ Thus the agreementsPaul expected to be made between the Jewish and the Gentile Christians in Romeare probably as follows:

Â

(1) The Jewish Christians should agree that, although the observance ofceremonial laws is essential for Jewish identity, this observance is notessential for Gentiles to become God's people. The only essential requirementfor God's people is faith in Christ.

(2) The Gentile Christians are free from observing the Jewish ceremoniallaws, but they must not regard the observance of Jewish ceremonial laws asincompatible with the Christian faith. Whenever they have meals with the JewishChristians, they could follow the Jewish way of eating meal.

(3) The lordship of Christ is the ground for the unity of Jewish andGentile Christians.

Â

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ As far as the first two concessions are concerned, it isdifficult to judge whether a greater concession is demanded of the Jewish orthe Gentile Christians.[60]The Jewish Christians were expected to differentiate themselves from the'orthodox' Jews' understanding of the Jewish law in regard to the requirementsfor being God's people, while the Gentile Christians were expected tounderstand the limit of freedom in the gospel and to change their eatingpractices whenever they shared in a communal meal with the Jewish Christians.

Â

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ In fact, the above concessions brought the JewishChristians no difficulty in their own practice of Judaism. Since Judaism is areligion concerning 'orthopraxy' rather than 'orthodoxy', it is quite probablethat by these concessions the Jewish Christians were able to retain theirrelationship with the non-Christian synagogues and also with the GentileChristian house churches. As far as the social intercourse between the GentileChristians and their pagan environment is concerned, the concession does notseem to cause much difficulty. [61]Thus although these two concessions are probably against the original positionof some Jewish and Gentile Christians in Rome, they are probably the mostfeasible and practical concessions which could be made between them.

Â

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ Nevertheless, one thing crystal clear is that Paul wasvery conscious of the danger of apostasy by the Jewish Christians and headmonishes the Gentile Christians not to put them in such a position. In 14:1-15:4, Paul expresses his wish thatthe Jewish Christians could maintain both Jewish and Christian identities. Hedoes not try to persuade the Jewish Christians to abandon the Jewish ceremoniallaws, but rather defend and protect them for their practice.

(4)ÂÂPaul's prayer-wish[62]towards the Jewish and the Gentile Christians in Rome (15:ÂÂÂÂ 5 - 6)

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ As far as the 'persons'Âin this passage are concerned, huminoccurs in v.5, and the second person plural subjunctive doxaz8te and the first person plural pronoun h8mwn occur in v.6. As these verses are the concluding part of14:1-15:6, it is obvious that Paul is addressing all the Christians in Rome,both Jewish and Gentile Christians alike.[63]

Â

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ From a detailed personae analysis of 14:1-15:6 (seethe complete paper on the website), it indicates that Paul directs hisexhortation explicitly to the Gentile Christians (cf. 14:1, 13b23; 15: 14). TheJewish Christians are addressed only as individuals (14:4, 10, 10) or togetherwith the Gentile Christians as the whole Roman Christian community (14: 7-13a;15: 5-6). This is clearly shown by the fact that Paul uses all the secondperson plural pronouns and verbs in 14:1-15:4 to address only the GentileChristians.

Â

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ However, Paul's message to the Gentile Christians would beoverheard by the Jewish Christians and is relevant to them. The JewishChristians would understand Paul's view on the food laws, his sympathy withtheir dilemma and his exhortation to the Gentile Christians for the sake oftheir difficulties. Nevertheless, it is clear that Paul admonishes both the Jewish and the Gentile Christians to change theirattitude to one another, but he admonishes only the Gentile Christians tochange their practice in eating whenever they have a communal meal with theJewish Christians. The Jewish Christians are not asked to change theirobservance of Jewish ceremonial laws, even though their understanding is not inaccord with Christian belief.

Â

(5) PaulAffirms the Significance of the Building up of a Christian Community Net-

ÂÂÂÂÂ work for the Jewish and GentileChristians in Rome (15: 7-13)

The occurrence of the second person plural imperative proslambanesthe here certainly connects15:7 with 14:1. However, while in 14:1, the second person plural is addressedto the 'strong', it is here addressed to the Christian community in Rome as awhole which is composed of the 'strong' andthe 'weak'.[64] Hence the use of all8lous in 15:7 is most significant.The phrase to "welcome one another" probably indicates the climax ofthe whole passage which has been built up from the exhortation in 14:1-15:4 andthe prayer wish in 15:5 : (i) let us no more pass judgement on one another(14:13a); (ii) let us then pursue what makes for peace and for mutual (all8lous) upbuilding (14:19); and (iii)may God grant you to live in such harmony with one another (15:5). In 15:7,Paul concludes his exhortation by admonishing the Gentile and the JewishChristians to recognize and accept one another even though they have differentattitudes towards the Jewish ceremonial laws and the fact that they belong todifferent house churches. The reason whythey must accept one another is the model of Christ (cf. 15: 5).

Â

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ From a detailed personae analysis of the passage(see the complete paper on the website), it appears that in 15: 7-13, Pauladdresses the Christian community in Rome as a whole. In it, he not only refersto his exhortation to the Jewish and the Gentile Christians in 14:1 -15:6 abouttheir mutual recognition and acceptance in the communal meal held at theirdifferent house churches, but also refers to God's covenant faithfulness to theJews (15: 8; cf. 3: 4, 7; 9: 4ff.), God's mercy to the Gentiles (15: 9; cf. 9:15-18, 23; 11: 30-2) and the content of the gospel (15: 12; cf. 1: 3-5; 9: 5)which he has discussed in detail in Rm. 1-11.[65]

Summary and Conclusion:

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ From our detailedÂpersonae analysis of Rm. 14:1-15:13 (see the complete paper on the website), we have developed a hypothesis that there were two maingroups of Christians in Rome: a Jewish Christian group which may have includedproselytes and God-fearers with Jews who observed Jewish ceremonial laws, andwhich is a religio-cultural-ethnic group rather than a strictly ethnic group;and a Gentile Christian group which may have included Jews who did not maintainthe observance of the Jewish ceremonial laws. They were organized into differenthouse churches when the Jewish Christians returned to Rome after the death ofClaudius. Since the Jewish Christians maintained their observance of Jewishceremonial laws, they would probably have no difficulty in building up theirrelationship with the synagogues of the Roman Jewish community. However, thebitter experience of the Jewish Christians who had participated in the communalmeal held in the Gentile Christian house had caused a tense relationshipbetween the Jewish and the Gentile Christians.

Â

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ Paul understood the situation and wrote the letter to both the Jewish and the GentileChristians in Rome in order to persuade them to build up a peaceful and closerelationship between their house churches. In 14:1-15:13, Paul admonished both groups to change their attitudetowards one another, but explicitly asked theGentile Christians to consider the dilemma faced by the Jewish Christians.

Â

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ Paul admonished the Gentile Christians to change theirpractice in the communal meal and to follow the Jewish way of eating a mealwhenever Jewish Christians were present. Paul desired that the Gentile Christians would welcome the Jewish Christians toparticipate in the communal meals held in their house churches, thusrecognizing the significance of the ministry of Christ among the Jews. On theother hand, Paul wished the JewishChristians to welcome the Gentile Christians to the communal meals held intheir house churches, thus recognizing the legitimacy of the Gentile missionand the ministry of Christ among the Gentiles.

Â

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ In his exhortation, Paul was fully aware of the danger ofapostasy by the Jewish Christians. Paul explicitly asked the Gentile Christiansnot to put the Jewish Christians into such a position. Paul's purpose was probably to build up a Roman Christian communitynet-work among the Jewish and the Gentile Christian house churches, and at thesame time to let the Jewish house churches (Jewish Christian synagogues) retaintheir relations with the Roman Jewish community. In other words, Paul neither demandedthe Jewish Christians to give up their connection with the non-Christian Jews,nor asked the Gentile Christians to become Jews. This could happen if:

(1)ÂÂÂthe Jewish Christians could continue to maintain their Jewish identity and their

status in the Roman Jewish community;

(2)ÂÂÂÂ the JewishChristians recognized the legitimacyof the Gentile Christians also as God's people;

(3)ÂÂÂÂ the GentileChristians recognized the significanceof their relationship with the Jewish Christians;

(4)ÂÂÂÂ the GentileChristians agreed to follow the Jewish way in eating a meal whenever theyhave communal life with the Jewish Christians; and

(5)ÂÂÂÂ the JewishChristians and the Gentile Christianswelcomed one another to participate

ÂÂÂÂÂ in the communal life of their differenthouse churches.

Â

ÂFrom the evidence of 14:1-15:13, we find thatPaul addressed explicitly the first,

the fourth and the fifthconditions and mentioned the second and the third in passing. We suggest thatPaul may have addressed these two conditions specifically in the first elevenchapters of Romans.[66]

Â

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ We agree withWatson that the main issues wereconcerned with the question of therelationship between the Jewish and the Gentile Christians, and also thatbetween Christians (Jewish and Gentile) and Jews (Christian and non-Christian). Wedisagree with him critically on Paul's attitude towards these relationships. InRomans 14:1-15:13, we find that:

Â

(1) Paul emphasized theimportance of the unity between theJewish and the GentileÂÂ

ÂÂÂÂ Christians but did not try to persuade the Jewish Christians to separate from theÂ

ÂÂÂÂ Jewish community; They could be a Jew and a Christian at the same time.6/22/02

(2) Paul admonished the Gentile Christians not to make the Jewish Christians becomeÂ

ÂÂÂÂÂ Jewish apostates in pursuit of Christianunity, but to support the Jewish Christians in

ÂÂÂÂÂ theireffort to preserve their Jewish identity.

(1)ÂÂÂÂ Paul asked the GentileChristians to exercise their freedom to choose to follow the

ÂÂÂÂÂ Jewish way of eating a meal at the specific occasion when they participatein theÂÂ

communal meal held at a Jewish Christian house church.However he affirmed their correct understanding that the Jewish practice hadnothing to do with their identity ofÂpeople of God. They could maintaintheir non-Jewish (Gentile) identity according to the Gospel.

(2)ÂÂÂÂPaul differentiates the importance of issuesbetween soteriological and cultural,

ÂÂÂÂÂ essential and situational. He stands firm on the former issues without any roomto

ÂÂÂÂÂ compromisein his letter to Galatians, but suggestsactions to please those who are

ÂÂÂÂÂ wrong in their convictions and compromise on the latter issues in Rm. 14:1-15:13.

Â

II. Contextual Frames[67]

The above findings are most significant in ourdiscussion of the relationship between Gospel and cultural-ethnic identityamong Chinese. Chinese Christianity has long been labeled as a foreign religionand has been criticized that to be a Christian is not to be a Chinese. Theconflict of to be a Chinese and to be a Christian has been an issue reflectedin the well known Rites Controversy (1615-1742) which arose among Catholicmissionaries[68] regarding how they shoulddeal with ‘Chinese rites’ in the transitional years from Ming dynasty(1368-1644) to Qing dynasty (1644-1911). The issue at stake was whether Christian converts be permitted tocontinue the practice of the ancestral cult which was so central to the entirefamily and clan system, as well as the veneration of Confucius, in thosetemples dedicated to his name which were attached to every school in thecountry?

Â

 Under the leadership of Matteo Ricci(1552-1610), Jesuit missionaries approved for their converts the veneration ofancestors and of Confucius.[69],But opposition to this move was reported to the Pope in Rome, Clement XI. He sentan envoy to China (1704-1710), the Patriarch of Antioch, Maillard de Tournon.[70]Even though the Chinese Emperor K’ang-shi (1662-1722), who was very sympatheticto Christianity, had given his official confirmation in 1700—that Confucius wasnot worshipped as God, but venerated as a moral teacher; that ancestralveneration was regarded as a memorial service rather than as a worship of thespirit; and that the ancestral tablet offered a focus for filial attention anddevotion, and no more; and that Heaven and Lord-on-high were identifiable, notwith the physical Heaven, but the Lord of Heaven and Earth and all things,[71]the envoy reported to the Pope negatively about the practice.

Â

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ The controversy was considered by eightpopes and involved leading universities in Europe.[72]In the end, Rome was to support those who opposed the rites, whose judgementwas that the ancient Chinese were idolaters and the modern Chinese atheist;that the Confucian classics themselves, and even the Jesuit works published inChinese, taught doctrine contrary to the Christian faith; that ancestral riteswere illicit because they were offered to spirits of ancestors and so involvedidolatry and superstition; that Confucius himself was a public idolater and aprivate atheist, and should not be honoured by Christians as a saint.[73]

Â

 In a decree of 1704, reinforced by thebull Ex illa die of 1715, PopeClement XI banned the rites.[74]Another envoy of the pope, Jean Ambrose Charles Mezzabarba, was sent to China in 1720. He was more tactfulthan his predeceeor, Tournon, and presented to the Emperor a concession in theform of eight “permissions” which were mainly an interpretation of theclauses that permitted ceremonies of a purely civil or political character.[75]However these concessions were far from satisfaction to K’ang-hsi and wereannulled by the Pope Benedict XIV, the successor of Clement XI.[76]On July 11, 1742, Pope Benedict XIV decided ‘definitively’ in favour of thoseopposing the rites. His decree, Ex quosingulari, condemned the Chinese rites and imposed an oath on all Catholicmissionaries in China to oppose the rites.

Â

 The decision had incalculableconsequences. The Catholic missionaries were expelled from China and animperial edict to ban Christianity was issued. A golden chance of implantingthe Gospel on Chinese soil was lost.[77]Cynically, almost two centuries after Exquo singulari, during the secondworld war, Pope Pius XII in 1939 reversed the decision of 1742, authorizingChristians to take part in ceremonies honouring Confucius and to observe theancestral rites. By then, however, the veneration of Confucius was largelydiscontinued since China had put in a modern school system to replace thetraditional Confucian-oriented ‘temple-related’ institutions. Besides, theChinese were at war with Japan, and hardly had the time to spare for ancestralrites. The golden chance had simply gone, and not returned.

Â

ÂÂÂÂ While the Catholics have an officialposition on the issue of ancestral rites, the Protestants could hardly come toany consensus even today.[78]Robert Morrison, who was the first Protestant missionary arrived China in 1807,had studied the problem and expressed his opposition stance similar to the oldCatholic position in 1832[79]While the missionary activities expanded after the opium war (1840), theconflicts on the issue between missionaries and Chinese society became aburning one among the missionaries. In the 19^th Century, there weretwo missionary conferences (1877, 1890) held in China which had to pay a lot ofattention to the controversy.

Â

 In the first conference (1877), almost allparticipants condemned the Chinese ancestral worship as an act of idolatrywhich must not be participated by Chinese Christians.[80]Only a few had raised questions, such as whether missionaries had the right to compel Chinese to give uptheir way of honouring the dead, and the practical situation for ChineseChristians to lose their right of inheritance if they refuse to participate inthe rite. The most positive response wasproposed by Crawford, T. P. and Goodrich, C. that an effort of developingChristian rites to replace ancestral worship should be pursued.[81]ÂÂÂÂ

Â

 In the second conference (1890), a reportfrom a thorough study on the issue done by Martin, W. A. P.[82]aroused a hot debate. In Martin’s report, he agrees that there are someidolatrous and superstitious elements involved in Chinese ancestral worship,but there are positive elements as well. The origin of the rite comes from somebest principles of humanity which include a wish to communicate with theparents passed away. The three levels in the rite including ‘posture’,‘invocation’ and ‘offering’ which do not necessary equivalent to idol-worship,but rather reflect a pattern of Chinese daily living. He suggests that thewesterners offering of flowers to remember those dead has the same meaning asthe Chinese offering meats and vegetables.[83]Thus it would be better to work according to the principle of cleaning theunacceptable elements but preserving the good ones, so that the rite could bemodified to the extend that it is in harmony with the Christian faith. However,his accommodation approach was not welcomed by most participants. Nevertheless,the situation was not as one-sided as in 1877. Some prominent missionaries didexpress their support to Martin. They suggest that missionaries must learn howto differentiate religious and non-religiouselements involved in the rite. It is unfair to identify ancestral worshipsimply as idolatry. The opponentsproposed a strong resolution against Martin’s report. For them, non-westerncultures such as the Chinese were simply pagan cultures. The issue at stakewas not ‘Gospel and culturesof other people’, but ‘Gospel and other religious traditions’[84]which were not compatible with Christianity, and must be totally rejected.

Â

ÂÂÂÂ The debate among missionaries had alsoreflected among Chinese converts. It is because the stance of absoluteopposition to Chinese Christian involvement in the rite and also the requirementto destroy the ancestor tablets in family as a pre-requisite for baptism hadattracted attention and strong reaction from the Chinese society. Many of thoseanti-Christian publications focusing on the issue had been published,condemning Christianity as an immoral religion which did not honour parents andancestors.[85]

Â

 Martin rekindled the debate in 1902 bypublishing an essay on “How Shall We Deal with the worship of Ancestors?” He further expresses his view that the riteis not religious in nature but an ancient Chinese social order. Acommittee chaired by James Jackson of Methodist Episcopal Mission who served atWuchang was formed to give report on ancestral worship to the China CentenaryMissionary Conference (1907).

Â

 In the report, the issue of whetherancestral worship was idolatrous was avoided. The most obvious reason againstthe rite was the problem of replacing The Creator by human creatures.[86]Nevertheless, the positive elements of expressing filial piety and thedifferentiation between the nature and practice of the rite wereemphasized. Five constructive practicalmethods were proposed, namely:[87](1) Make greater use of Memorial days to dispel from the Chinese minds thefalse notion that the westerners care nothing for the dead, (2) more attentionshould be paid in Christian school and church to positive teaching abouthonouring parents and commemorating benefactors, (3) discourage wealthyfamilies to spend much money at funerals, in feasts and presents, but to exhortto use money on such occasions in benevolent and philanthropic ways, (4) leaveto individual conscience in dealing with the Ancestral Tablet, (5) make moredecent and suitable provision in respect of cemeteries.

Â

ÂÂÂÂ From the above proposal, we could see thatexcept for the fourth proposal which isÂrelated to Ancestral Tablet, the others are oriented from the westerncultural perspective. The main concern of Chinese on ancestral worship, vis-Ã-vis the participation of a ChineseChristian in the rite was rejected. The position that the ancestral worship wasincompatible with Christian faith and could not be tolerated as a practice inthe Christian Church was reiterated.[88]The most significant change was from a totally negative attitude reflected inthe resolutions of the two previous conferences (1877 and 1890) to a moresympathetic one. The report advocated a constructive than a destructiveattitude towards the rite.[89]This change had opened up space for more positive discussion by ChineseChristians. A few of them even openly supported the stance of Christianparticipation in the rite which was against the basic position of themissionaries.[90]

Â

ÂÂÂÂ In the debate among Chinese Christians onthe rite, the main issues were:[91]

(1)ÂÂÂÂThe mixedsuperstitious element in the present ancestral worship was criticized, but theoriginal meaning of filial piety, which was emphasized by Confucius, wasconfirmed.

(2)ÂÂÂÂThe rite ofancestral worship should be reformed rather than destroyed. Filial pietyembedded in the rite was regarded as the foundation of morality in Chineseculture. The most urgent issue was to introduce a rite, which would becompatible to both Christian faith and Chinese culture.

(3)ÂÂÂÂThe most criticalconcern of the rite should be not regarding ancestors as gods of any kind. Eventhough some had distorted the original meaning of ancestral worship, it wouldnot be legitimate to reject the rite completely. The issues were related toconcept and technicalities of the practice. Chinese Christian could accept therite after some adjustments.

 Nevertheless, although the aboveunderstanding of the rite as an expression of filial piety were generallyaccepted, the stance of the rite as heretic idolatry propounded by missionariesstill prevailed among most ChineseChristians until today.

Â

 The position toward the rite among most of theProtestant churches is almost the same as the Catholics in the 18^thCentury. This stance has not only become a stumbling block for Chinese tobecome Christians but also indicates that a basic issue of the relationshipbetween the Gospel and the Chinese culture has not been thoroughly understood.The crux of the matter of ancestral rites is very much related to the identityof Chinese.[92]As a matter of fact, ancestral rites have different stages of development inthe Chinese history and possess multi-layers of meanings.[93]The question of how to differentiate these differences, especially the religious meanings and the social, moral and culturalfunctions, and the implied significanceof these to Chinese and Christian identities, are vital to thedevelopment of Christianity amongÂthe Chinese—including mainlanders, overseas and marginal..

Â

III.Hermeneutical Frames

ÂÂÂÂÂ The controversy of the ancestral worship among ChineseChristian is related to the interpretations of the rite and also Christianfaith.

Â

1. Interpretations on the Rite of Ancestral Worship

 ÂThe main issueconcerning the rite is its religious nature. However the understanding ofreligion in Chinese culture is very different from the west. It is a commonunderstanding in the modern religious study that there is no Chinese wordequivalent to the word “religio(Latin)” or “religion”. [94] The modern Chinese termfor religion--“tsung-chiao”-- wasimported from Japanese translations of European works and terminology in the 19^thCentury.

Â

 In his classic study, Religion in Chinese Society (1961),Prof. C.K. Yang differentiates religion into two types: institutional religionand diffused religion. According to Yang, “institutional religion in thetheistic sense is considered as a system of religious life having (1) anindependent theology or cosmic interpretation of the universe and human events,(2) an independent form of worship consisting of symbols (gods, spirits, andtheir images) and rituals, and (3) an independent organization of personnel tofacilitate the interpretation of theological views and to pursue culticworship.”[95] Diffused religion isconsidered of as “ a religion having its theology, cultus, and personnel sointimately diffused into one or more secular social institutions that theybecame a part of the concept, rituals and structure of the latter, thus havingno significant independent existence.”[96]Buddhism, Taoism and Christianity belong to institutional religion. Diffused religionincludes ancestor worship, the worship of community deities, and theethicopolitical cults.[97]In other words, ancestral worship had all the primary qualities of religiondiffused into the institutional structure, including the belief in the souls ofthe dead, their power to influence the living morally and physically, and theneed for perpetual sacrifice by the descendants was a part of the classicalthought that had been inseparably woven into the matrix of kinship values andthe very concept of the traditional family. The mortuary and sacrificial ritesand other social and economic arrangements of the family that were associatedwith the dead ancestors formed an integral part of the system of rituals of thefamily.[98]Nevertheless, although the religious element of Chinese ancestral worship whichoriginated in Shang dynasty (c. 1766-1123 BCE) is obvious, the Confucianattempt to rationalize and moralize the understanding of the rite was as earlyas in the sixth Century BCE. [99]Thus there are different motivations and understanding of the rite of ancestralworship among Chinese. For most intellectuals, it is a cultural activity whichhelps to express filial piety, serves the purpose of integrating thecommunity and has a function of moralenhancement in society. For common people, it is religiously significant as away to communicate with the departed kinsmen and even has a function ofpursuing blessings and avoiding curses.

Â

ÂÂÂÂÂ Nevertheless, from a survey of HenrySmith conducted in Hong Kong in the mid-eighties, most people who participatedin the rite are not motivated by religious concern but rather connections withand responsibility towards ancestors.[100]In a survey conducted in Taiwan by Prof. Li Yi-yuen, around two third of thosewho claim to be non-religion believers participated in ancestral worship.[101]In other words, most Chinese in modern Hong Kong and Taiwan who participate inancestral worship are not motivated by religious concern but rather filialpiety as well as social and moral considerations.[102]

Although the communistChinese government had adopted a policy of suppression of religious activities,including ancestral worship, during the Cultural Revolution (1966-76), an openpolicy has been implemented since 1980. Comprehensive survey on the ancestralworship in Mainland China has not been done recently, there is evidence thatthe rite has become more and more popular.[103]

Â

ÂÂÂÂÂ Thus, ancestral worship is still a livingissue among Chinese. Ones position on whether Chinese Christian could participatein ancestral worship is significant and depends on the interpretation of themeaning of the rite in Chinese context. The issue isreligio-cultural-moral-ethnic related and it has directly implication to the identityof Chinese.[104]The issue of identity is particularly significance for those Chinese outsidethe major population of Chinese, vis-a-visamong overseas Chinese.

2. Interpretation of Christian Faith

ÂÂÂÂÂ The position of Vatican in 18^th Century aswell as most Protestant missionaries and churches today is based on theinterpretation of Christian faith, especially the first two of the Tencommandments (Ex. 20: 3-6).[105]However if the interpretation of the above on Chinese religious perspective onancestral worship is taken into account, the charge of the violation of Tencommandments is not fit in the context.

Â

 Furthermore, in the discussion amongmissionaries in the 1907 conference, the issue of “individual conscience” wasraised in relation to dealing of the Ancestral Tablet. This was a realbreakthrough in the discussion of the ancestral worship since Morrison’s essayof 1832.[106] The languages of “eachone must be fully persuaded in his own mind”[107]and “A decision of the Emperor…..might make it easier for a weak Christian to disobey the voice ofconscience. For the strong Christianit might only make him realize that he must oppose the Imperial decision bothas to Imperial and as to the Confucian worship”[108] surely echo languages used in I Cor. 8-10and Rm. 14: 1- !5:13, especially 14: 5b. Since the relationship between thediscussion and I Cor. 8-10 has been commonly seen.[109]I would like to propose that the message ofÂRm. 14:1 – 15:13 is also relevant to the discussion, which has beenoverlooked. The issue related is the identity crisis faced by both JewishChristians and Chinese Christians.

Â

 As has been shown in the above Section ofAnalytical Frames, the main issue inthe passage is the identity crisis faced by the Jewish Christians that whetherthey could maintain their Jewish identity and also followers of Christ. Underthe pressure of the strong, the weak have to face a choice, which Paul does notthink necessary or proper. Even thoughthe strong are right in understanding of the relation between faith and eatingand drinking, they should understand the implications from the view of theweak. For the strong enjoy more freedom in their daily practice, they shouldplease the weak rather than judge the weak in their practices which areessential to maintain their Jewish identity.

Â

 Thus, only if the strong could see fromthe perspective of the weak, they would not agree to give up their "right”practice (orthopraxy) which is supported by their “right” understanding(orthodoxy). They could not accept the “wrong” practice of the weak as they aresupported by the “wrong” understanding. Although the weak see the issue fromthe other way round.

Â

ÂÂÂÂÂ In the Chinese Christian controversy onancestral worship, the Popes and their delegates in the 17^th and 18^thCenturies as well as the Protestant missionaries in 19^th and early20^th Centuries had not viewed the issue from the Chinese contextsand the Chinese Christian perspective. They did not see in their relationshipwith the Chinese Christians, that they are the strong who forced the weak,Chinese Christians, to face the identity crisis of being Chinese andChristian.Â

 ÂWould the missionary history in China bedifferent, if the message of Rm. 14:1 – 15:13 had been listened from theposition of the weak?

Â

Â

I. Commentaries: Romans(Abbreviation:Â R)

Barrett, C. K. (1962) A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, BNTC (London,:

A& C Black, 1971)

Black, M. (1973) Romans (London: Marshall, Morgan& Scott, 1981)

Cranfield, C. E. B. (1975, 1979) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on theEpistle to the Romans, ICC (Edinburgh, T & T Clark, 1985, 1983), 2vols.

Dunn, J. D. G. (1988) Romans, WBC 38 A and B, 2 volumes (Waco, Word Books).Â

Fitzmyer, J. A.(1993) Romans, AB 33 (N.Y.,Doubleday)

 Kaesemann, E.Â(1980) Commentary on Romans,Â4th ed., trans. & ed. G. W.Bromiley, (London: SCM, 1982)ÂÂ

Michel, O. (1978) Der Brief an die Roemer, KEK, 5th ed.(Gottingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht)

Moo, D. (1996) The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids,Eerdmans)

Sanday, W. &ÂHeadlam, A. C. (1902) A Criticaland Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to theÂRomans,

5thed., ICC (Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1905)

Stuhlmacher, P. (1989) Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary,trans. Scott J. Hafemann (Louisville:

Westminster/JohnKnox, 1994)

Wilckens,ÂU. (1978, 1980, 1982) Der Brief andie Roemer EKK (Zurich, Benziger Verlag) 3 vols.

II. Articles, Books and Theses

Barclay,J. M. G. (1987b)Â"Mirror-Reading a PolemicalÂÂLetter: Galatians as a Test Case" JSNT 31: 73-93.

_____________ (1996)“’Do We Undermine the Law?’: A Study of Romans 14:1-15:6” in Paul and the

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ Mosaic Law, ed. James D. G. Dunn(Tuebingen, J.C.B. Mohr) pp.287-308

Booth, W. C.ÂÂ(1983) The Rhetoric ofÂFiction, 2nd ed.Â(Chicago, Univ. Press)

Cancik, H.Â(1967) Untersuchungen zu Senecas epistulaeÂmorales (Hildesheim, Georgolms erlagsbuchhandlung)

Ching, Julia (1993) ChineseReligions (Maryknoll, NY, Orbis)

Cline, D.J.A. (1976) I, He, We& They: A Literary Approach to Isaiah 53 (Sheffield, JSOT Press)

Cranfield, C. E. B. (1982a) "Changes of Person andÂNumber in Paul's Epistles", firstÂpublished in P & P,

Âpp.280-289, repr. in TheÂBible and Christian Life: A CollectionÂof Essays (Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark)

Âpp.215-228.

Cullmann, O. (1950) Early Christian Worship, trans. A. S.Todd & J. B. Torrance (London: SCM, 1953)

Donfried, K. P.(1974b) "False Presuppositions in the Study of Romans" in CBQ 36, pp.332-55, repr. in

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ Debate, pp.120-148.

__________ ed. (1977b)ÂThe Romans DebateÂ(Minneapolis, Augsburg)

___________ ed. (1991) The Romans Debate, Rev. and Expanded ed.(Peabody, Hendrickson)

Dunn, J. D. G. (1983b) "The Incident atAntioch (Gal. 2:Â11-18)" JSNT 18: 3-57.

Ellis, E. E.ÂÂ(1957) Paul's Use ofÂthe Old Testament (Edinburgh, Olive and Boyd)

Esler, P. F. (1987) Communityand Gospel in Luke-Acts: The Social and Political Motivations of Lucan

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ Theology, SNTSMS 57.

Gamble, H. Jr.Â(1977) The Textual History of theLetter to the Romans: A StudyÂin Textual and

 Literary Criticism Â(Grand Rapids, Eerdmans)

Grenholm, C.(2000) “A Theologian and FeministResponds” in Reading Israel inRomans, edd. Cristina Grenholm & Daniel Patte (Harrisburg, Penn., TPI)

Huang,Po-he et. al. (1994) Christian andAncestor Worship (in Chinese) (Taipei, Yah-ge Publishing House)

Iser,W. (1972) The Implied Reader: Pattern ofCommunication in Prose Fiction from BunyanÂtoBecket ÂÂ(BaltimoreÂ

and London:John HopkinsUniv. Press, 1975)

Jackson, James (1907) “Ancestral Worship” in Records (1907: 215-46).

Karris,ÂR. J. (1973)Â"Romans 14:1 - 15:13 and the Occasion of Romans" in CBQ 25,pp.155-178 repr.in Debate,

pp.75-99.

 Koskenniemi, H,Â(1956) Studien zur Idee und ÂPhraseologieÂdes griechischen Briefes bis 400n. chr.(Helsinki,

Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia)

 Latourette, K. S. (1929)A History of Christian Missions in China(repr. Taipei: Ch’eng-wen Publishing Co.)

 Leung, Ka-lun (1997) “Christianityand Chinese Ancestor Worship—Response from a Pastoral Perspective” (in Chinese)

Âin ChineseAncestor Worship, ed. Ying, f*ck-tsangÂ(Hong Kong, Alliance Bible Seminary) pp. 103-205.

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ Li, Chi-jen (1995) Taiwan Christian Churches and AncestorWorship (in Chinese, Tainan, Jen Kwong Publication House)

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ Li, Tian-gong (1998) Chinese Rites Controversy: History,Documents and Significance (in Chinese, Shanghai, Ancient

Texts Press)

 Li, Yi-yuen (1992) “AReview on the Change of Individual Religiosity—To Propose some Assumptions on

 Study ofChinese Religious Beliefs (in Chinese) in CulturalImages—A Cultural Observation on

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ Religion and Ethnic Group (Taipei,Yuen Shen Cultural Enterprise) vol. 2.

 ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂLo, L. K. (1998) Paul’s Purpose in Writing Romans: TheUpbuilding of a Jewish and GentileChristian Community

ÂIn Rome, Jian DaoDissertation Series 6 (Hong Kong, Alliance Bible Seminary)

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂMartin, W.A.P. (1890) “The Worship of Ancestral : A Pled for Toleration”in Records (1890: 620-31).

____________Â(1902) “How Shall We Deal with the worship of Ancestors?” in Chinese Recorder

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂXXXIII: 3 (March), pp.117-9.

Morrison, R. (1832) “Worshipping at the Tombs” in ChineseRepository I:5 (September).

__________Â(1833) “Tombs of Ancestors” in Chinese Repository I:12 (April).

 McKnight, E.V.Â(1985) The Bible and the Reader: An Introduction to LiteraryCriticism (Philadelphia, Fortress)

 Minear, P. S. (1971) The Obedience of Faith: The Purpose of Paul in the Epistle to theRomans (London, SCM)

ÂÂÂ Nababan, A.E.S. (1962) Bekenntnis undMission in Roemer 14 und 15: Eine exegetische Untesuchung, unpublishedTh.D. dissertation, Heidelberg.

Ninos, Mark D. (1996) The Mystery of Romans: The JewishContext of Paul’s Letter (Minneapolis, Fortress)

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ Rauer,ÂM. (1923) "Die `Schwachen' in Korinth und Rom", BiblischeÂStudien 21: 1-192.

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ Reasoner, M. (1999) The Strong and the Weak: Romans 14:1-15:13in Context, SNTSMS 103

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ Records(1878) = Records of The GeneralConference of the Protestant Missionaries of China, held at Shanghai,

ÂMay 10-24, 1877(Taipei: Cheng-wen Pub. Co., 1973, a reprint of Shanghai: Presbyterian MissionPress, 1878)

 Records (1890) = Records ofGeneral Conference of the Protestant Missionaries of China, held at Shanghai, May 7-20,

1890 (Shanghai: AmericanPresbyterian Press, 1890)

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ Records(1907) = China Centenary MissionaryConference Records: Report of the Great Conference Held at

Shanghai, April 5^th to May 8^th,1907, Printed in shanghai under the direction of the Conference Committee,

Edition limited to 1000 copies (New York: American Tract Society)

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ Senior, D. & Stuhlmueller, C.(1983) The Biblical Foundations forMission (London, SCM)

 Schneider, Nelio (1989) Die “Schwachen” in derchristlichen Gemeinde Roms: Eine historisch-exegetische

Untersuchung zu Roem14:1-15:13, unpublished Th.D. dissertation, Kirchliche Hochschule Wuppertal

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ Smith, Henry N. (1987) Chinese Ancestor Practices and Christianity:Toward a Viable Contextualization

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ of Chinese Ethnics in HongKong, unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation (Dallas, Southwestern Baptist

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ Theological Seminary)Â

 Tan, Y. H. (1999) “Judging and Community in Romans: An Actionwithin the Boundaries”, a paperÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ

 presented at SBL 1999Seminar:Romans through History andCultures. 24 pages.

 Thraede, K. (1970) Grundzuegegriechisch - roemischer Brieftopik (Muenchen: C.H. Beck'sche

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ verlagsbuchhandlung)

Watson, F. (1986) Paul, Judaism and The Gentiles: ASociological Approach, SNTSMS 56

_________ (1991) “Review of Romans1-8 and Romans 9-16, by James D. G. Dunn” JTS 42: 252-4.

Watson, James L. & Evelyn S. Rawski edd. (1988) Death Ritual in Late and Modern China (Berkeley,

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ Universityof California Press, 1990)

Wedderburn, A. J.ÂM. (1988) The Reasons for Romans (Edinburgh, T & T Clark).

Wiefel, W. (1970) "The Jewish Community in AncientRome and the Origins of Roman Christianity" in JudaicaÂ26,Âpp.65-88, trans. & repr. in Debate,pp.100-119.

Yang , C. K. (1961) Religionin Chinese Society (Berkeley, LA, London, University of California Press)

Yeo,Khiok-khng (1996) Ancestor Worship:Rhetorical and Cross-Cultural Hermeneutical Response (in Chinese)

(Hong Kong, ChineChristian Literature Council)

Ying, f*ck-tsang(1997a) “Christianity and Chinese Ancestor Worship—A Historical Survey” (inChinese) in Chinese Ancestor Worship,ed. Ying, f*ck-tsang (Hong Kong, Alliance Bible Seminary) pp. 1-102.

_____________ (1997b) “A Retrospect on Research of ChineseAncestor Worship” (in Chinese) in ChineseÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ

ÂAncestor Worship, ed. Yingf*ck-tsang (Hong Kong, Alliance Bible Seminary) pp.209-30.

Â

[1]See Grenholm (2000: 105) and the quotation from Watson (1991: 252).

[2]Detailed footnotes of this Section can be found in the complete paper on thewebsite: http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/religious_studies/SBL2002/home2002.htm

[3]Recent discussions, see Nababan (1962),ÂMinear (1971), Karris (1973), Watson (1986: 88-98), Meeks (1987),Schneider (1989), Barclay (1996), Nanos (1996: 85-165), Lo (1998: 117-158), Tan (1999) and Reasoner(1999).

[4] Edited by Donfried (1977), in which ninearticles with different perspectives are collected, the revised and expandededition (1991) adds thirteen more articles; see also Wedderburn (1988: 140ff); Lo (1998).

[5]E.g. Barrett (R, 1962: 256); Kaesemann (R, 1980: 364); Wilckens (R, 1982 III:78) and those listed in Reasoner (1999: 4, 8-16). Discussion on thesimilarities and differences between Rm. 14:1-15:13 and I Cor. 8-10, see Lo(1998: 52-55) and Reasoner (1999: 25-44).

[6] Rm. 16 is regarded as part of Romans. For the detailed discussion of thecharacteristics of Roman Christians found in Rm. 16:3-15, see Lo (1998:27-35).

[7]See Minear (1971) and the discussion on his methodology in pp.6ff.. His workdid not gain widespread acceptance among scholars; exceptions see Donfried(1977) and Watson (1986: 88f.).

[8]Minear (1971: 7); see also Cranfield (R, 1975, I:22).

[9] Minear (1971: 7).

[10] Minear (1971: 8-15). Donfried (1974b:107) rightly criticized Minear's work that "while the direction of Minear'sgeneral interpretation is persuasive,…….we are hesitant to concur with Minearin attempting to relate almost every passage to some problem or opponent inRome".Â

[11]Paul's argument in 14.10c-12 includes an OT quotation from the later part ofthe LXX text of Is. 45:23 and an introductory formula legei kurios which is probably from Is. 49:18 (cf. Num. 14:28; Jer.22:24; Ezek. 5:11), see Ellis (1957:151) and Kaesemann (R, 1980:373).

[12]Paul uses four OT quotations in 15: 9b-12, which come from the Law, theProphets and the Writings, LXX Ps. 17:50; Deut. 32:43; Ps. 116:1 and Is. 11:10.Among these quotations, the one in 15:9b which follows closely the text of LXXPs. 17:50 indicates an individual Jew praising God among the Gentiles.

[13] Karris (1973: 79ff.).

[14] Rauer (1923).

[15] See also Barrett (R, 1962: 257f.)

[16] The use of the word koinos to denote "unclean" in the religious sense isalmost exclusively Jewish; Reasoner (1999:.17f.) suggests that there were otherreasons why people abstained from meat and wine in first century Rome (pp.102-38).

[17] For detailed discussion on the possibleinterpretations of the identities of the “strong” and the “weak”, see Cranfield(R, 1979 II: 690-7), Wilckens (R, 1982 III: 109-115), Moo (R, 1996: 828-32).

[18] See the bibliographical reference inKarris (1973: 76 n.6) and Reasoner (1999: 6-16).

[19] So Watson (1986: 95).

[20] See Minear (1971: 9). In early Christiantimes, worship and communal meal were probably inseparable; I Cor. 11: 17-22;cf. see Cullmann (1950: 14ff.).

[21] See Minear (1971: 10).

[22] See discussion on Tacitus Historiae, V, 5:1; Letter of Aristeas, Josephand Asenath in Lo (1998: 85-88).

[23] See Lo (1998: 57-113).

[24] The hyphanated form of"net-work" is intended to show the the relationship between thedifferent synagogues and house churches in Rome which were closely connectedbut not as a united organization, see discussion in Lo (1998: 20)..

[25] See Wiefel (1970: 111-113). However, wedisagree with Wiefel that the denial of assembly was a first step in moderatingthe eviction edict of Claudius, see discussion in Lo (1998: 78-80) 3.

[26] See Cranfield (R, 1975 I: 16); Fitzmyer(R, 1993: 86f.).

[27] Minear (1971: 13).

[28] Minear (1971: 15).

[29]Clines (1976: 25-33, 37-40).

[30]Clines (1976: 25, 53).

[31]Clines (1976: 53-56).

[32]Clines (1976:54ff.) .

[33]For discussion of the problem of mirror-reading method, see Barclay (1987).

[34]For study of ancient epistolography, see Koskenniemi (1955); Cancik (1967);Thraede (1970), See detailed footnote in the complete paper on the website.

[35]Clines (1976: 33, 59f.), his emphasis.

[36]See Lo (1998).

[37]Clines (1971) uses the phrase “persona-analysis”only once as a description of his study of the personae in the text (p. 38) but not as an approach. In fact heseems to avoid the phrase, even though he uses “Visual analysis”, “Act/agentanalysis”, “Speech analysis”, “Affect analysis”, “Temporal analysis” for allother Sections in Chapter 3 (pp. 37-49) of his book, but only “Personae” (pp.37-40) as the name of the Section (a) in which he mentions the phrase “persona-analysis”.

[38]It implies that by the letter of Romans Paul aims to persuade his Romanaudience to accept certain theses. Thus the 'I' and the 'you' in the text arealso involved in a process of persuasion. In other words, there are twoprocesses of persuasion. One is inprocess between the sender and the recipients in which the letter is the meansof persuasion. The other is in process within the letter, primarily between the'I' (the "implied author") and the 'you' (the "impliedreader") as suggested by Booth (1983: 70-6, cf. 138); see also Iser (1972:30); McKnight (1985: 101f.).Â

[39] Egw, 3 times: 14:11, 11; 15:3; su, 12 times: 14:4, 10, 10, 10, 10, 15,15, 21, 22; 15:3, 9, 9; humeis, 5times; 14:16; 15:5, 7, 13, 13; and h8meis,5 times: 14:7, 12; 15:1, 2, 6.

[40]14:14; 15:8, 9, 9.

[41]36. 14: 1, 13; 15: 6, 7.

[43]14: 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 10, 13, 19; 15:4.

[44]See Table I in Lo (1998: 428) which shows the occurences of the first andsecond person (singular and plural, pronouns and verbs) in Romans 1-11, 14-16.

[45]39. Wilcken (R, 1982, III: 79) suggests that the frequent change of thepersonal pronouns in this passage indicates that Paul is not only a teacher butalso a pastor who directs his care to his addressees.

[46]Rm. 14:1-15:13 contains thirteen imperatives: 14:1, 3, 3, 5, 13, 13, 15, 16,19, 20, 22; 15:2, 7; see Karris (1973: 84). In which three are second personplural imperatives (14: 1, 13; 15:7) and three are second person singular(14:15, 20, 22).

[47]See Michel (R, 1978: 422, 447); Kaesemann (R, 1980: 366); Wilckens (R, 1982,III: 81).

[48]It is noteworthy that the singular article with a present participle occurfrequently in 14: 1-7 to denote an indefinite person.

[49]The word proslambanw is used in thepapyri of 'receiving' into a household, see M & M: 549; Black (R, 1973:165).

[50]For discussion of the limits of table-fellowship in the Judaism of the latesecond temple period, see Dunn (1983: 12- 25); Esler (1987: 76-86) and ourdiscussion in Lo (1998: 85-88).

[51]SoCranfield (R, 1979, II: 711); Cf. Michel (R, 1978: 430); Kaesemann (R, 1980:374).

[52]So e.g. Kaesemann (R, 1980: 374); Wilckens (R, 1982, III: 90).

[53]Thereare only 6 occurrences of proskommain NT. Apart from I Pet. 2:8 all are used by Paul: Rm. 9: 32, 33; 14:13, 20; ICor. 8:9. skandalon occurs 15 times,five times in Mtt. (13:41; 16:23; 18:7, 7, 7), once in Lk. 17:1, and none inMk. or Jn.. It occurs 6 times in Pauline epistles, in which 4 times in Rm.(9:33; 11:9; 14:13; 16:17); once in I Cor. 1:23 and Gal. 5:11. The other 3times occur in I Pet. 2:8; I Jn. 2:10 and Rev. 2:14..Â

[54]Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 725).

[55]For detailed discussion of the textual problem of the connection between Rm. 14and 15, see Gamble (1977: 16-35, 96-126).

[56]In v.4, there is a first person plural possessive pronominal adjective h8meteros.

[57]See Dunn (1983b: 30).

[58]See Dunn (1983b: 31f.).

[59]So Senior & Stuhlmueller (1983: 182). The difference of Paul's position inGal. and Rm. seems to be that those occupying the superior position in Gal.were Jewish Christians while those in Rm. were Gentile Christians. Thus inGal., the issue is the danger of Judaizing which requires a Gentile Christianto become a Jew if he is to become a member of God's people. While in Rm. theissue is the danger of a Jewish Christian becoming a Jewish or a Christianapostate in the process of building up the relationship between the Jewish andthe Gentile Christians.

[60]Watson (1986: 96) suggests that "by far the greater concession is demandedof the Jews." However, he seems to overlook the diversified attitude amongJews towards Gentiles who would like to become members of God's people; themost famous case is recorded in Josephus AJ, XX: 34-48..

[61]Barclay (1996: 303-308) suggests that by encouraging Jewish and GentileChristians to accept one another, and insisting the Gentile Christians shouldnot pressurize Jewish Christians to change their conviction and practices ofJewish law, in the short term, Paul’s position could protect “the law-observantChristians, in the long term and at a deeper level he seriously underminestheir social and cultural integrity” (306). However, this may not be the casein a process of cultural interaction, mutual influence is expected..

[62]The other prayer-wishes in Romans are all in ch.15 (vv.13 and 33); seeCranfield (R. 1979, II: 736).

[63]See Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 737); Kaeseman (R, 1980: 383).

[64]See Sanday & Headlam (R, 1902: 397); Michel (R, 1978: 447); Wilckens (R,1982, III: 105).

[65]Black (R, 1973: 173) rightly acknowledges that 15: 9-13 not only sums up theconclusion of the argument between the Jewish and the Gentile Christians, butalso the main theme and purpose of Romans.Â

[66]See Lo (1998: 197-415).

[67]See the complete paper on the website for a more detailed discussion.

[68]See Ching (1993: 192); the following discussion of the controversy is largelybased on the information from Latourette (1929: 131-151) and Ching (1993:193-195).

[69]See Latourette (1929: 132-135) for Jesuit’s attitude toward Chinese rites.

[70]See Latourette (1929: 141-146).

[71]See Latourette (1929: 140) and Ching (1993: 193).

[72]The Protestant philosopher Leibnitz published a defense of the Jesuits, but in1700 the theological faculty of the University of Paris formally disapprovedthe Jesuit position, see Latourette (1929:139f.).

[73]See Ching (1993: 194).

[74]See Latourette (1929:140f.,146f.).

[75]See discussion in Latourette (1929: 148f.).

[76]See Latourette (1929: 149f.).

[77]Latourette is ambivalent about the consequences of the controversy. On the onehand he criticizes that the papal decision had “established a tradition formaking the Church unadaptable to Chinese conditions and beliefs. It tended andstill tends to keep the Roman Catholic Church a foreign institution, one towhich China must conform but which refuses to conform to China” (see p. 154).On the other hand he praises that “the papal decisions made the winning ofnominal adherents more difficult, but they tended to keep high the standards ofthe Church”. For him “Numbers were sacrificed for vitality” (p.155). However, Latourettehas to answer the question (p. 154, cf. p. 132) that “in the only countrieswhere Christianity has triumphed over a high civilization, as in the olderMediterranean world and the Nearer East, it has done so by conforming in partto older cultures. Whether it can win to its fold a highly cultured people likethe Chinese without again making a similar adaptation remains an unansweredquestion.”

[78]See discussions in Huang (1994); Yeo (1996); Ying (1997a) and Leung (1997).

[79]Morrison, J. (1832: 202) and (1833:502).

[80]See Ying (1997a: 11-13).

[81]See Records (1878: 396-7, 401), citedby Ying (1997a: 13, n. 24).

[82]See Records (1890:620-31).

[83]Ibid, p. 627.

[84]See Ariarajah (1994: 2-4).

[85]See the list of publications in Ying (1997a: 20, n. 42).

[86]Ibid, p. 233.

[87]See Jackson (1907: 239-4).

[88]See the resolutions and the discussion in Jackson (1907: 604-24).

[89]Ibid, p. 239.

[90]See Ying (1997a: 55-64).

[91]Ibid, pp. 76-82.

[92]See Watson & Rawski (1988) and Ying (1997b: 218, 224).

[93]See Yang (1961), especially pp.29-31, 44-48, 60ff., 253-255.

[94]See Yang (1961: 2) and Ching (1993: 1-3).

[95]Yang (1961: 294).

[96]Ibid, pp. 294-5.

[97]Further discussion of institutional and diffused religions in Chinese society,see Yang (1961: 295-340).

[98]See Yang (1961: 29-31, 44-48, 53, 298).

[99]Ibid, pp. 48-9; Ching (1993: 19-21) and Leung (1997: 146-50)..

[100]See Smith (1987: 9-89, especially 39-41), when the question of the feeling ofancestral worship is asked, 95% agreed as showing respect to the ancestors, 79%thanksgiving to ancestors, 79% as sense of belonging to family, 73% as forindividual satisfaction, 67% remembering the dead. The religious concerns, suchas practical needs of ancestors (44%), fear to arouse the anger of dead (40%),concern the situation of the dead (37%), represented less than 50% of theresponses; see also Ying (1997b: 223-4).

[101]Li (1992: 152-3, 160), see also Ying (1997b: 222-3).

[102]See also Leung (1997: 158).

[103]See Ying (1997b: 221-2).

[104]See Ying (1997b: 224-5).

[105]Other biblical texts related to the discussion of ancestral worship, see Yeo (1996: 135-41).

[106]See note 170 above.

[107]Jackson (1907: 244).

[108]Records (1907: 621-2), my emphsis.

[109]See Yeo (1996) and also Leung (1997: 160,Â204).