Spence’s book, which I have just finished, is a fascinating account of the life of the Catholic Jesuit missionary Matteo Ricci, who served in China in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. Ricci is celebrated as not only a major figure in efforts by the Jesuits to convert the people of late Ming Dynasty China to Catholicism, but also for his translating the Confucian classics from Chinese into Latin--thus making them accessible to European scholars--and for creating Chinese translations of important scholarly texts from Europe. The title of the book refers to Ricci’s skill in utilizing so-called memory palaces as a device to remember information he wished to retain in long-term memory, such as the numerous characters he needed to remember in order to be able to read Chinese (a challenge all learners of Chinese, like myself, have to face!). Near the end of the book, Spence (a professor of history at Yale University when he wrote the book) describes how certain images of the Virgin Mary and the Christ Child that Ricci displayed to the Chinese were received rather respectfully. However--
This generally pious reception of the pictures of the Virgin and Child contrasts sharply with attitudes to the crucified Christ, as Ricci had encountered them the previous year [1600]. One crucifix, which Ricci was carrying in his private baggage, must have been small but vividly real in the style of the late sixteenth century, designed to give the maximum immediacy to the man contemplating it…Ricci described it as “beautiful, carved out of wood, with blood painted on it, so it seemed alive.” The eunuch [a Chinese official] who found it, however…suspected black magic and shouted aloud, “This is a wicked thing you have made, to kill our king; they cannot be good people who practice such arts.” Soldiers were called up and the baggage of Ricci and his companions was ransacked for further clues to their depraved designs, and they were threatened with savage beatings. The main difficulty was, as Ricci noted with honesty, that the eunuch “truly thought it was something evil”…(p. 246)
Spence also informs us that “a Chinese friend said to Ricci, it was really ‘not good to have someone looking like that’; another suggested that the Jesuits ‘crush into powder any other crucifixes they had with them, so there would be no memory of them’” (p. 247).
Now, I have to say I am not a Catholic, but an evangelical Protestant. I personally find it unnecessary to have a crucifix to remind me of Christ’s sufferings on my behalf. Nevertheless, the fact that the idea of Christ crucified created such outrage, or, at least, discomfort, among some late Ming Dynasty Chinese is a clear illustration of how offensive the Cross has been and continues to be for those who are spiritually blind, unable to see it as the greatest evidence for God’s infinite love for mankind. It is not surprising that the seemingly pleasant domesticity of those images of the Virgin and Child Ricci presented to the Chinese would have received a much more appreciative response. And yet, it was because Ricci and his fellow Catholic missionaries in China emphasized images of the Virgin Mary at the expense of images of the crucified Christ that many Chinese at the time came to believe that “the Christian God was a woman” (p. 244)! Thus, we have a clear object lesson in the danger of trying to downplay the potentially offensive aspects of the Gospel in order to make it more palatable to those who have yet to accept it. A certain amount of cultural sensitivity is certainly necessary in missionary work, but the fundamentals of the Christian message cannot be compromised if those to whom the Gospel is being presented are to have an genuine understanding of it that leads to salvation.
Image of Matteo Ricci from saltandlighttv.org