You write: “From the very beginning Confucianism was anti-supernatural. Associating Confucius with magic is anti-Confucian.”

Which “Confucianism” are you talking about? If you’re talking about the contemporary Neo-Confucianism of Tu Wei-ming and his Harvard allies, I think the above statement has validity. But consider this statement from a well-regarded textbook on world religions: “As Confucianism became a quasi-state religion in the Han Dynasty and after, it found it needed a quasi-theology, a quasi-divinity, and a quasi-priesthood with its own rites. Quasi-divinity it found in Confucius himself….” (Many Peoples, Many Faiths, Ellwood and McGraw, p. 189). In other words, “Confucianism” as historically practiced by many Chinese people has long included the supernatural.

Another textbook on world religions points out that “there is a common Chinese distinction … between the terms chia (schools of thought, philosophy) and chiao (teaching, religion). The former refers more to the great thinkers and their teachings, and the ‘great traditions’. The latter refers to the religious and, by extension, to the unique ways in which the great traditions have been appropriated at grass-roots level. A distinction between the great intellectual traditions and the cultic and devotional side of religious life has been made in all the Chinese traditions, Confucianism, Taoism and also Buddhism…” (Introduction to World Religions, ed. Christopher Partridge). Using this culturally appropriate distinction, perhaps we could say that you are aligned with chia, the traditions of the intellectual elite; the above story is aligned with chiao, the grass-roots traditions of ordinary people. In which case your argument may be true, but it does not address the point of the story.

I would also submit that you take a mildly reductionist approach to contemporary liberal Christianity. Contemporary liberal Christians apply a variety of hermenuetics to the miracle birth stories of Jesus: some interpret the stories as supernatural miracles giving proof of God’s power, some of us interpret the stories as mythically true but not literally true (which is the theological attitude of the above story), some dismiss the stories as later accretions to the basic message and teaching of Jesus — so there is no one liberal Christian attitude towards miracles. Thus we cannot safely compare “Confucian” and “Christian” attitudes towards miracles in the way you try to do.

You also make two points that get you embroiled in one of the basic controversies of postmodernism. On the one hand, you write: “Confucianism and Christianity are profoundly different in their attitude towards miracles.” On the other hand, you are willing to write: “…ancient Chinese values aren’t so different from modern UU values.” But making that second claim opens you to the same critique you level against me in the first claim. In fact, I would say that ancient Chinese values are more profoundly different from contemporary U.S. values than are the ancient “Confucian” beliefs in the supernatural are from contemporary U.S. beliefs in the supernatural. The “Confucian” value system is anti-individualist in the extreme; the “five relations” trump individual self-determination every time; whereas the contemporary U.S. value system gives primacy to individualism. (And in this context, I would not try to compare the subcultural “UU values” with macrocultural “ancient Chinese values” — that’s comparing a species with a phylum.)

I’d be much more open to your criticism if you made the argument that the above story tries to fit “Confucianism” into a Western liberal Christian meta-narrative — which would be an awkward fit, to say the least. If you wanted to campaign to remove this story from your church on these grounds, I think you might have a good theological basis on which to do so (although it wouldn’t take much to tweak the story to meet such a theological objection). But I believe your argument as it stands represents a misunderstanding of “Confucianism,” and an improper comparison between “Confucianism” and Western religious concepts.

I think this story is inappropriate and have campaigned to exclude it from our church.

These Confucius miracle birth stories are not part of the Confucian religion. They appear in no important text. They are folk tales. From the very beginning Confucianism was anti-supernatural. Associating Confucius with magic is anti-Confucian.

This is very different from Christianity. The Jesus miracle birth stories are in the Bible and have been taken seriously by Christians for centuries. Even Channing thought miracles were important evidence of the truth of Christianity.

Confucianism and Christianity are profoundly different in their attitude towards miracles. The story’s basic point is therefore false.

I would argue that it is also defamatory towards Confucianism. Modern UUs don’t believe miracle birth stories. So by claiming that Confucians do you are unfairly accusing them of superstition.

Why not tell the story of Mencius’ single mom moving house three times to get into a good school district? That is a real part of the Confucian tradition. Of course it suggests that ancient Chinese values aren’t so different from modern UU values. But that isn’t bad, is it?

Good luck
Tom