Faith and Empathy by Jonathan Chavesn”Well, I do believe some things, of course . . .nand therefore, of course, I don’t believe othernthings.”n—G.K. Chesterton, The Incredulity of Father BrownnThe Chinese Rites Controversy FromnIts Beginning to Modern Times bynGeorge Minamiki, S.J., Chicago:nLovola University Press.nThe progressive turning away fromnbelief in God that characterizednWestern intellectuals during the 19thncentury continues, alas, in the 20th.nThis intellectual shift has often beennattributed to the triumphs of sciencenand to the theories of Marx, Freud,nand Dar\in. But the rise of modernnskepticism may also be traced to increasingnawareness through textual,nanthropological, and folkloric study ofnnon-Judaic and non-Christian culturalntraditions vith ancient and quite sophisticatednreligious systems of theirnown. Deciding whether Western skepticismnwas primarily a cause or anneffect of eer-increasing fascinationnwith the East—a fascination both aestheticnand philosophical in naturen— is, to be sure, something like resolvingnthe chicken-or-egg problem. Butnconfrontation with the Orient hasnforced modern man to wonder: “Ifnthere exist in fact several traditionsnoffering exhaustive explanations fornlife and man’s place in the universe,nwho is to say that our own has anynmonopoly on the truth—or indeednthat it is correct at all? Could it be thatnmen have simply created more or lessnarbitrary explanations to account fornthe apparentiy inexplicable conditionnin which they find themselves? Couldnit be that none of these ‘religions’—nour own included—has any right tonlay claim to authority?”nSuch musings suit ideological atheistsnperfectly, for obvious reasons. Allnthey need to do is to sit back and allownskeptical questioning to continue tonundermine belief But how is the intellectualnwho would like to see anJonathan Chaves is associate professornof Chinese at the George WashingtonnUniversity.nresurgence of faith to proceed? Is he tonground himself in a fundamentalismnwhich simply asserts the rightness ofnone religion and the consequentnwrongness of all others? Or is he tonembrace an ecumenical position sontolerant as to denv anv essential differ-nences between religions? That thisnissue poses one of the primary moralndilemmas of the 20th century wasn.already fully recognized by G.K.nChesterton in the first decade of thencentury (see Heretics [1905] and Orthodoxyn[1908]), and it is a problem asnyet unresolved today.nIn his fine new book on the socallednChinese rites controversy.nnnGeorge Minamiki has a far more modestnagenda than the resolution of thisnintractable problem. Yet his superblynresearched and lucid exposition of thencontroversy may help to foster discussionnof the proper balance betweennfaithful adherence to a creed andnempathetic tolerance for other religions.nThe experience of missionariesnwho served in China provides a provocativencase study. Beginning withnthe great Matteo Rieci (1522-1610),nthe missionaries found themselvesnconfronted with a most difficult question:nShould they allow Chinese convertsnto Christianity to continue tonparticipate in those rituals which helpedndefine Chinese social life? Thisnquestion led naturally to a still morenfundamental one: Were these rituals tonbe seen as essentially religious (innwhich case they would have to beninterpreted as contravening the FirstnCommandment), or were they to benseen as merely “civil” (i.e., lackingnany sense of worship of a sacred object,nAUGUST 1986 / 27n