Zhong Wen: When Matteo Ricci arrived in China in the late Ming dynasty, he coined the term Tianzhu (“Lord of Heaven”) as the translation of Deus, the Creator in Catholic doctrine. He interpreted the pre-Qin classical Chinese concepts of “Heaven” (Tian) and “Shangdi” as referring to this same “Tianzhu,” attempting to integrate Catholic doctrine into the Chinese cultural tradition. In fact, this issue of terminology had already arisen when Christianity encountered Greco-Roman culture. What Ricci did in China resembled what the early Church once did in Europe: find terms whose cultural connotations approximate Christian ideas, and, through explanation and teaching, imbue them with the correct Christian meanings. What puzzled Father Dunn, however, is this: although Ricci did not go as far as the early Church had gone in Europe, the method that worked well in the first century Roman Empire was considered unwise when applied in 16th–17th century Asia.

Bo Ya: Perhaps, to some extent, this is the influence of Eurocentrism. But I think the most important issue is not the translation of “the Most High” or “the Creator,” nor the question of localization. The crucial question is whether the preaching includes “the precious blood of Christ on the Cross.” As long as the cross of Jesus Christ is present, any term can bear the correct meaning. Without the cross of Christ, no term has meaning.

Zhong Wen: At the beginning, the term “Shangdi” was also a major problem in the newly founded Japanese mission. Jesuits in Japan debated the terminology for fifty years before deciding to use a transliteration of the Latin or Portuguese Deus. After a deep study of Chinese classics, Ricci chose Tianzhu to translate Deus. He believed that the ancient Chinese terms “Heaven” and “Shangdi” referred to the source of all power and moral authority, the supreme lawgiver and defender of moral order—omniscient, omnipotent, rewarding good and punishing evil. Therefore, in The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven, Ricci devoted many pages to explaining these Chinese concepts to demonstrate that the God he preached is the same as the “Heaven” and “Shangdi” in ancient classics, thus gaining the recognition of Confucian scholars. In 1600, Valignano approved Ricci’s choice of Tianzhu as the term for the Christian God.

Bo Ya: The two volumes of The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven are based mainly on the teachings of Thomas Aquinas and lean heavily toward rationalism. They seldom touch upon the mystery of the Cross.

Zhong Wen: After Ricci’s death, Longobardi succeeded him as superior of the China mission (1610–1622). Before this, few dared to question whether it was appropriate to equate the Chinese classical term “Shangdi” with the Christian Creator. But in the years after 1610, some missionaries began to worry that Ricci had leaned too far toward natural religion. Longobardi was among the first to express concern: the Chinese did not regard their “Shangdi” as a personal, unique, omnipresent Creator, but instead, following traditional scholarly interpretation, saw it as an impersonal force of Heaven’s Way or Mandate.

Bo Ya: Rank kills—the same applies in the Church! When Ricci died, his policy naturally waned. This is very much like what ancient Chinese texts say: “When the man lives, his policies flourish; when he dies, his policies disappear.”

Zhong Wen: Longobardi urged the visitor Pasio (Francesco Pasio, 1611–1622) to reexamine the terminology question. Pasio sought the opinions of Xu Guangqi, Yang Tingyun, Li Zhizao and other Chinese scholars. Xu and the others jointly supported Ricci’s view; only Longobardi persisted in opposing it, and Sabatino de Ursis supported him. In 1617, Longobardi submitted a paper on the matter. In 1618, the Italian Jesuit Alvaro Semedo (Xiong Sanba) wrote two papers supporting Longobardi, arguing that the Chinese did not understand God, angels, or the soul. But Pantoja and Alfonso Vagnoni (Gao Yizhi) disagreed and wrote papers defending Ricci’s terminology, insisting that the Chinese did possess knowledge of God, angels, and the soul. Yet Longobardi would not yield. In 1624 he wrote a pamphlet criticizing Ricci’s The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven.

Bo Ya: The “knowledge” of God, angels, and the soul—is that rational knowledge? I think not. It is a kind of mystical experience. Many Chinese Christians lack this. The mystery of the Trinity cannot be obtained through reasoning; it is a revelation.

Zhong Wen: Longobardi discovered that Sabatino de Ursis shared his views. They consulted Xu Guangqi, Yang Tingyun, and others. These literati advised that the missionaries should embrace classical passages useful to the faith and ignore later commentaries. Longobardi continued to investigate both Christian and non-Christian scholars, and in 1623 completed a Latin treatise Confucius and His Doctrine. It was the first Western work analyzing the ideological foundations of Chinese orthodoxy. A French translation was later published in 1701 by the Paris Foreign Missions Society as a weapon against the Jesuits. When Longobardi questioned Xu Guangqi, he tried to make Xu admit that the Christian Creator had no connection with the “Shangdi” of Chinese classics. Xu disagreed, saying that if one could convince people that Shangdi possessed the attributes preached by missionaries, that would be ideal.

Bo Ya: Such sleight-of-hand is called “ABC theology.” Theological struggles are often political and personal struggles as well.

Zhong Wen: The internal Jesuit disputes eventually led to the meeting at Jiading near Shanghai in 1628. According to Dunn, nine Jesuits attended: Longobardi, Vagnoni, Trigault, Emmanuel Diaz Sr., Sambiasi, Cattaneo, Semedo, and Giulio Aleni, with Xu Guangqi and others as observers. They debated eleven agenda items; little disagreement existed on ancestral and Confucian rites. The main conflict was terminology. Because Longobardi refused compromise, no consensus could be reached. The meeting ended abruptly when news came that the Tianqi Emperor had died; the presence of many foreigners was dangerous. The final decision: maintain Ricci’s accommodation method but ban the use of “Shangdi,” using only Tianzhu, which was considered doctrinally safe. This term has been used in Chinese Catholicism ever since.

Bo Ya: I believe the term Tianzhu has no biblical basis. Jehovah is Lord of Heaven, Earth, and under the Earth—how can “Heaven” limit Him? If we must use “Heaven,” it should be “Heavenly Father,” as in the Lord’s Prayer…

Zhong Wen: But in 1633 Longobardi wrote a long treatise going further—rejecting both “Shangdi” and “Tianzhu,” and advocating a phonetic transcription of “Deus.” His proposal was not accepted. Giulio Aleni and Semedo criticized this, arguing that Tianzhu had already become established without harming orthodoxy.

Bo Ya: Yet later history shows that the term “Catholicism” (Tianzhu jiao—the Religion of the Lord of Heaven) caused division among Chinese Christians and confusion in broader society.

Zhong Wen: Seeing the disputes persist, the Jesuit vice-provincial Passio ordered all anti-Ricci writings burned—over fifty documents written before 1630 disappeared. Longobardi’s works were all destroyed except Confucius and His Doctrine. By 1665, the Jesuits had held at least 74 similar meetings. Some Jesuits also opposed Ricci’s “Western Learning” method of evangelization, doubting that mathematics, astronomy, and sciences could open China to the faith. Such Jesuits included Vagnoni, Carvalho of the Japan Province, and the visitor Andre Palmeiro.

Bo Ya: This resembles a literary inquisition. Fortunately, these people did not hold political power; otherwise differing opinions might have led to imprisonment or execution.

Zhong Wen: After the Jiading meeting, Visitor Palmeiro traveled through every mission station and noted: “In fact, I found no rupture in their hearts or friendships… This debate was rational.” But after 1632, with the arrival of Dominicans and Franciscans, China’s missionary landscape changed, conflicts of interest became inevitable. In 1668 the Franciscan Antonio de Santa Maria Caballero attacked Ricci’s accommodation, leading to the papal decree of 1704 banning “Heaven” and “Shangdi” entirely. Ricci’s method was utterly dismantled.

Bo Ya: The pope imagined he was skillfully directing affairs, but he did not understand Chinese. He did not realize that the term “Religion of the Lord of Heaven” omits Jesus Christ entirely and is hardly distinguishable from Jewish or Muslim usage.

Zhong Wen: Ricci’s cultural accommodation opened a long-closed Ming society to Christian civilization. Through harmonizing, supplementing, and transcending Confucianism, he won acceptance among the literati, securing legitimacy for Catholic evangelization and laying the foundation for later Jesuit work.

Bo Ya: But on the other hand, this accommodation also neutered the soul of Christian faith.

Zhong Wen: Some argue Ricci’s methods remain relevant because he deeply understood Chinese history and culture and loved China. Later Italian Jesuits followed his strategy and devoted their lives to China, writing diligently and expanding the space for evangelization. Yet in practice, significant ideological differences arose. One faction, represented by Longobardi and Sabatino de Ursis, wrote profound critiques of Ricci’s approach. The other, represented by Vagnoni and Aleni, defended it vigorously… Do you agree?

Bo Ya: I think Ricci’s “cultural accommodation” is a double-edged sword.

Zhong Wen: In the end, the Rites Controversy caused the collapse of Ricci’s achievements. Catholicism came to be seen as an alien religion incompatible with Chinese culture. The world Ricci once opened disappeared.

Bo Ya: For Chinese society, Christianity is undeniably revolutionary. Ricci tried to reduce its revolutionary shock to allow a smooth transition. But reality proved this unrealistic. Even today, despite the Vatican bowing lower than its own dignity can bear, the Communist Party still refuses to let a dying pope step foot into Mainland China.