In God’s Name: Contextual Debate in Historical Perspective

In God’s Name: Contextual Debate in Historical Perspective

研究指導者

Lin Changhua 荷蘭阿姆斯特丹自由大學 神學研究所哲學博士 本院歷史學教授

研究員 Chen wen hua 東海大學社會工作學系博士 本院教會社會工作學系助理教授 Panay Asing 本院神學碩士班學生 Surang Tadaw 本院神學碩士班學生

摘要

自基督教傳入台灣之後，福音與文化的問題一直都是教會面對的問題，從 17 世 紀荷蘭改革宗教會來台，19 世紀英國和加拿大的宣教工作，就目前可見的史料可以 看到荷蘭人是以歐洲或是東南亞所使用的外來名詞，如 Deus 或 Alid 來作為上帝的名 稱。根據筆者推斷，其目的是為了防止當時的原住民西拉雅與華武壟族在信仰上產生 混合主義（Syncretism）因為從當時宣教師的講道篇提及，原住民禮拜天去教會禮拜 而週間的時候拜訪女巫的情況相當嚴重。而在荷蘭宣教師 30 幾年的教化之後，西拉 雅原住民也由來的多神信仰轉化成為一神信仰。而更由於在當時荷蘭宣教師為西拉雅 族翻譯編撰聖經與教理問答，使得失去語言文字已經超過 200 年的西拉雅語言與文字 有重新復活的可能。儘管西拉雅的宗教傳統被基督教信仰轉化，這對現今的文化復振

173 玉山神學院學報第二十三期 Yu-Shan Theological Journal No.23

者的標準來說，是負面的影響；然而對語言的復振者來說，卻是無可取代的貢獻。19 世紀的英國與加拿大宣教師對原住民的宣教工作，主要是以在 17 世紀時期曾經接受 過荷蘭宣教的西拉雅族群為主。由於當時的西拉雅族已經失去原來的語言，生活上也 漢化的相當的嚴重，所以基本上他們是被當成是一般的漢族信徒來對待。至於其他的 原住民，由於宣教師無法到達原住民居住的高山或東部原住民區域傳福音，所以這個 時期可說是空白時期。20 世紀中葉，可以說是原住民擁抱福音信仰的重要時期。宣 教師如孫雅各牧師夫婦與平地傳道人合作，在台灣東部與西部的原住民地域認真的傳 揚福音的信息，也達到了極為優越的成果。然而，當時的宣教師是帶著「上帝與魔鬼 爭戰」的二元世界觀來傳揚福音，因此對於原住民的傳統文化與宗教信仰採取對立的 立場，儘管產生豐碩的宣教成果，但也對原住民的傳統文化產生劇烈的傷害。也造成 教會是原住民傳統文化的毀滅者指控的出現。筆者在本文中主張，要化解外界對教會 指控的最好方式，不只是基督教會在外在形式上採取傳統文化的元素如建築外觀，或 本土化的典禮素材，教會更應該從歷史經驗當中瞭解過去的努力或錯誤，也從先人所 努力的成果吸取養分，而 20 世紀中葉開始的原住民聖經翻譯經驗是最為重要的參考 指標。由於在原住民語聖經翻譯的過程中，如何將西方的信仰轉化成原住民老弱婦孺 都可以理解的語詞，這是聖經翻譯學者辯論與辯證過後的成果。

關鍵字： 西拉雅，華武壟，荷蘭改革宗教會，阿立，上帝，文化復振運動，太魯閣族， 泰雅族，阿美族

174 In God’s Name: Contextual Debate in Historical Perspective

The pattern of assimilative ideas was not unusual. It presumed that the white man's civilization would inevitably supersede that of less developed cultures at those who did not appropriate the best features of this civilization would be victimized or even destroyed by its worst features. The work of civilizing, therefore, was more than an adjunct to con- version; it was a inaner Of practical necessity, indeed of the Indians' physical survival. -- William R. Hutchison, Errand to the World

“An aborigine converted to Christianity means the loss of his aboriginal culture” this is a popular saying dominated Taiwanese aborigine people’s mindset since the first decade of the twenty first century. Today, this charge became a great obstacle for evangelical efforts among aborigine people in Taiwan. In fact, due to the financial difficulties and the displacement of aboriginal youth, aboriginal society is haunted by poverty since 1970s. Unfortunately, during that period evangelical efforts thrived among indigenous society. Therefore it is not difficult to infer that Christian faith was to blame by non-Christian aborigine for the fate of poverty and cultural loss. In recent years, many aborigine youth working very hard by political or legislative means in order to alter their disadvantage situation in Taiwan. After many efforts, these aborigine youth found cultural loss is very significant issue if they try revitalize aborigine society, therefore a “cultural revival movement”1 became a persuasive political power and an attractive voice in the aboriginal society today. Unfortunately, leaders of this movement continue to declare that the Christian church is to blame for the breakdown of the aboriginal religion and its attached social structure, thus, aboriginal cultural loss as a result. To a certain extent, this is not a baseless accusation, because from the 1970 onwards zealot missionaries of the Evangelical movement persuaded aboriginal people to abandoned traditional religion as well as its attached social structure and culture. During that time, many times villager

1 The “aboriginal revival movement” started in the 1990s. Its leader, Sun ta-chuan, a Piuma tribe aboriginal scholar, began the movement by establishing a magazine, named Shan-hai Cha-chi (Magazine of Moutain and Sea). Many aboriginal young people contributed articles and collaborated with Sun ta-chuan. Many issues dealt with in these articles are linked to aboriginal povery and cultural loss. They became very popular. Sun was the chairperson of the government’s Aboriginal Committee for many years.

175 玉山神學院學報第二十三期 Yu-Shan Theological Journal No.23

celebrated their Christian faith by torched large bunch of traditional costume and witchcraft artifacts in front of missionary and village onlookers. Since last year, I taught Church History for graduate students in Yu-shan Seminary, through class discussion and material reading. We realized how great a challenge the “cultural revival movement” is for seminary students and ministers of the aboriginal church in Taiwan. However, Is it historically fair to blame Christianity for cultural loss among the aborigines? If it is true, then can we find any remedy for this accusation? I hope through various efforts can help put this accusation in another, more nuanced light. In order to answer this question I would like to look into missionary history in Taiwan especially focus on how missionary use the names denote God through historical perspective.

General Remarks on the Formosan Cultural and Religious Context

In the sixteenth century, Portuguese sailors, merchants, and missionaries, when passing by the coast of Formosa on their way to China or Japan, marveled at its beauty and exclaimed, “Ilha Formosa” (“beautiful island”). This was the first time the word “Formosa” appeared in the historical record. Before any European had set foot on the island, Formosa was already in an excellent position for stopovers by East Asian travelers and traders. Ships sailing northwards from the Malay Archipelago to Japan would stop at the island for provisions. The island was also an entrepot for the East Asian trade network. Since the Chinese government had banned all trading activities with China, this nearby location was an ideal place to cultivate the China smuggling trade. During the winter months, Chinese fisherman chasing seasonal migrating mullet would stop at the island and exchange salted fish, cloth, and utensils for local venison. Japanese businessmen purchased deer skins from the aborigines and, at the same time, procured silk from Chinese merchants who also stopped there. Therefore, Formosa was already a significant port for East Asian trade even before the Europeans arrived in Asia.2

2 Several books about fishing and the trading history by Taiwanese historian, Ts’ao-Yung-Ho, are important reference works for understanding Taiwan history before Europeans arrived. These books include the titles

176 In God’s Name: Contextual Debate in Historical Perspective

In 1624, a Dutch fleet sailed from the Pescadores Islands3 and anchored off the southwest shore of Formosa. They established a colony there, on a small islet called Tayouan; and thus the great missionary story of Formosa began. The history of the Netherlands Reformed Church in Formosa proved to be an excellent example of a successful mission, not only in terms of its fruitful outcome, recorded in many reports of that time but also in its uniqueness as one of the earliest missionary activities. David Bosch defines the Formosan mission as the successful early example of Dutch overseas mission.4 Although the first missionary of the Netherlands Reformed Church actually went to the Moluccan islands and not to Formosa, it is not hard to understand what Bosch meant by “Formosa was the first Dutch foreign mission.” In the Moluccan Islands, the governor, for political and economic considerations, prevented the first missionary from baptizing anyone even though that missionary was able to teach Christian doctrine to the native people.5 Formosa was a completely different story. In the first year of the Dutch settlement in Formosa, the governor, Martin Sonck, requested the Dutch East India Company (VOC) in Amsterdam to send ministers, not only to provide spiritual food for the Netherlanders but also to preach the Gospel to the natives. Therefore, in the very beginning of Dutch rule in Formosa, missionary activity was encouraged by the Dutch governor. He was able to do this because, unlike the Moluccas, Formosa had no king or great ruler to control the inhabitants and there were no adherents of the other great religions there. Therefore, again unlike the Moluccas, there were no religious-political obstacles to Christian missionary work in Formosa. On the contrary, the island provided a great opportunity for missionary

Taiwan Cha-ki Lek-su Gian-kiu (Study of the Early History of Taiwan), Taiwan Cha-ki Lek-su Gian-kiu Siok-chip (More Study of the Early History of Taiwan) and Tion-kok Hai-iun-su Lun-chip (Essays on Chinese Maritime History). Despite being under a repressive regime at the time when these books were published, they still reveal a general perspective of Taiwan history as an independent entity. 3 The Phen-hu islands (as they are called today) consist of 67 islands, situated in the middle of the Formosan Strait. After the Dutch failed to expel Portugal from Macao on July 11, 1622, Commander Cornelis Reijerszoon decided to annex these islands for a trading post. On August 20, 1624, a Chinese army with a flotilla of junks expelled the Dutch from Formosa. 4 David Bosch, D. Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shift in Theology of Mission, (New York: Orbis Books, 1991), 257. 5 Kuepers, The Dutch Reformed Church in Formosa, 10.

177 玉山神學院學報第二十三期 Yu-Shan Theological Journal No.23

activities. Not only was the governor in favor of mission work, but the early ministers, like George Candidius and Junius, were full of missionary zeal. They worked diligently despite certain political disturbances, lived among the aborigines in order to learn their language, and taught them the Christian faith. Through these ministers’ arduous labor, a prosperous church took root in Formosa after only ten years. The study of the history of the Netherlands Reformed Church in Formosa shows a remarkable phenomenon. Early missionaries like Candidius and Junius did the most to expand the Christian church in Formosa, including the planting of new churches and the baptism of many converts. Although later missionaries also planted churches in new areas that came under Dutch control, they did not baptize a single convert! This means that the history of the Netherlands Reformed Church in Formosa can be divided into two different periods characterized by two different outlooks. The first period featured ministers with missionary zeal under whose leadership the church expanded dramatically, while the second period featured missionaries who were less fervent and whose main goal was merely to keep the existing mission churches afloat.

The Linguistic Evidence Regarding Ethnic Relations of Formosan Aborigines in the Seventeenth Century

The Netherlands Reformed Church established churches and translated the Bible, translated and adapted catechisms, and wrote dictionaries for four ethnic groups of Formosans, namely, the Sirayan (at present living in Tainan and Chia-yi counties), the Favorlang (at present living in Changhua and Yun-lin counties), the Pangsoia6 (at present living in Pingtong County) and the Bassay7 (at present living inTamsui and Kelung in Taipei County). Unfortunately, only Sirayan and Favorlang Christian literature and

6 The Pangsoia are first mentioned in a missive written by Junius to G. G. Antonio van Diemen, who mentions that the Pangsoian villagers were friendly to Dutch people. He was optimistic about converting the inhabitants if a minister could be sent to that area; Campbell, Formosa under the Dutch, 188. 7 The VOC expelled the Spanish from Kelung and Tamsui in 1642. But the Dutch hesitated to send any minister to serve there due to the dangerous situation. It was not until 1655 that the first minister, Marcus Massius, was sent to serve in that area. The results of his missionary work are unclear since only one report, written in 1657,

178 In God’s Name: Contextual Debate in Historical Perspective

dictionaries still exist today.8 The Pangsoia and Bassay were located in relatively remote areas, and their interaction with Dutch missionaries is unclear. The Sirayan and Favorlang were located near the Dutch fort in Zeelandia, and had an intensive interaction with Dutch missionaries as well as with VOC administrators and employees. Because of this, they left sufficient sources for a comprehensive study. Therefore, it is possible to reconstruct an integrated picture of the Dutch missionary activities with available sources. Before we begin discussing the interaction between the local context and the missionary activities, we must first say some words about the division of the Sirayan and the Favorlang into two distinct tribes. The available sources show that these two tribes were hostile and often fought each other. In 1630 Sirayan warriors allied with the Dutch army in three expeditions against the Favorlang villages. This alliance succeeded in conquering the Favorlang three times and brought them under the direct control of the VOC. An additional complication was that during that period even villages of the same tribe, such as Sinckan and Mattauw, were permanently at war with one another. Linguistic evidence reveals clues about the ethnic distinctions and relationships between the Sirayan and the Favorlang villagers. The most obvious example is the tribal name “Favorlang.” According to the Favorlang dictionary, the Favorlang alphabet consisted of only 22 letters – F, V, X, and Y were lacking.9 Therefore, the Favorlangers could not have named themselves. But who gave them this name then? Both Japanese and Holo Chinese10 traders visited Formosa regularly during the early

casts any light on his activities. Lin Changhua, “The Dutch Reformed Church in North Formosa in the 17th Century – According to Marcus Masius’ (1655-1662) manuscript on Tamsuy and Quelang’s representation,” La Frontera Entre dos Imperios-Las Fuentes y las Imagenes de la época de los Epsañoles en Isla Hermosa (Taipei: SMC Publishing Inc. 2006), 179-207. 8 S. Adelaar, Siraya: Retrieving the Phonology, Grammar and Lexicon of a Dominant Formosan Language (Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 2012). 9 The Favorlang alphabet data was collected by Rev. Gijsbert Happart (Gilbertus Happartus) as follows: A.156, B.162, Ch.146, D. 73, E.9, G.25, H.6, I.40, J.3, K.135, L.51, M.670, N.21, O.44, P.467, Q.1, R.130, S.152, T.309, U.32, W.1, Z.40 – a total of 2673 letters used. W.R.van Hoëvell, ed., Woord-Boek der Favorlangsche Taal (Batavia: Parapaten, 1842). 10 The Holo Chinese traders were inhabitants of Fujian Province. They emigrated from there to the Philippine Islands, Java, Thailand, and even Japan long before any Westerners arrived in Asia. Some scholars call them Ho- lo Hai-Sion (Holo maritime trader) and describe their emigration as the Holo Diaspora. Chuang Guo-tu, “Lun shu-e chu shu-chio shu-chi ch’u Hai-oai Hua-sang chin-mau Uan-lu shin-ch’eng ho Fa-chang” (On the Origin

179 玉山神學院學報第二十三期 Yu-Shan Theological Journal No.23

seventeenth century. But Japanese merchants confined themselves mostly to Sinckan village and its vicinity, and probably never made contact with the Favorlangers; therefore they could not have given them their name. The Holo Chinese visited Formosa regularly and exchanged goods with the aborigines for venison and mullet. Consequently, they might have visited the Favorlang villages for that purpose. Further investigation, however, reveals that Chinese consonants have no F or V sound; thus it would not have been possible for them to give the Favorlangers their name. It is therefore probable that the Favorlang name might have been given to them by the Sirayans, their southern neighbor. According to the Sirayan dictionary, they had a V in their alphabet. In the Sirayan language, the nearest word to “Favorlang” is vavoy (pig). They probably added the Chinese word lang (“man”) and thus combined the two words into one: vavoylang, i.e., “pig-man.” The Sirayans most likely gave the Favorlangers this humiliating name because of the hostile relationship between them. When the VOC and its missionaries settled in Formosa, they followed the Sirayan custom of calling their northern neighbors Favorlang without realizing the derogatory intent behind it. The Favorlangers called themselves Babosa, Cho, or Terner. Cho was used in everyday informal conversation. For example, “stepchildren” were called aran o cho (according to Favorlang custom, they had to work for their daily food); “persons of average size” were called babat o cho, “family members” were called chodon, and babosa was used as a formal or general denotation for “human” as in, “Jesus is the savior of all human beings” (Christus paga maababarras o babosa).11 It is noteworthy that they called the Dutch Bausie and not babosa. For example, to ask “Do you know the God of the Dutch?” they would say: Ja madarram jonoe ta Deos o Bausie? 12 They called the Chinese Poot, but the meaning and origin of this term and Bausie are unknown. The use of these names reveals that the Favorlangers were a people who were hostile

and Development of the Overseas Trading Network of Chinese Maritime Traders from the 11th to the Early 19th Century), Maritime History of East Asia and the History of the Island of Taiwan in the Early Modern Period: International Conference in Celebration of the Eightieth Birthday of Professor Yung-ho Ts’ao (Taipei: Academia Sinica, 26-27, October, 2000). 11 William Campbell, ed., The Articles of Christian Instruction in Favorlang-Formosan Dutch and English (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner &Co. Ltd. 1896), 165. 12 Campbell, The Articles of Christian Instruction, 138.

180 In God’s Name: Contextual Debate in Historical Perspective

to strangers. In other words, only the Favorlangers were babosa, that is, human beings, whereas other people were considered sub-human. Furthermore, in the Favorlang language, the word for “stranger” (one who does not belong to their town or country) and “enemy” is the same: azijes.13 Anyone who did not belong to the Favorlang tribe was their enemy. Because of this, when the Favorlangers found Chinese hunters, farmers, or fishermen in their traditional territory, they would attack them without hesitation. In short, the linguistic evidence demonstrates that the Favorlangers were hostile to all strangers, including the Sirayans. Therefore, the Favorlang and Sirayan peoples differed not only in language but also in their hostile attitude towards each other. At a deeper psychological level, their linguistic peculiarities can be attributed to their different worldviews.

Sirayan Deities, Festivities, and Taboos The next question is what were the cultural and religious contexts of seventeenth- century Formosa in general and of the Sirayan and Favorlang tribes in particular when the Dutch missionaries arrived? Generally speaking, the Sirayan religion consisted of deities with different functions that the villagers deemed good or evil. The good gods made the villagers good-looking, blessed their crops to produce a good harvest, and protected the villagers from their enemies. The evil gods made the villager ugly, decreed taboos, and threatened them with severe punishment if they failed to observe them. The Sirayan religious leaders consisted of priest(ess)es, female teachers, and village councilors (who assisted the priestesses in making sure the villagers were observing the taboos.) Their functions were to help the villagers perform sacrificial ceremonies, to heal the sick, and to make sure the villagers observed the taboos of the various deities. The Sirayans held seven religious festivals throughout the year. Different festivals required different villagers to participate. Some were for males, some for females, and some for all the villagers, depending on the character of a certain festival. According to Wright’s account, the Sirayans had 13 major deities, which number could be increased if the villagers deemed it necessary. For example, when the Sirayans were preparing for a war, they would take the skull of a person they had killed, cram it full

13 Ibid., 125.

181 玉山神學院學報第二十三期 Yu-Shan Theological Journal No.23

of rice, and say:

You Religues, though of our enemies, O let your spirit departed from you, march with us into the field and help us to obtain the victory which, if you are pleased to grant it, and we carry the day, we promise to present you with continual offerings and reckon you among the number of our benevolent gods.14

Moreover, according to Sirayan tradition, a deity named Fariche Fikrigo Gon-go-Sey decreed the Karichang festival. He had once been a human being with a stern countenance (Sinckandian) and a long nose, for which he was continually mocked and derided by the villagers. Tired of such jeering and gibes, he pleaded with the Sirayan deities to take him to heaven. His plea was granted, and he ascended to heaven. After a time, he descended as a deity in the Sirayan pantheon. He decreed 27 commandments to the villagers and vowed to punish them severely if they failed to observe them.15 This is an illustration of how the number of Sirayan deities kept increasing – either by such legendary tradition or out of gratitude to a deceased spirit’s assistance in war. Consequently, besides the major deities of the Sirayan religion, villagers worshipped numerous unknown deities. Thus, Candidius states: “[T]hey have a great number of other gods besides-too many to mention here, on whom they call and whom they serve.”16

The Highest Deities of the Sirayan Religion: Tamaghisangh: The major god of Siraya people. According to the report of George Candidius, This god lived in the south, he was the principle god of Sirayan. He created human and made them beautiful. He had a wife who lived in the east whenever there is no rain, people prayed to the wife of principle god, and she would shout to her husband and rain came

14 Montanus, Atlas Chinensis, 27. The meaning of “religues” is not clear, but the original Dutch version of the phrases would make it easier to understand the term: “wy bidden u, laet onze geest met ons te velde trekken, en ons behulpzaem in het bevechten der zege zijn. Is dit uwe wille, wy beloven u van nu of aen met een gestadig offer te beschenken,” Jan van Kampen en Konstantyn Nobel, Gedenkwaerdig Bedryf, der Nederlandsche Oost- Indische Maetschappye, 0p de Kust en in het Keizerrijk van Taising of Sina:Behelzende het Tweede Gezandschap Aen den Onder-koning Singlamong en Veldheer Taising Lipoui, (Amserdam: Jacob van Meur, 1670), 27. 15 Montanus, Atlas Chinensis, 35. 16 Campbell, Formosa under the Dutch, 25.

182 In God’s Name: Contextual Debate in Historical Perspective

afterwards.17 Tamagisanghach had priestess called “Inibs” who was the representative of him in the world who could proclaim certain taboo on the dressing and eating and also commit aborting of pregnancy before the age 36 or 37 of age. As we have seen, Wright presents us with a much more detailed picture concerning Sirayan religion than Candidius did. According to him, the Sirayan supreme deity was Tamagisangang who resided in the west part of heaven. His wife Takaraenpada was also a powerful goddess, and both were revered as the most powerful of the gods. If the villagers neglected to worship them, it was believed that they would wreak havoc on the people through famine, sickness, and worst of all, the desolation of their villages by war.18 Alid (Christian God): The name of Alid appears in the “The Gospel of St. Mathew in Formosa (Sinkan dialect)”19. But this name of Christian God is different from the usage of Dutch Reformed Church namely, Godt(Dutch) or Deus(Latin) and this name was not from the aborigine Gods as well. Where is the name ‘Alid’ coming from? According to my study, this name has two possible origins, the first one might came from Moslem Allah, and second one is from Austronesian deity or spirit Anito, and the first one is more possible answer. Because the name Allah was derived from Jewish-Christian origin and Anito sometimes denote to the evil one.

Favorlang Religion Haibos: Haibos is the principle God of the Favolang people who lived in the central Formosa. According to the catechism compiled by Rev. Vertrecht, a missionary who served in Favorlang territory for several years, Haibos created the world and Favolang people called Haibos according to their situation. If they met good thing they called their

17 Cambell, William. “ Formosa under the Dutch” London: Kegen and Paul. 1904. p. 24. 18 Montanus, Atlas Chinensis, 32. 19 Gravius, Daniel en Hambroek “Het Heylige Evangelium Methei en Johanis ofte Habnau Ka d’ ilig Matitik, ka na Sasoulat ti Matheus ti Joannes appa. Overgeset inde Formosaansche tale, voor de inwoonders van Soulang Mattau Sinkan, Bacloan, Taocan en Tevorang” Amsterdam 1661.

183 玉山神學院學報第二十三期 Yu-Shan Theological Journal No.23

God as ‘Mario Haibos’ (good god) and if they faced something awful such as bad luck or sickness, then they called their God ‘repis Haibos’ (bad god). Haibos had priestess who practice the religious rites for him. He also had birds to announce good or bad for him was called Adam bird.20 Unlike the Sirayans’ polytheistic religion and culture, the villagers of the Favorlang people were practicing a monotheistic religion at the time the Dutch missionaries arrived in the late 1640s. Simon van Breen, the first missionary to serve there, did not use the name of the Favorlangers’ sole deity, Haibos, as the name for the Christian God. He retained the term Deos, and it was this term that a later missionary, Jacobus Vertrecht, used in his writings. Why van Breen did this is unclear since he left no explanation. Vertrecht’s catechisms reveal that the Favorlangers worshipped a supreme deity called Haibos who created the world. According to the Favorlangers’ religion, Haibos had two characteristics – one benevolent and the other malevolent. On the one hand, he created the world and was kind to those who worshipped him, while, on the other, he oppressed the Favorlangers, made them sick, and took away their souls.21 Therefore, the Favorlangers feared he would punish them if they dared to accept the Christian faith. The Favorlangers observed solemn religious festivals called mian (“holy days”) during certain periods of the year in which they rested and relaxed. When a chief died, they also proclaimed mian days.22 The Favorlang religion included “clergy” called ma-arien (priestesses) and ma-ries (priests). These people took charge of religious ceremonies. In addition to the priest or priestess serving as mediators between humans and the deity, the Favorlang also depended on a little bird called adam to decree omens.23

20 Campbell William “ The Christian instruction in th Favolang-Formosan Dutch and English from Vertrecht’s manuscript of 1650. London: Kegen and Paul. P. 24. 21 In the Favorlang language, Haibos’ kind acts were called mario Haibos, while his wicked acts were called rapies Haibos. The same god possessed good and evil characteristics at the same time. The Favorlang religion is not the only example of the worship of such a deity. For example, the Amis tribe, in Eastern Formosa, had a similar deity. William Campbell, The Articles of Christian Instruction in Favorlang-Formosan Dutch and English from Vertrecht’s Manuscript of 1650 with Psalmanazar’s Dialogue between a Japanese and a Formosan and Happart’s Favorlang Vocabulary (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co. Ltd., 1896), 13, 22. 22 Campbell, The Articles of Christian Instruction, 160. 23 According to Favorlang tradition, Adam was a certain bird smaller than a sparrow. It was variegated, with a long

184 In God’s Name: Contextual Debate in Historical Perspective

The Implications of Vertrecht’s Contextual Method Vertrecht integrated some concepts of Favorlang religion into the biblical message and then reorganized and interpreted them from a new perspective. For example:

54. Fav(orlanger). According to your declaration, the belief in Haibos and in Adam is vain, and a deception of Haibos. Str(anger). That is true. I know his deceitfulness, for just as in the beginning, when all things were created, he deceived the first man called Adam, as well as all his posterity, and many more of our sojourners in the world, so, also, has he in former years deceived your forefathers and their posterity, just as he has deceived all the inhabitants of this island, whereby they now believe the words of a lying old slut, and put their confidence in the song of a little bird, bearing, as our first forefather did, the name of Adam…24

Str. God has depicted Haibos in his written Word that tells us how wicked he is, so that we may be on our guard against his deceitfulness. 61. Fav. How so? I wish to know. Str. Well, then, in the beginning, when heaven was finally completed, God created many thousands of incorporeal servitors who were very volatile, quick, strong, and just, giving them a dwelling in heaven, so that they might behold his dominion, and receive his commands. The name of these servitors is Angelus, that is, servants serving the spirit of God. They neither eat nor drink, nor do any sleep; they have no offspring as man in general has; they are many in number, yea, they are innumerable; they live on forever, and will never die. To praise God is their desire and delight, so also to obey His word. Haibos was formerly also a good angel and a just servant of God; but afterwards, he, and many of his

tail, and its cry was presumed to augur good or bad fortune. If it cried twice, or four times, it augured misfortune, but if it cried out once, or thrice, or five times, then good fortune could be expected. If it uttered even more cries, then a still greater blessing, according to the number of cries, could be expected; Campbell, The Articles of Christian Instruction, 122. 24 Ibid., 23.

185 玉山神學院學報第二十三期 Yu-Shan Theological Journal No.23

fellows, rebelled against God. They envied his vast power and dominion. They desired to become equal with God and endeavored to establish a dominion of their own and to follow their own will. It is in this way that Haibos and all his followers sinned in the beginning, and still remain malicious and rebellious.25

Dutch mission work was discontinue since VOC administration yielded their sovereignty to Chinese invader in 1662 after 10 months arm conflict and besiege by Koxinga’s mighty army. From above description found, during Dutch period in the 17th century missionary served in Formosa did not applied any aboriginal deities’ name to denote Christian God, instead they used either from Latin word such as Deus, or use Alid, the name probable derived from ‘Allah’ which was common used to denote Christian God in Batavia church. Obviously, the reason for such decision is to avoid a syncretism of Christian faith with local religion.

Canadian missionary work in Taiwan

The Canadian missionary George L. Mackay established North Formosa mission in 1872 and his arduous works for nearly 30 years yield good result. He established not only churches but also hospital and college and therefore became a national hero both in Taiwan and Canada. Mackay tried to establish aborigine church in mountainous central Taiwan but fail to do so. In his memoir work From Far Formosa Mackay express his disappointment.

As yet our missionary work among the savages is little more than skirmishing. Occasional tours to their villages may do something have, indeed, done something for their benighted souls. But we do not call that mission work, and at present it seems difficult to do more. No missionary from the West could live long in the mountains, so great is the rainfall, and so ruinous to health. The multiplicity of dialects presents another obstacle. A native may yet be raised up

25 Ibid., 25-26.

186 In God’s Name: Contextual Debate in Historical Perspective

to carry the gospel to his fellows. Till then we hope to do what may be done by such methods as are within our reach.

Several of the chapels in the border land are attended by savages with more or less regularity. We keep in constant touch with them, and under ordinary circumstances have no fear Of personal violence; but all attempts to evangelize them must, for the present generation at least, meet seemingly insuperable obstacles. The blankness of their moral life, the blindness of their spiritual vision, the deadness not absence of their receptive faculties, make the effort to move them with the dynamic of truth aseemingly hopeless task.26

The difficulties of establish aborigine church vanished when 1960s aborigine people welcome missionary efforts with open arm. In less than 10 years almost 90% aborigine people became Christian, and James and Lillian Dickson, the president of Taiwan Theological College and Seminary and founder of Mustard Inc. are the most important person for such a missionary success. However, their attitude toward aborigine people and their culture can be described as very rude. In her book These my People, She said:

One day my husband came back from the far East Coast and about twenty feet behind him trailed a barbaric looking woman. She had heavy tattooing across her whole face, a wide band from ear to ear which gave her a fierce expression. What is this? I asked him.

I didn’t even say, “who is this” for he was always bringing home strange things from his trip.27

In her description, the aboriginal women (who became the Mother of Truku Christian faith after she pass away) even treated as person but a ‘strange thing’. It is such an

26 George L. Mackay, From Far Formosa (London: Oliphant Anderson and Ferrier, 1896)p. 265. 27 Lillian Dickson, These My People: Serving Christ among the Mountain in People of Formosa (Grand Rapid: Zondervan Publishing House, 1958) p.8-9.

187 玉山神學院學報第二十三期 Yu-Shan Theological Journal No.23

unfortunate. In fact, Dickson’s successful missionary endeavor brought with it a side effect, which is obliged aborigine to choose between Gospel and indigenous culture. When one decided to choose Christian faith, he must abandon traditional culture and identity. I think this is the reason that people from aboriginal cultural revival movement accused Christian church must bear responsibility for the culture losses of aborigine people.

The remedy for this difficult reality for Christian ministry in Taiwan

The accusation and challenge from cultural revival movement against Christian church always appears in my mind since I am a minister and teacher in aborigine seminary. Therefore, during a Th. M. course I raise this question and expect the response from my students. They are from Truku, Atayal and Pangca tribe. I told them it is possible to dissolve the accusation by reinvestigate how previous scholars tackled the problems of Christian faith against pagan culture when the Gospel was introduced into the aboriginal villages namely, how aboriginal biblical translators applied their traditional words to denote biblical significant words, such as God, salvation, and church etc.. Because Christian faith connecting to aboriginal culture and mindset by means of language, when tribal language’s Bible was translated since 1950s. When aboriginal biblical translators tried to pick an appropriate traditional term to denote Christian faith, such as God, salvation, sin and church, they might to through a brainstorming process. What those people had achieved might bear an applicable hint to solve today’s theological difficulty. The following discussion was taken from student’s papers, and focus on how different ethnic group choose God’s name.

Truku’s concept of God: A senior Truku’s pastor Rev. Iyang Taying ( born 16 April 1926) said, at first Truku translator borrow traditional word Utux Baraw to denote God in heaven, however one Catholic Priest served in Ban-eng church insist to use Utux mgBaraw (highest God). But a respected Truku pastor Ko-thiam-on criticized such idea, he said this is not a Truku word,

188 In God’s Name: Contextual Debate in Historical Perspective

we never use such word as that priest suggested. Rev. Iyang Taying explained as saying: Truku people is very afraid utux (spirit of the dead) therefore we obey gaya zealously (or mgaya, law, custom, rule and taboo). If one smliq gaya or disobey gaya is punishable by Utux. This idea become the very core mindset of Truku culture therefore, the constrain power of gaya is interacting with the concept of Utux. In short, Rev. Iyang Taying suggest, until recently Truku people still cannot understand God’s name properly. Another pastor Rev. Yuki Lowsing (born 11, June 1935) suggested it is correct to translate God’s name as Utux Baraw however, his father had a different idea, he said: the Utux who reveal in biblical text is a new one because it is never heard before, therefore is completely different concept from traditional religion. Some people use another term utux tminun (God who is weaving) but this is a new attempt. Another Truku pastor Rev. Yudaw Dangaw (born, 10 May, 1933) suggest Utux Baraw is not a appropriate name to denote God. He said, what do you mean by ‘above’ or ‘beyond’? above or beyond what? Therefore I suggest we should use Utux Karat (God of heaven, air and nature) or Utux Mduy Karat (God who control the universe and land). Above discussions shows it is still controversy amongst Truku pastors on how to use the traditional idea to denote the Christian God. It implied when biblical translators still cannot find a theological solid and sound traditional term to describe Christian God. It is still a long way to go.

Atayal Holy Father (Yaba Utux Kayal) Holy Son (laqi na Utux Kayal) Holy spirit (Serey Utux Kayal) According to aboriginal tradition, the objects of worship vary on concepts and names. There are gods of all mighty, spirit of ancestors including good and wicked one, others including mountain god, sun and snake etc. Some ethnic group believes in creation of the world (for example: Cho. Paiwan and Piuma, it might derive the idea from Dutch during the 17th century). Some tribes have only a rough idea about spiritual things, some worship god without worship ancestor and some otherwise. In very beginning when Christian faith introduced into Atayal village, they borrow the term Kamisama from Japanese words

189 玉山神學院學報第二十三期 Yu-Shan Theological Journal No.23

(Presbyterian as well as Catholic Church). Latter on the villager started to use traditional concept to denote Christian God. For example Atayal people use utux (god or spirit, it is a coarse concept can be ancestor’s spirit, good spirit and wicked spirit) combine with kayal (heaven or above/beyond) or yaba (father) and thus Utux Kayal (God in heave, God) and Yaba Utux Kayal (Heavenly Father) the new term to denote Christian God. In fact, it is more easy for aborigine to grasp its meaning if one borrow and combine from traditional word to create new term. However, is this appropriate to use this method without become syncretism? Most Atayal prefer Japanese term Serey (Holy Spirit) instead Utuk Ta’nak (Spirit of Heavenly Father). Atayal people believes that the universe (including mountain, river, forest, animal and fish) as well as human (Atayal) exist because of Utux and when human dies his Utux is still exist forever. Atayal people believe the Utux transforms into Mrhuw Utux (highest and greatest Spirit) to Utux Mrhuw(highest and greatest Spirit) to Spiyang Utux (the supreme Spirit) and Yaba Utux Kayal (God of Heavenly Father) is the result and long time’s speculation and reflection. This is a very precious experience for Atayal people.

Pangcah’s concept about God

In fact Pangcah people on a certain point, is a pantheism religion. The term Kawas roughly speaking is spirit and therefore spirit of all things. Therefore Pancah people believe in kawas in heaven, including Tada Kawas (Ture god, including Malataw(dominant god) Kakacawan(god of protection) Faidongi (god of life) ); kawas of earth, including kawas of human , No tamdaw a kawas (human soul), Adingo (adult’s soul), Sahelong (soul of children), Palafoay a kawas (all evil supernatural power); kawas of animal and plants; kawas of birds; kawas of natural phenomenon, kawas no alo/sa owac (river), No riyar a kawas (seas), Masera(earth), Mirekenray a kawas (including Namal (fire, treated as sacred being) Parod (stove, as household). In nowadays Pangcal use Tada Kawas to denote Christian God, however former Yu- san Seminary president Go beng-gi opposed this term because sometime kawas indicates evil things. He suggested Pangcah Christian and Bible translation should use Maladaw as the

190 In God’s Name: Contextual Debate in Historical Perspective

name of Christian God, because he is a dominant God and has nothing to do with evil things.

Concluding remark

In late-nineties of 20th century, aboriginal society experienced brand new situation due to a political and cultural revival movement thrived throughout the whole island. Since then Christian churches in aboriginal villages was challenged and accused by those movement advocators as destroyer of traditional aboriginal culture. Because of this, an enormous obstacle appeared between Christian church and local people and thus preachers found it became more difficult to preach the Gospel to villagers if they cannot find a remedy to dissolve the hurdle. In the very beginning, aboriginal churches decided to tackle this problem by using traditional symbol such as building appearance, millet cake and rice wine to replace bread and wine(grape juice) during worship service. However, all these efforts were mere superficial and temporary remedy for dissolving the hostile situation for the church. In fact, the real problem still lag behind it. Aboriginal church need a real dialogue between Christian faith and traditional wisdom of aboriginal people, and to reinvestigate historical sources from 17th century onward until 1960s biblical translation’s historical experience is a foreseeable option. During Dutch period in the 17th century missionary served in Formosa did not applied any aboriginal deities’ name to denote Christian God, instead they used either from Latin word such as Deus, or use Alid, the name probable derived from ‘Allah’ which was common used to denote Christian God in Batavia church. Obviously, the reason for such decision is to avoid a syncretism of Christian faith with local religion. During 19th century, both English and Canadian missionaries tried and failed to established Christian church in aboriginal territories, it is until 1960s that the missionary work yield a good result and Rev. and Mrs. Dickson were the most important contribution to missionary efforts. However, Dickson’s successful missionary endeavor brought with it a side effect, which is obliged aborigine to choose between Gospel and indigenous culture. When one decided to choose Christian faith, he must abandon traditional culture and identity. I think this is the reason that people from aboriginal cultural revival movement

191 玉山神學院學報第二十三期 Yu-Shan Theological Journal No.23

accused Christian church must bear responsibility for the culture losses of aborigine people. It is not an easy task to undone the missteps by missionaries on traditional cultural issue, and to ignore or cover up would not solve the problem. Therefore, this article is the first endeavor to face and tackle all the challenges.

192