A recent article published in the Christian Times, titled "'Burying Sons' and 'Cutting Flesh': The Thousand-Year Absence of the Child as an Independent Individual," revisits one of the most chilling tales in Chinese folklore to expose a dark undercurrent in traditional family ethics.
The piece analyzes the story of "Guo Ju Buries His Son" from The Twenty-Four Filial Exemplars, in which a man from the Han Dynasty, facing destitution, decides to bury his young son alive to save food for his elderly mother. His logic was brutal but lauded by tradition: "We can have another son, but a mother, once gone, can never be replaced."
While the story ends with a divine reward of gold for this "supreme filial piety," the article argues that it reveals a terrifying secret: in the eyes of traditional parents, a child is not an independent individual but a replaceable asset.
This erasure of the child's humanity echoes through history, such as in the practice of "cutting flesh to heal parents" (Ge Gu). The author notes that murals from the Liao Dynasty and honorary archways from the Ming Dynasty commend children who mutilated themselves to feed their parents, reinforcing the idea that a child's body is merely a tool for the older generation's survival.
As the famous writer Lu Xun wrote in A Madman's Diary, hidden between the lines of traditional morality were only two words: "Eat People." This "eating" is not just spiritual oppression; historically, it was literal.
The Christian Times article poignantly points out that this is not merely ancient history. The underlying logic—that parents hold absolute sovereignty over a child's life—persists today, often disguised as "love." It manifests in the harsh discipline of "Wolf Dads," and in the "returning home anxiety" of young people who fear their relatives' judgment more than they desire family reunions.
Why does this "anti-human" ethic persist in a modernized China? To find the answer, we must look beyond cultural critique and address a fundamental spiritual question: To whom does the child belong?
In secular tradition, the child is the property of the parents ("flesh and blood"). Therefore, the owner has the right to control, mold, and even dispose of the property. However, the Christian faith offers a radically different perspective that is desperately needed in Chinese families today.
Psalm 127:3 declares, "Children are a heritage from the Lord, offspring a reward from him."
This scripture fundamentally shifts the power dynamic. Children are not the private property of their parents; they are God's creation, entrusted to parents for a season. Parents are not "owners" but "stewards." A steward does not have the right to destroy or oppress the master's property; their duty is to nurture it according to the master's will, not their own vanity.
Every child bears the Imago Dei—the image of God. This means they possess an independent soul and dignity that equals that of their parents.
In the Bible, when people brought children to Jesus, the disciples rebuked them—reflecting the adult-centric view that children were a nuisance or insignificant. But Jesus was indignant. He said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these" (Mark 10:14).
Jesus did not treat children as "future adults" or "tools for filial piety." He welcomed them as they were, validating their intrinsic worth.
The tragedy of the bride who committed suicide on her wedding day and the ancient horror of Guo Ju share a common thread: the absence of the child as a respected, independent individual.
True love is not control. True love, as modeled by our Heavenly Father, involves respect, guidance, and eventually, letting go.
For the Church in China, the mission is not just to preach to individuals but to redeem the culture of the family—turning hearts from possession to stewardship, and from control to Christ-like love.
