宋儒早就認識到，孝悌並非一體之仁，因此，不能簡單地誣仁愛為血親倫理。就進路而言，仁愛是「向外推出」，神愛則是「在上帝中」和「降臨」。前者的張力型態是肯定式的，後者則
為否定式的。但仁愛存在一個顯著問題，即如何克服「差等」，並向「分殊」且「一體」之愛進發。作為其心理學後果，典型的中國式善人或慈善事業，往往訴諸具體的關係性共在的意識，具
有較強的情境性，而典型的西方慈善事業，往往與宗教信念緊密關聯，或具有較強的抽象觀念性。仁愛是德感和溫柔敦厚的，神愛則在罪感與恩感之間反復不斷循環，以趨向某種具有確定性、最終性的個體自我意識。兩者也許都需要在一定程度上「向中間移動」。最後，本文的結論應該有所限制，不能將中西方慈善精神完全地公式化。

Scholars from the Song Dynasty had already realized that filial piety
(Xiao) and brotherly love (Ti) cannot be equated with Ren. Therefore one
cannot interpret Ren as the ethic of consanguinity. In this article, I argue that Ren symbolizes the transcendental path “from one to the other”
and “extrapolation”, while Agape suggests the path “in God” (in other
words, in the capital Other) and “coming down.” From the perspective
of a typology of tension, Ren is positive and Agape negative. There is
a major problem in following the path of Ren: how to overcome the graduated love and to transform into the differentiated one. The typical
manifestation of Ren, in the context of Chinese language and culture,
is always coming with the consciousness of relational coexistence, and
more concrete and particularistic, while the typical manifestation of
Agape, in the context of the West, is coming with the consciousness
of individual, and more of the abstract conviction to the finality and
certainty, and therefore more universalistic. Ren entails the feeling of
virtue, self-attaining, and self-transformation, while Agape entails the
feeling of sin, delivering (from the Other), and grace (in or of the
Other). Both of them may need to move toward the middle ground.
Finally, it should be noted that the difference between the Confucian
Ren and the Christian Agape is not categorical but relative.