Cultural Evangelism: "Seizing China's Head and Backbone"
The 2011 second issue of "Academic Trends" in Science and Atheism (科学与无神论) introduced the proceedings of the "Symposium on Counter-strategies Against Religious Infiltration in Universities" held at Beijing Normal University. After reading it, I felt compelled to offer my reflections here; I hope they are found appropriate.
The "Academic Trends" report stated: "Currently, in the university sector, the 'Sino-Christian Theology' movement [1] has extensive influence. One manifestation of this is the promotion of non-ecclesial theological dissemination. This is generally regarded as a mere academic viewpoint, and thus does not receive much scrutiny. There is also a new 'Religious Market Theory,' which seeks to open China to religion as a market and opposes the state's lawful management; these all fall within the scope of cultural proselytization. Its impact is far more harmful than proselytization in rural areas." [2]
The fundamental task of a university founded by a socialist state is the transmission of various branches of scientific knowledge. In universities with the proper conditions, it is very necessary to teach general knowledge about religion so that students can understand what religion is. However, there remains a distinction between this and schools run by churches (theological seminaries, Buddhist academies, Quranic institutes, etc.). The mission of a general institution of higher learning is not to train religious practitioners—or rather, not to train missionaries. General universities and religious schools have their respective domains; they cannot replace one another. There is an essential difference between regarding religion as an object of subjective belief and regarding it as an object of objective understanding and research. For a university, its task is certainly not the "promotion of non-ecclesial theological dissemination" or the "Sino-Christian Theology movement." The dissemination of theology is the task of seminaries. Strictly speaking, the popularization of religious knowledge is a different matter entirely from disseminating theology and training "professional missionaries."
In my personal understanding, theology is a discipline designed to prove the existence and creation of the world by the deities (God...) in which one believes. In a word, it is theism as contrasted with atheism. Whether it is ecclesial or non-ecclesial theology, its object is theism, and what it opposes is precisely atheism. Only the identity, profession, and status of the people engaged in these activities may differ. Among them, some may be full-time missionaries, some part-time, and some may be laypeople with no clerical office but who are enthusiastic about voluntary proselytization. Others may be "Cultural Christians," as mentioned in "Academic Trends," who possess various backgrounds or identities. The forms, targets, and methods they use to propagate, disseminate, and interpret may vary, but the purpose of their claims, preaching, and discourses is one and the same.
In contemporary society, the identities, professions, and status of the latter group differ from the former two. The first three categories have explicit religious beliefs, and the common people may maintain a certain distance from them; the fact that not everyone is willing to accept the pamphlets recently distributed by believers in public places illustrates this. The latter group might be believers or non-believers, yet in the dissemination of theism, they are more attractive and deceptive. In many places, particularly in institutions of higher learning, they can play a role that is difficult for traditional missionaries to achieve. On the surface, they often create new formulations, theories, and concepts that seem to "fall within the scope of cultural proselytization." In essence, they still argue for and preach the existence of God and creationism. In reality, they are no different from the evangelizing and preaching of missionaries; they serve, defend, and advocate for theistic belief.
The rhetoric that treats religion as a commodity and advocates for an open "religious market" is undoubtedly creating public opinion for the unregulated development of religion within the country. This is just like allowing peddlers to roam the streets and set up stalls anywhere, or advocating for them to sell various counterfeit and substandard goods; it reflects a mindset of being anxious to promote—and even worrying about—religion because it is not selling. It must be said that there is nothing new about religion being peddled everywhere by missionaries as a commodity. In the 1930s, this was indeed the case in Shanghai. At that time, foreign missionaries would hire several people to play music on the streets to attract passersby. They would place a chair on the sidewalk, and a crowd of onlookers would gather. Then, the foreign missionary would appear, microphone in hand, stand on the chair, and begin to preach. To assist in the mission, the hired hands would distribute color pictures of various sizes to people. Some pictures featured Jesus on the cross, some showed Mary holding the infant (clearly Jesus), some depicted elegantly dressed figures standing respectfully before a stable, and some showed a shepherd in a robe holding a staff by a flock of sheep... The captions on the pictures told stories from the Bible. Children, out of curiosity, would often ask for and collect these pictures. During the missionary’s lecture, the crowd would come and go; once finished, the listeners would disperse in a hubbub. However, after Liberation [3], attempting to open the religious market and letting foreign missionaries hawk their wares as they did before Liberation is, in fact, impossible.
Today, for those with devout faith, believing in religion and going to temples or churches is to seek psychological satisfaction and spiritual fulfillment. They make offerings to temples and churches (including some alms) and consider it a virtuous deed and an act of merit; they do not have other "lofty" ideas or discourses. If one uses some "profound" "market theory" to categorize religion as a commodity—as if going to a temple or church were the same as going to a morning market to buy tofu and cabbage, or a shopping mall to buy clothes and shoes—these religious believers would clearly see it as a denigration and desecration of their faith.
Historically, from ancient times to the present, religion has always had a close relationship with the economy. Religion cannot survive a single day without the economy. In ancient times, temples were regarded as "sacred banks," the dwelling places of the gods of wealth. For those pious men and women, going to the temple could protect them and satisfy their spiritual needs; at the same time, willing to offer to the temple for spiritual satisfaction, they brought economic benefits to it. The priests who served the temple profited and benefited from this. If religion is treated as a commodity, then these ancient temples and priests become the sellers, and by definition, the pious men and women are the buyers. Explaining religious behavior in this way—saying religion is a commodity—holds no novelty. Using a term like "Religious Market Theory" to explain such a simple truth is nothing more than an attempt to lead educated, cultured, but socially inexperienced young people into the trap of "market theory" under the name of religious sociology, influencing them spiritually and making them captives of its logic.
As for those who "oppose accepting the state's lawful management" of religion, this is likely not the thought of the general religious masses. It reflects the expectations and viewpoints of overseas churches, or rather, that portion of overseas churches that still holds the views of the missionaries who invaded China in the early years. Currently, it is nothing more than the transmission and peddling of their commodities through domestic megaphones or agents.
"Academic Trends" stated: "A certain contemporary Chinese university actually hired an overseas theologian to conduct long-term courses teaching the Bible. In such an atmosphere, some doctoral students later became devout believers and professional missionaries." [4] "Some university publishing houses have accepted recommendations from missionaries to translate and publish books that oppose Darwin’s theory of evolution and promote 'creationism,' which is actually the dissemination of Evangelical doctrine." [5]
It is common knowledge that modern Christianity entered China in the 19th century alongside the invasion of imperialism. Reviewing history helps people recognize the gravity of the problem more clearly.
In 1887, the missionary Alexander Williamson and Robert Hart—the British man who controlled the Chinese Maritime Customs—founded the "Society for the Diffusion of Christian and General Knowledge among the Chinese" (SDCK; 同文学会) in Shanghai. Hart served as chairman and Williamson as general secretary. The SDCK was a publishing institution established by Western Christian churches in China. The books it published were intended to introduce "Western learning" and spread Christianity, with the mission of "expanding the learning of Western nations in China." Williamson, then general secretary, stated in a letter: "The motive for establishing this organization is to 'disarm the Chinese' intellectually and 'bring them to our feet.'" [6] After Williamson’s death, Timothy Richard succeeded him as general secretary. In 1892 (some say 1894), the SDCK was renamed the "Christian Literature Society for China" (广学会). In 1899, in a letter to Byron Brenan, the British Consul-General in Shanghai, Timothy Richard said even more bluntly: "I consider it a most important subject to reconsider how we can control Chinese public opinion; how to obtain more management rights over major Chinese institutions of higher education. By mastering these organs and the leaders of the Chinese religious world, we will have grasped China's head and backbone." [7]
The letters of Williamson and Richard were written at the end of the 19th century. At that time, China was in a colonial and semi-colonial position, and the people's resistance against foreign invasion never ceased. Besides using guns and cannons to slaughter the Chinese people, the invaders had no secret weapon to disarm the Chinese or to seize their head and backbone; their only means was to use missionaries to peddle their faith. It can be said that the corrupt Qing government of that time could only be slaughtered at will and was powerless against the activities of Western missionaries. Moreover, because the preaching of Western Christian churches was protected by extraterritoriality, Christianity spread with a green light every step of the way.
The Kuomintang did not change the colonial and semi-colonial nature of the nation's society. By this time, Marxism-Leninism and the ideas of scientific socialism had already gained traction in China. In 1921, the Communist Party of China emerged as the times required. It shouldered the historical mission of changing China’s backward state.
On the eve of national liberation, in January 1949, the missionary J. Leighton Stuart, who had served as the U.S. Ambassador to China, said in a telegram to the U.S. State Department: "Thinking Chinese are now influenced by the Newism... therefore, if the Christian Bible can be widely promoted, it will surely have unpredictable value." [8] In March of the same year, John R. Mott, Chairman of the World Council of Churches, planned to recruit 500,000 members for the American Bible Society, attempting to use the Bible to counter the revolutionary ideas that were already spreading in the country. He said: "The Bible not only continues to play a major role in leading people to the Lord, but now it has added a political value—that is, it can serve as a bastion against a view of life based on atheism that is about to sweep the world." [9] The "Newism" Stuart referred to was undoubtedly Marxism-Leninism. The "atheistic view of life" Mott mentioned was the atheism and socialist thought already spreading worldwide.
Clearly, these foreign missionaries treated Marxism-Leninism and the Chinese Revolution with a hostile and fearful attitude, deluding themselves into thinking that by "widely peddling" their "Christian Bible," they could resist the spread of atheism and socialist thought. They attached importance to and emphasized the "unpredictable value" and "political value" of the Bible, attempting to use it to oppose Marxism-Leninism, socialism, and atheism—all of which was aimed directly at the flourishing cause of the people's liberation.
After the founding of New China, the state implemented a policy of freedom of religious belief in the religious sphere. Various Western Christian missions were unwilling to withdraw from their evangelical front on the mainland. They did not want to see the Chinese Christian community sever its ties with imperialism or break free from the control of Western missions; even less did they want to see the vigorous development of China’s socialist construction. Thus, they have used every possible means—even unscrupulous ones—to infiltrate the mainland and extend their influence.
Personally, I do not deny that the Bible of Judaism and Christianity is a precious legacy of human civilization; similarly, I do not believe that all missionaries who came to China before Liberation were hostile to the Chinese people, as Williamson, Richard, Stuart, and Mott were. However, Christian figures like Williamson, Richard, Stuart, and Mott did not view Christianity merely as a faith, nor did they see the Bible simply as a religious classic. More importantly, for Williamson, it was about "disarming the Chinese" and "controlling Chinese public opinion"; for Richard, it was about seizing "China's head and backbone" and bringing the Chinese people "to their feet"; for Stuart, he used his diplomatic parlance to vaguely state the Bible had "unpredictable value," placing all hopes for countering the "Newism" on the "peddling" of the Bible; and Mott simply affirmed its "political value," using it as a "bastion" against "Newism," atheism, and socialist thought. This undoubtedly politicized Christianity and the Bible. It tore away the cloak of religion, nakedly exposing their hypocritical and despicable political goals.
The dreams of Western churches prior to the founding of New China, which once failed to materialize, are shockingly being implemented today by certain universities that hire overseas theologians to lecture on the Bible. Handing over the sacred podium of the university to theologians and allowing university publishing houses to accept the recommendations of missionaries to publish books like "Creationism" is truly incomprehensible. From this, we can see that religious infiltration into higher education institutions has reached an outrageous level.
Fortunately, "the leadership of Beijing Normal University has a clear understanding and a definite stance regarding the spread of religion on campus." [10] If the leadership of all universities could maintain the stance, understanding, and attitude of those at Beijing Normal University, the problem of religious infiltration would likely not have manifested as described in the "Academic Trends" report—with theologians lecturing in universities and university presses publishing anti-evolutionary religious books. If these theologians were lecturing in seminaries, that would be a matter for the religious community; if seminaries published such books, outsiders would have no right to interfere. Regrettably, the current situation is not so.
Religious infiltration into universities, specifically Christian infiltration, is not a new problem. In fact, the Western Christian world recognized long ago that prioritizing education is one of the most vital methods. "Various foreign missionary societies believed that religion must utilize education, because religion requires education and the capacity that education exerts." [11] John King Fairbank, who once served as a professor at Tsinghua University, believed that "China's modern universities were the storehouses of American ideas and American-trained personnel, and the primary hope for leading China onto our path." [12] However, the rapid advancement of the Chinese people's cause of liberation thoroughly shattered the deluded fantasies of the missionaries in China; with the liberation of the entire country, they left the mainland in dejection.
Prior to Liberation, the Western Christian world continuously sent missionaries to China for proselytizing. One commonality among them was their opposition to any ideas, propositions, theories, or beliefs different from their own. Since the Reform and Opening-up, the Western Christian world has perceived this as a once-in-a-millennium opportunity to infiltrate the mainland. To make this infiltration easily realized, they have continuously shifted their tactics, and their penetration into universities has never ceased. This is the primary focus of their infiltration into the mainland. In the 1980s, it was no longer a rare occurrence for foreign teachers and experts, arriving at universities through various channels, to utilize the university podium for proselytizing and preaching. Thirty years later, this infiltration continues; their unscrupulous penetration into universities has taken on an aggressive and increasingly serious momentum. This is because the Western Christian world has historically viewed higher education as the "primary hope for leading China onto our path"—a dream missionaries cherished before Liberation. Today, their strategic intent for infiltrating the mainland has not changed. One must ask the question: are some universities using their power to consciously or unconsciously give a "green light" to missionaries infiltrating the campus, thereby abandoning the "Four Upholds" [13] on the ideological front? Whether such universities should "mend the pen after the sheep are lost" [14] is not something others can advocate for on their behalf.
As for the theologians coming to China to lecture on the Bible, whether they are carrying out Alexander Williamson’s intent to "disarm the Chinese" and "control Chinese public opinion," or Timothy Richard’s intent to "seize China’s head and spine" and "make them prostrate at our feet," only God knows. As for exactly how many young students have been "disarmed," or had their "heads and spines" influenced and dominated such that they "prostrate" at those "feet," again, only God knows. Currently, the marriage between such universities and these theologians constitutes an action that conforms, without compromise, to the needs of the Western Christian world. Furthermore, with "Cultural Christians" [15] dominating teaching and research as auxiliary forces, this is no "gospel" (good news) for our country and people, but rather an issue deserving close attention.
The problem of Christian infiltration into universities should be a subject of specialized research; this article does not intend to delve too deeply into it. Infiltration takes many forms and methods. It should be understood that a theologian is merely a high-level missionary possessing slightly more knowledge, while the average missionary is a theologian with slightly less knowledge. In terms of proselytizing, preaching, and belief in God as the creator of the world, there is no difference between the two. As for university authorities taking the lead to hire theologians—that is, missionaries—to lecture, this is clearly not mere infiltration in the ordinary sense. If viewed through the lens of the currently "hyped" "Religious Market Theory," [16] it should be classified as "attracting investment" (inviting overseas theologians) and "importing capital" (importing the Christian Bible, thereby allowing for the mass sale of religious books). Since the theologians coming to universities arrive with the status of "professor" and mandated lecturing tasks, they are not "sneaking" in; they arrive with grandiosity and swagger, by invitation. This can be seen as a new development and evolution in the form of religious infiltration. As for exactly how many "professors" have "infiltrated" through such channels, that is a matter for the educational departments in various regions. As an individual, I lack the conditions to conduct relevant social surveys and thus have no right to speak on the specifics.
In short, the Western Christian world’s infiltration of our country is not a new problem. They have specialized research institutions engaged in research ranging from strategy to tactics regarding foreign infiltration. We cannot treat this with indifference.