Huang Chao: The New Model of U.S. Religious Infiltration into China and Its Ideological Evolution
Since the end of the Cold War, a newly emergent theocratic ideology has merged with traditional geopolitical thought to form a "New Cold War Ideology" within the United States. US religious infiltration into China has subsequently developed a new model aligned with this "New Cold War Ideology." The fundamental demand of this model is a "new religious extraterritoriality," [1] as epitomized by the International Religious Freedom Act.
I. The New Model of US Religious Infiltration into China
The term "infiltration" sometimes conveys an impression of being "surreptitious" or "incidental." Viewed this way, using "infiltration" to describe current US religious strategy toward China might seem somewhat inaccurate, as terms like "heavy-handed," "condescending," or "sanctions" better reflect US hard power; indeed, American scholars prefer to describe it as a "struggle for the soul of the new world order." However, if we view the US "New Human Rights Strategy" as a "soft application of hard power," and understand "infiltration" as a combination of "carrots and sticks," then describing US religious infiltration into China is not an entirely obsolete framing.
(1) New Goals
In the modern era, leveraging gunboat diplomacy, foreign missionaries acquired "religious extraterritoriality" in China and played a most dishonorable role in seizing interests within the country. In 1943, this "old religious extraterritoriality," which existed in the form of unequal treaties, was abolished. However, since the end of the Cold War, "new religious extraterritoriality" has seen a resurgence in the form of US domestic law, becoming a "mechanical" objective of US religious diplomacy. The Clinton administration, which took office after the Cold War, identified bolstering US security, developing the US economy, and promoting democracy abroad as its three major national security objectives. Accordingly, the definition of human rights by the US government and scholars underwent a substantive revision: the view that "human rights fall within the scope of sovereign affairs" gradually gave way to the claim that "human rights transcend sovereignty." On human rights issues, "religious freedom" was elevated to the status of the "First Freedom," and a "Religious Freedom Peace Theory" was promoted. This theory holds that religious freedom is not only a human rights issue but also a "defining factor of US national security," asserting that "religious freedom promotes national security." In 1998, the US passed the International Religious Freedom Act. Upon signing it, as Clinton stated: "My administration has made religious freedom a core element of US foreign policy." The core and crux of this Act is the US government's attempt to obtain "new extraterritoriality" in international religious affairs.
History is often strikingly similar. The critique by American historian Kenneth Scott Latourette regarding the "religious extraterritoriality" in the modern Treaty of Tientsin (Sino-US) applies equally to the International Religious Freedom Act. Latourette pointed out: "The treaties [the Treaty of Tientsin] back then necessarily removed Chinese converts from the jurisdiction of the Chinese government, making church groups effectively into 'states within a state' scattered across the country and protected by foreign powers... almost any legal case could be framed as the persecution of a believer by a non-believer. A foreign consul or minister, if he so desired, could always find a pretext for intervention. Many Chinese, seeing the benefits of a powerful foreign backer, feigned conversion to join the church. Many missionaries also used the protection of foreign governments as bait to entice Chinese into the faith... Thus, the effect of the 'toleration clauses' was not particularly glorious for the name of Christ... The church had long become a partner of Western imperialism and cannot evade responsibility for the resulting consequences." (Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of Christian Missions in China, NY: Macmillan, 1929, p. 279)
The American economist and geopolitician William Engdahl frankly noted: "The United States is employing a little-known weapon, using 'human rights' and 'democracy' as a 21st-century version of the Opium War weapons to force China to open itself up and accept US superpower rule." (William Engdahl, Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order [Chinese edition: Behind the Hegemony], trans. Lyu Dehong et al., Intellectual Property Publishing House, 2009 edition, p. 55). The newest goal of US religious infiltration into China is to form a "state within a state" based on "new religious extraterritoriality"; the promotion of a "New Human Rights Movement" that lacks any norms of international relations or ethical bottom lines will be the prominent hallmark of achieving this goal.
(2) New Strategies
Since the beginning of Reform and Opening-up, [2] China’s major religions have achieved healthy and orderly development through the process of adapting to a socialist society. Some religious scholars at home and abroad have keenly observed that the halo of "martyrdom" that once shaded certain religious groups has gradually faded, while secular temptations under market economy conditions have become a common challenge facing all religions in China. Simultaneously, many US missionary organizations discovered that after entering the new century, Christianity in China seemed to lose the "triumphant" momentum of the 1980s. In particular, the revival of traditional Chinese culture has left "Christianity with only the strength to parry such a craze but no power to strike back; even many Christian scholars have lost their principles, compromising and retreating. Not only have they failed to use Christianity to transform a heterogenous culture, but they have instead been transformed by it, leading to a temporary surge toward 'the Confucianization of Christianity' or 'the Taoicization of Christianity'."
Against this backdrop, the US International Religious Freedom Act undoubtedly provided a shot in the arm for many missionary organizations. Building upon a full grasp of the fundamental spirit of the Act, "the politicization of religion" has become a priority strategy for some US missionary organizations targeting China. The "advantages" of this new strategy are mainly manifested in the following aspects: First, the International Religious Freedom Act provides specific political, legal, and administrative guarantee mechanisms for the "politicization of religion," while the "politicization of Chinese religion" provides "ideal" and realistic targets for the Act, ensuring it does not miss its mark. Second, a missionary strategy "centered on the Christianization of political culture" can enable Chinese house churches to reclaim the "moral high ground," thereby enhancing the attraction and cohesion of their proselytization. Third, in the early 21st century, while developing rapidly, China entered a critical period for reform and a period where social contradictions became prominent. Objectively existing social problems and contradictions among the people have also provided favorable conditions for the "politicization of religion."
The Christian "rights defense" movement (weiquan) or "rights defense politics" is the primary pathway for the strategy of "politicizing religion" in China. Based on an "objective judgment" of the development and strength of domestic house churches, some US missionary organizations have proposed that house churches should abandon their past strategy of "hiding and enduring" and instead combine with "civil rights defense," taking more proactive and sustained actions to "struggle for rights." Some radicals have further proposed a specific "movement-style rights defense" model: methodologically, it focuses on discovering, guiding, sublimating, expanding, summarizing, and promoting incidents; in terms of action mechanisms, it emphasizes the synergy of internet and media linkages, grassroots actions, lawyer-led rights defense, private fundraising, and the integration of churches and intellectual systems, thereby rapidly turning individual rights defense incidents into movements that are large-scale, internationalized, and politicized. New Christian rights defense politics is defined as "a new model emerging in the 2000s, following the 'plaza politics' of the 1980s and the 'underground politics' of the 1990s. Its basic characteristics include interactive network politics, politics of love and justice, judicial-centered politics, politics upholding the liberal tradition, and constitutionalist/pro-constitutional politics."
Fundamentally, the "politicization of religion" led by the US "New Human Rights Strategy" aims to make religion "an important part of representing the anti-government movement" and a "dominant force" in the host country. (Samuel Huntington, The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century, trans. Liu Junning, Shanghai Joint Publishing, 1998 edition, p. 85).
(3) New Carriers
Since Reform and Opening-up, overseas Chinese missionaries with backgrounds in Hong Kong and Taiwan were the earliest and most numerous foreign missionary groups to enter Mainland China. After the 1990s, the trend of missionaries from Mainland China "bringing the gospel back home" became mainstream, and the rapidly growing group of intellectuals from Mainland China is expected to—and has already—become the new carrier of this trend.
Meanwhile, "bringing the gospel to China's future leaders" and "winning this generation of Chinese intellectuals for Christ" have become the primary goals of US missionary organizations toward China. According to a 2000 survey, "By August 2000, there were at least 216 fellowships and churches in the US composed primarily of Chinese scholars; if Western churches and English Bible study groups are included, the total certainly exceeds 300." "Among the more than 2 million Chinese in the US, there are at least 300,000 Chinese scholars with a college degree or higher; the proportion of those who have embraced the faith is about 10%. There are more than 500 seminary-trained students and preachers." (Su Wen-feng, Ministry to Overseas Chinese Scholars, Overseas Campus Magazine, 2001 edition, p. 16).
Since entering the new century, US-based ministries for Chinese intellectuals have developed even faster. Taking the well-known organization "China Outreach Ministries" (COM) as an example: in 1988, as thousands of Mainland Chinese graduate students and scholars gathered on campuses in the US and Canada, the organization shifted its core ministry to North American campus evangelism. According to COM's 2008 annual statistics: "46 staff members served Chinese student fellowships at 41 universities; there were over 24,000 Mainland Chinese students and visiting scholars on these 41 campuses; the gospel was preached to over 6,100 Chinese scholars; 2,150 scholars received concrete help from COM; 320 scholars participated in gospel training; 817 scholars received gospel guidance and discipleship training; and 71 Chinese scholar-Christians returned to China."
Mainstream US media has taken notice of this phenomenon and evaluated it highly. "I believe that bringing the gospel to students coming to the US from the People's Republic of China is the most strategically significant Christian missionary mission in the world." (Dr. David Aikman, senior Time magazine correspondent and "China hand").
With the "sea turtle" tide (returning overseas Chinese), [3] "Returnee Gospel Ministry" using Chinese intellectuals who studied in the US as key carriers has emerged, and Chinese house churches have begun to show a "strategic shift": First, a shift from rural evangelism to centered urban ministry; second, a focus on political and legal issues, using Puritan theological concepts to view the world as a monastery and to glorify God through one's profession; third, Reformed Theology has become the mainstream denominational confession for the younger generation of preachers; fourth, the younger generation of preachers is gradually rising; fifth, house churches are accelerating integration and entering the public sphere. Furthermore, the rise of the "Internet Gospel" has made it possible for overseas "cyber-Christians" to engage in "virtual return" missions, with BBS forums in Chinese universities becoming a "fertile field for the gospel." These new changes in personnel and technological carriers will drastically alter international missionary models, and traditional "anti-religious infiltration" theories will face a fundamental paradigm shift.
(4) New Organizational Systems
As a piece of US domestic law, the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act has inherent deficiencies regarding its application and enforcement. Under the leadership of the US Congress and government, various religious and secular NGOs focused on human rights and religion have proactively filled the gap. They act as informal executors of the Act internationally, forming a sort of international religious human rights regime or an "international human rights complex." Against this backdrop, a new organizational system for religious infiltration into China has emerged.
In 2002, China Aid (Duìhuá Yuánzhù Xiéhuì) was established in Texas, USA. It describes itself as a "non-profit Christian institution dedicated to exploring, narrating, and defending the truth regarding issues of religious freedom in China, focusing specifically on the fate of unofficial churches" (see the inaugural message of its journal, China Law & Religion Monitor). The primary difference between this organization and traditional religious groups is that its fundamental goal is not proselytization but a focus on a specifically defined "religious freedom." The organization hosts a series of China-oriented websites, among which "China Aid" (China Religious Freedom Watch) lists three primary missions: first, to promote religious freedom for all Chinese people; second, to promptly publish and disseminate news and reports regarding violations of Chinese citizens' religious freedom; and third, to foster a China that is a "sky with no fences" for faith. Since its inception, the organization has positioned itself as a "quasi-non-governmental enforcement agency" for the U.S. International Religious Freedom Act within China, operating primarily in the following areas:
First, it plans, promotes, and directly participates in domestic "religious incidents" in China, using these so-called "incidents" as material to press the U.S. and other international bodies to exert pressure on China. The shadow of this organization is active in the vast majority of religious-related mass incidents within the country. Second, it systematically fabricates and propagates the "China religious persecution theory" domestically in the U.S. and internationally. Working in close coordination with the implementation of the U.S. International Religious Freedom Act, it submits a so-called "Annual Report on Christian Persecution in China" to the U.S. Congress and State Department every year. Third, it obstructs the normal international exchange activities of Chinese religious organizations. It harshly criticizes friendly exchanges between overseas religious institutions or figures and legitimate Chinese religious organizations, arguing that such interactions send "misleading and discouraging signals to believers worldwide" while ignoring "religions not controlled by the government."
In order to establish a "state within a state" that is "uncontrolled by the Chinese government," organizations represented by China Aid have performed extensive work in ideological and organizational construction. The "nationalization of the church" [4] has become the explicit goal of many missionary agencies; thus, establishing national church leadership bodies within China that are free from government control has become an urgent task. In 2007, under the direct manipulation of China Aid, the "Chinese House Church Alliance" was pieced together. This organization established provincial branches, appointed branch presidents, and carried out nationwide "construction and expansion" (shīgōng tuòzhǎn). Under the manipulation of various forces, the organization quickly degenerated into a "money-making tool under the banner of construction and expansion." In November 2008, this illegal organization was shut down by the Chinese Ministry of Civil Affairs in accordance with the law.
To adapt to the new U.S.-led human rights strategy, these newly constructed religious infiltration organizations exhibit distinct "de-religionized" and "politicized" characteristics. Internationally, led by the U.S. government, Congress, and relevant religious institutions, with China Aid as the organizational core, a pressure group targeting "China's religious issues" has formed. Domestically, China Aid on one hand covets leadership over Chinese house churches, attempting to establish a national religious leadership body that "integrates urban and rural areas" to achieve "church nationalization" under its control. On the other hand, it attempts to use house churches as a base to transcend the religious sphere, "cleverly editing various liberal elements of Chinese society" to form a rights-defense (wéiquán) [5] political organizational system comprising "the internet, the political-legal system, house churches, and the media."
II. The Ideological Evolution of U.S. Religious Infiltration into China
As Marx said: "The so-called Christian state... treats religion from a political point of view and politics from a religious point of view." (Karl Marx, On the Jewish Question, Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 1, People’s Publishing House, 1965, p. 432). Following the end of the Cold War, U.S. religious right-wing forces ushered in a "golden age" through "political ascent," a phenomenon some scholars describe as an American-style "theocracy" marked by a restoration of religious power. There emerged in the U.S. a New Cold War mentality built on an ideology of "neo-theopolitics" and old geopolitical objectives. This ideological evolution has not only changed the domestic political climate of the U.S. but has also produced profound impacts on international politics, military affairs, and diplomacy.
(1) The Ideology of Theopolitics
Bill Clinton’s signing of the International Religious Freedom Act in 1998 marked the formal formation of a "new human rights strategy" centered on "international religious freedom" led by the United States. George W. Bush, who took office in 2000 as the "man in the White House" for U.S. religious right-wing forces, provided his supporters with "faith-based war, faith-based law enforcement, faith-based education, faith-based healthcare, and faith-based science." (Kenneth D. Wald and Allison Calhoun-Brown: Religion and Politics in the United States, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2010, p. 225). As the White House and Congress vied to please influential evangelical activists, the relationship between church and state in the U.S. saw a serious imbalance. Supporters of the Christian Right "had their hands on the policy process," (ibid., p. 225) to the extent that the U.S. evangelical right-wing preacher Jerry Falwell directly declared that "it was the devil who invented the idea of the separation of church and state." This trend toward the theocratization of politics alerted segments of the American public. In the 2008 U.S. presidential election, Obama’s pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, used the slogan "God Damn America"—diametrically opposed to George W. Bush—to forcefully express his reflections. In Wright’s view, America's theopolitical ideology led to the indiscriminate killing of innocents internationally and the inhumane treatment of its people domestically; the crux of this ideology lies in the fact that "the United States consistently acts as if it sees itself as God and claims to be supreme." (ibid., p. 277).
The greatest paradox of American theopolitics is the conflict between its proclaimed religious universalism and the doctrine of U.S. interests above all else. When and where religious universalism aligns with U.S. interests, the U.S. staunchly supports religious universalism; when and where they diverge, the U.S. sacrifices universalism to become a staunch proponent of U.S. interests above all. In the history of Sino-U.S. relations, the double standards of American theopolitics have been displayed to the fullest. In the second half of the 19th century, the U.S. managed to "share in the benefits" [6] in China through the "Open Door" policy and obtained religious privileges in China through "Toleration Clauses." Ironically, in 1882, the U.S. passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, the only law specifically targeting another nationality. The ideas expressed in this act were a strange hybrid whose core ideology stemmed from several contradictory sources: at the religious level, Chinese were viewed as dangerous heathens; at the ethno-cultural psychological level, it contained the demagoguery of the "Yellow Peril" threat; while the racism originated from Social Darwinism, which is incompatible with Christian creationism. U.S. racist ideology held that colored races were at a lower stage of the evolutionary sequence, with Anglo-Saxons at the top of the racial hierarchy; other lower-tier races must either follow Anglo-Saxon leadership or fall to the bottom of the hierarchy to face their ultimate fate of extinction. (Michael H. Hunt: Ideology and U.S. Foreign Policy, Yale University Press, 2009, p. 79). Under the dominance of this heavily theopolitical ideology, the Chinese were severely demonized as stubborn heathens, lewd, and morally corrupt. They were seen as huddling like rats in plague-ridden slums, and "Chinatowns" were considered serious threats to the health, morality, and well-being of white communities. "Therefore, it was necessary to take two approaches toward the Chinese: on the one hand, the religious rituals of Christian missionaries, and on the other, the strict exclusion of Chinese from the remote areas of civilization in Hawaii and the West Coast." (ibid., p. 80).
Moving into the late 20th century, mainstream American society underwent a degree of reflection and correction regarding racism, one of the three basic ideologies of U.S. foreign policy. However, regarding the deeper theopolitical ideology embedded within racism, there has not only been a persistent lack of true self-awareness, but the situation has even intensified under the drive of various political forces. Traditional religious discrimination and exclusivist ideology have gradually evolved into the modern "Clash of Civilizations," while the ancient "Yellow Peril" threat has evolved into the 21st-century "China Threat." Within the U.S.-led "new human rights strategy," China has become the primary hypothetical enemy, the deep ideological roots of which are not difficult to understand.
(2) Geopolitical Ideology
In the late 19th century, the group of U.S. missionaries to China played a key role in shaping the image of China and the Chinese people among the American public. Some contemporary American scholars have noted: "Those eloquent and opinionated missionaries spread their impressions widely across the United States. Gospel pioneers reported back to America that China was a 'moral desert' and its people were ignorant, morally corrupt, and filthy." (ibid., p. 70). However, missionaries were also sensitive to China’s significant geopolitical importance. China had immense potential; Asia would change, and China would be the fulcrum of that change. The U.S., they argued, should exert greater influence on China through diplomatic investment, economic trade, and Christian missions. Two different voices were intertwined in U.S. relations with China: first, that the Chinese were repulsive creatures and should be kept at a distance at all costs; and second, that China was a "responsibility ward" [7] for which Americans had a special mission—Americans had the responsibility to teach and protect them, and even to punish them for their misbehavior. (ibid., p. 71). The mutual influence between theopolitics and geopolitics gave U.S. diplomacy toward China a dual nature from the beginning; in the eyes of the traditional U.S. diplomatic elite, there was no contradiction between the "Toleration Clauses" and the Chinese Exclusion Act.
Following the end of the Cold War, U.S. geopolitical ideology returned to cultural and religious traditions: "Culture and cultural identities... are shaping the patterns of cohesion, disintegration, and conflict in the post-Cold War world." In the new "civilizational paradigm," "the West's universalism increasingly brings it into conflict with other civilizations, most seriously with Islam and China." (Samuel Huntington: The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, trans. Zhou Qi et al., Xinhua Publishing House, 2010, p. 4). In analyzing "emerging alignments," Huntington conjectured a so-called anti-Western "Confucian-Islamic connection," although he admitted that "Chinese enthusiasm... has been relatively low." (ibid., p. 215). To maintain the dominant position of the West led by the United States, the West "must skillfully apply its economic resources as carrots and sticks in dealing with other societies, while promoting the Western alliance, coordinating its policies... and promoting and exploiting differences between non-Western states." (ibid., p. 182).
Geopolitically, "China is becoming the dominant state in East Asia." Using the balance of power to balance and contain China—the "biggest player in the history of man"—aligns with the logic of Western hegemony. According to the "Clash of Civilizations" paradigm, in order to secure the most favorable geopolitical landscape, the U.S. exerts force from two directions: encouraging and forcing China to become a "first-level participant" in "fault line wars" against Islamic countries and other civilizations, while the U.S. acts as a third party or third-level participant and mediator. Consequently, the U.S. is keen on playing religious geopolitical games in Xinjiang and Tibet; "the more unstable Xinjiang is, the more 'ideal' it is for them." (F. William Engdahl: The Hegemony of the West [8], p. 103).
In a sense, the "civilizational harmony" paradigm would leave the United States "isolated overseas" as a "minor participant" in world affairs, whereas under the U.S.-driven "clash of civilizations" paradigm, East Asia and Europe serve as natural "strategic buffer zones" for the United States. We can observe that U.S. religious diplomacy toward China after the Cold War is not entirely unrelated to its geopolitical goals. American missionary organizations targeting China have adjusted their strategies: while continuing to emphasize the "evangelization of China" and "Gospel into China," they have placed the "Gospel out of China" in a prominent position. "Back to Jerusalem," a westward plan for the "Gospel out of China," carries a strong geopolitical ideological color. This plan is not merely about "spreading the Gospel to Jerusalem," but rather "preaching the Gospel to every country, city, town, and ethnic minority between China and Jerusalem, and establishing fellowships with those believers." (Yang Tianmin, Back to Jerusalem: The Call to Fulfill the Great Commission, Dawn Press, 2005, p. 5). A core component of this plan is for China to send at least 100,000 missionaries to Islamic, Hindu, and Buddhist countries. The reason the "Back to Jerusalem" plan is so popular in the United States is inseparable from the fact that its inherent geopolitical ideology aligns with U.S. global strategy.
(3) New Cold War Ideology
During the Cold War, many famous American missionaries became natural "Cold War preachers" [9]. They believed that "Western culture and its fruits are rooted in the Bible, the Holy Word, and the Great Awakenings of the 17th and 18th centuries. Communism, however, has determined to defy God, the Bible, and all religion. Communism is not just an economic interpretation of life… Communism is led, inspired, and motivated by the Devil, who has declared war on Almighty God." (William Martin, A Prophet with Honor: The Billy Graham Story, New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1991, p. 197). To defeat Communism as a tool of Satan, they argued: "There is only one philosophical system in the world today that can counter the conspiratorial planning of Communism, and that is vital, dynamic, orthodox Christianity... The greatest and most effective anti-communist weapon today is the born-again Christian." (Bernard K. Duffy & Halford R. Ryan, American Orators of the Twentieth Century: Critical Studies and Sources, New York: Greenwood, 1987, p. 182). After the Cold War ended, some cultural conservatives began discussing a so-called "Asian-American Cold War." They argued that the relationship between the United States and China was becoming "increasingly adversarial" and that beyond "fundamental disagreements over the future balance of power in East Asia," the "roots of conflict are fundamental differences in society and culture." (Samuel Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, p. 201). A "New Cold War" ideology, combining the "communist threat theory" and the "clash of civilizations theory," has taken shape in the United States.
Influenced by this "New Cold War ideology," certain wishful "hypotheses" have circulated among some Chinese-American Christians: for instance, that if China becomes a Christian nation, Sino-American friendship would surpass the Japan-U.S. relationship because Japan is a non-Christian nation (Yuan Zhiming); or that if China cannot become a Christian nation, the United States will forever view China as an enemy (Yu Ge). A few extremists even advocate that "the rise of a non-Christian China is a scourge to the world" (Yu Jie). Consequently, they argue that "Chinese Christians should exert every effort to study and plan a political system based on biblical foundations regarding the fundamental values of the public interest," and "transform Chinese culture with Christian faith, providing and leading with Christian contributions in the cultural, ideological, educational, political, and social spheres." (Jonathan Chao, Support Me in My Journey, Taipei: C.N.I. Publishers, 1993, p. 184). "When an atheistic socialist state enacts laws banning religion or issues policies resisting the progress of God’s Kingdom, Christians should protest to the government and help the government not to resist the Lord who gave them authority." "The attitude of Christians toward an atheistic government that persecutes the church must be directed at the anti-Christian evil spirit behind that government." (Jonathan Chao, Discerning the Times: A Critique of CCP Religious Policy and the Three-Self Movement, Taipei: C.N.I. Publishers, 1993, p. 170). It is argued that there is a need not only to further expand missionary work among urban universities, intellectuals, and overseas students but also to launch a sustained global movement, both inside and outside China, to "preach the Gospel to Communist Party members."
Within Chinese churches in the United States, the majority of Chinese Christians view the Christian faith as a way of life and neither identify with nor care about the U.S.-led international religious freedom movement (the "New Human Rights Movement"). To solve the lack of motivation for political participation generally found in Chinese churches, the "Christianization of the overseas democracy movement" has become a "win-win" political engine under the deliberate direction of certain missionary organizations. "Specifically carrying out Gospel work among democracy activists" and "fighting side-by-side with overseas democracy activists" have become important steps in the political Christianization of China. After more than 20 years of careful cultivation, many democracy activists "participate in various overseas democracy movements and call for religious freedom in the name of Christian organizations," "playing a huge role within Christianity and the overseas democracy movement." Meanwhile, it is argued that house churches within China should not only abandon the "martyrdom spirit" of "waiting to be beaten" but also become the spiritual pillar and organizational force for China’s democratization. Chinese house churches are urged to unite to "walk out of the Party-state" history and "walk out of the red ocean of Communism."
"The tree seeks stillness, but the wind does not cease" [10]; the "New Cold War" ideology has brought "the world to such a dangerous convergence of forces and events as it has never seen before," yet "few people realize how dangerous the madness driving Washington's policy has become." (William Engdahl, Full Spectrum Dominance, p. 319).
III. Rapprochement between Church and State and the Chinese Model
The essence of so-called religious infiltration is "political infiltration." "The decisive role therein is played by international monopoly capitalism or external hostile forces; overseas religion is merely a convenient 'tool' or 'means' for international monopoly capitalism or external hostile forces to promote their strategy of peaceful evolution." That is to say, the "ultimate subject" or "deep subject" of overseas religious infiltration is international monopoly capitalism or external hostile forces, while overseas religion is, at most, a "sub-ultimate subject" or "surface subject." (Duan Dezhi, Religious Studies, People's Publishing House, 2010, p. 444). The "restoration" of American theopolitics and its expression in diplomacy are, to a large extent, an ideological reaction to the decline of its global hegemony. Therefore, in viewing the issue of overseas religious infiltration, we must commit neither "Left" nor "Right" errors, but rather "let religion return to its original form as religion." (Zhou Enlai, "Four Talks on the Question of Christianity" (May 1950), Selected Works of Zhou Enlai on the United Front, People’s Publishing House, 1984, p. 181).
First, we must exclude all interference and persist in improving a new type of church-state relationship that is compatible with socialism with Chinese characteristics. "This new type of church-state relationship is based on the principle of the separation of church and state, with church-state harmony as its value orientation. That is, adhering to the principle of the separation of church and state, drawing clear boundaries between them, and preventing the state from replacing the church or the church from replacing the state provides an institutional guarantee for the freedom of religious belief. However, the separation of church and state is not treated as the ultimate goal; rather, on the basis of separation, we strive for harmony in church-state relations to form a relationship of positive interaction." (Wang Zuoan, "On Contemporary Chinese Church-State Relations," Study Times, November 23, 2009). History and reality fully prove that any form of "theocracy" only leads to endless religious conflict, church-state conflict, and the "clash of civilizations." Adhering to "mutual respect in belief and unity and cooperation in politics" is the essence of our country's contemporary new type of church-state relationship.
Second, we must persist in the principle of independence and self-governance of the church. Both world history and modern Chinese history enlighten us that "without independence, there is no diplomacy," and religion is no exception. In the 1950s, patriotic figures in China’s Protestant and Catholic communities proposed the principle of independence and self-governance for the church—a principle that was established with the strong support of the Party and the government. Article 36 of our country's Constitution stipulates: "Religious bodies and religious affairs are not subject to any foreign domination." We must correct the absence and displacement of legal concepts regarding religion among some people. No religion enjoys privileges that can exceed the laws and regulations of our country (or any country with full sovereignty), and the laws of any other country cannot become superior to the Constitution of the People's Republic of China. China should not and will not again see the emergence of a "state within a state" based on "religious extraterritoriality."
Third, we must establish a long-term crisis management mechanism for religious emergencies. In today's world, the U.S.-led "New Human Rights Movement" vigorously promotes the "politicization of religion" and "political mobilization" on a global scale. Religious factors, combined with the internet, mobile phones, and software platforms, have become one of the ideal carriers for the "swarming tactics" praised by the RAND Corporation. A "non-violent regime change model" with postmodern characteristics relies on "swarming tactics," using carefully selected "sudden" events at a particular moment to trigger the results of long-term ideological infiltration, toppling an existing regime in an instant. The American futurist Alvin Toffler once meaningfully predicted that "today's China is unstable, and it is possible that in the near future, religious leaders will come to power." He suggested that "local religious protests expanding into large-scale social action" could likely lead to the violent overthrow of the current national regime. Perhaps some hope this is a "self-fulfilling prophecy," but "whether a prophecy is realized depends on how people react." (Samuel Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, p. 2). In socialist China, "managing religious affairs according to law, actively guiding religion to adapt to socialist society, promoting harmony in religious relations, and bringing into play the positive role of religious figures and religious believers in promoting economic and social development" is not only the fundamental way to resolve China's church-state harmony and political stability but also a "stone from another mountain" [11] to overcome the international religious and political crises haunted by the curse of the "clash of civilizations."