Huang Chao: New Patterns of U.S. Religious Infiltration into China and Its Ideological Evolution
After the end of the Cold War, a newly emergent theocratic ideology merged with traditional geopolitical thought to form a "New Cold War ideology" within the United States. US religious infiltration into China has subsequently manifested in a new pattern adapted to this "New Cold War ideology," the fundamental demand of which is a "new religious extraterritoriality" [1] epitomized by the International Religious Freedom Act.
I. The New Pattern of US Religious Infiltration into China
The term "infiltration" (shentou) can sometimes convey an impression of being "surreptitious" or "incidental." Viewed this way, using "infiltration" to describe current US religious strategy toward China may seem somewhat imprecise, as terms like "forceful," "condescending," or "sanctions" better highlight American 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 the "soft application of hard power," and understand the term "infiltration" as "combining the carrot and the stick," then the concept of US religious infiltration into China is not entirely obsolete.
(1) New Objectives
In the modern era, by virtue of gunboat diplomacy, foreign missionaries obtained "religious extraterritoriality" in China and played a most ignoble role in seizing interests within the country. In 1943, the "old religious extraterritoriality" that existed in China in the form of unequal treaties was abolished. However, following the Cold War, "new religious extraterritoriality" has been resurrected in the form of US domestic law, becoming an "institutional" objective of US religious diplomacy. The Clinton administration, which took office after the Cold War, established the twin goals of enhancing US security and developing the US economy alongside the promotion of democracy abroad as the three pillars of national security. Correspondingly, US government officials and scholars made substantive revisions to the definition of human rights; the view that "human rights belong to the sphere of sovereignty" gradually gave way to the claim that "human rights transcend sovereignty." On the issue of human rights, "religious freedom" was elevated to the status of the "First Freedom," and a "religious freedom peace theory" was advocated. This theory posits that the issue of "religious freedom" is not only a human rights concern 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 its signing, Clinton remarked: "My administration has made religious freedom a core element of US foreign policy." The core and crux of the International Religious Freedom Act is precisely the US government's attempt to obtain "new extraterritoriality" in international religious affairs.
History often repeats itself with striking similarity. The critique by American historian Kenneth Scott Latourette regarding the "religious extraterritoriality" in the modern Treaty of Tianjin [2] is equally applicable to the International Religious Freedom Act. Latourette noted: "The treaties [the Treaty of Tianjin] inevitably withdrew Chinese Christians from the jurisdiction of the Chinese government and made of the Christian groups 'states within a state' scattered over the empire and under foreign protection... Almost any lawsuit could be represented as a persecution of a Christian by non-Christians. A foreign consul or minister, if he were so minded, could always find a pretext for interference. Many Chinese, seeing the advantages of a powerful foreign backing, feigned conversion and entered the Church. Not a few missionaries used the protection of their governments as a bait to win converts... The effect of the 'toleration clauses' was, therefore, not entirely to the credit of the Name of Christ... the Church had become the partner of Western imperialism, and it could not escape the consequences of the partnership." (A History of Christian Missions in China, N.Y.: Macmillan, 1929: 279).
American economist and geopolitical analyst William Engdahl [3] pointed out frankly: "The United States is employing a little-known weapon, using ‘human rights’ and ‘democracy’ as the 21st-century version of the Opium Wars to force China to open itself up and accept American superpower rule." (William Engdahl, Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order, trans. Lyu Dehong et al., Intellectual Property Publishing House, 2009 ed., p. 55). The latest objective of US religious infiltration into China is to form a "state within a state" based on "new religious extraterritoriality" within China; the promotion of a "new human rights movement" devoid of any international relations norms or ethical bottom lines will be the prominent sign of achieving this goal.
(2) New Strategies
Since the beginning of Reform and Opening-up, China's major religions have achieved healthy and orderly development through the process of adapting to a socialist society. Some scholars in religious circles at home and abroad have keenly observed that the aura of "martyrdom" that once shaded certain religious groups has gradually faded, while secular temptations under the conditions of a market economy have become a common challenge that all religions in China must face. At the same time, many US missionary agencies discovered that since the turn of the century, Christianity in China seems to have lost the "triumphant" momentum it enjoyed since the 1980s. In particular, the revival of traditional Chinese culture has left "Christianity only with the power to parry the blow but no strength to strike back against this tide; even many Christian scholars have abandoned their principles, compromising and retreating. Not only have they failed to use Christianity to transform heterogeneous cultures, but they have instead been transformed by them, suddenly giving rise to a trend of 'Christian Confucianization' and 'Christian Taoization'."
Against this backdrop, the US International Religious Freedom Act undoubtedly provided a shot in the arm for many missionary agencies. Based on a full grasp of the fundamental spirit of the act, the "politicization of religion" became a priority strategy for some US missionary agencies targeting China. The "advantages" of this new strategy are primarily manifested in several 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 become a shot in the dark. Second, a missionary strategy centered on the "Christianization of politico-cultural life" allows Chinese house churches [4] to reclaim the "moral high ground," thereby enhancing the attraction and cohesion of their proselytizing. Third, in the early 21st century, while developing rapidly, China entered a period of critical reform and a phase 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" (weiquan) movement or "rights defense politics" is the primary pathway for the implementation of the "politicization of religion" strategy in China. Based on an "objective judgment" of the development and strength of house churches within China, some US missionary agencies 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 between the internet and media, grassroots action, lawyer-led rights defense, private fundraising, and the integration of church and intellectual systems, thereby rapidly transforming individual rights defense cases into movements that are large-scale, internationalized, and politicized. The new Christian rights defense politics is defined as "a new model rising in the 2000s, following the 'plaza politics' of the 1980s and the 'underground politics' of the 1990s. Its basic characteristics include interactive network politics, a politics of love and justice, judicial-centric politics, a politics adhering to liberal traditions, and a politics of upholding and establishing the constitution."
Fundamentally, the "politicization of religion" led by the US "new human rights strategy" seeks to make religion "an important part" and a "dominant force" representing "anti-government movements" in the host country. (Samuel Huntington, The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century, trans. Liu Junning, Shanghai Joint Publishing, 1998 ed., p. 85).
(3) New Carriers
Since Reform and Opening-up, overseas Chinese missionaries with Hong Kong and Taiwan backgrounds were the earliest and most numerous foreign proselytizing groups to enter mainland China. Since the 1990s, the trend of missionaries from mainland China "bringing the gospel back" to the mainland has become mainstream, and the rapidly increasing number of mainland Chinese intellectuals is expected to become—and has already become— the new carrier for this proselytizing trend.
At the same time, "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 agencies targeting China. According to a year 2000 survey, "as of August 2000, there were at least 216 fellowships and churches in the US composed mainly of Chinese scholars; if Western churches and English Bible study groups formed by believers 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 Wenpeak, Overseas Chinese Intellectual Ministries, Overseas Campus Magazine, 2001 ed., p. 16).
Since the start of the new century, US Chinese intellectual ministries have developed even more rapidly on their original foundations. Taking "Christian Outreach with Mainland Chinese" (COM), a prominent US missionary organization, as an example: in 1988, as thousands of mainland Chinese graduate students and scholars gathered on US and Canadian campuses, the agency began shifting its ministry focus to North American campus evangelism. According to the agency's 2008 annual ministry statistics: "46 staff members served Chinese student fellowships at 41 universities; on these 41 campuses, there were over 24,000 mainland Chinese students and visiting scholars; the gospel of Christ was preached to over 6,100 Chinese scholars; 2,150 scholars received specific assistance 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 have sensitively noted this phenomenon and evaluated it highly. "I think reaching the students from the People's Republic who are in the United States with the Gospel is the most strategically important Christian missionary mission in the world." (Dr. David Aikman, former Time magazine senior correspondent and "China hand").
With the emergence of the "sea turtle" tide [5], "sea turtle gospel ministries" have arisen, using Chinese intellectuals returning from the US as important carriers. Chinese house churches have also begun a "strategic shift": first, shifting focus from rural missionizing to urban ministry; second, focusing on political and legal issues, treating the world as a monastery based on Puritan theological concepts to glorify God through one's profession; third, Reformed theology becoming the mainstream denominational confession for the younger generation of preachers; fourth, the gradual rise of the younger generation of preachers; and fifth, house churches accelerating their integration and entry into the public sphere. Furthermore, the rise of the "Internet Gospel" has made it possible for overseas "online Christians" to perform "virtual return" missions, with Bulletin Board Systems (BBS) in Chinese universities becoming "fertile fields for the gospel." These new changes in personnel and technological carriers will greatly alter international mission patterns, and traditional "anti-religious infiltration" theory will also face a fundamental paradigm shift.
(4) New Organizational Systems
As a piece of US domestic law, the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 possesses innate deficiencies in its international application and enforcement. Under the leadership of the US Congress and government, several religious or secular non-governmental organizations focusing on human rights and religion have proactively filled this gap. They serve as informal enforcers of the act internationally and have formed a kind of international religious human rights regime or an "international human rights complex." Against this broad backdrop, a new organizational system for religious infiltration into China has emerged.
In 2002, China Aid Association (CAA) [6] was established in Texas, USA. It describes itself as a non-profit Christian institution "aiming to explore, narrate, and defend the truth regarding issues of religious freedom in China, focusing on the fate of unofficial churches" (see the inaugural address 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 rather a focus on a specifically defined "religious freedom." The organization hosts a series of China-facing websites, such as the "China Religious Freedom Watch," which lists a three-fold mission: first, to promote religious freedom for all Chinese people; second, to publish and disseminate timely news and reports regarding violations of the religious freedom of Chinese citizens; and third, to push for China to become "a sky without fences" for faith. Since its inception, the organization has positioned itself as a "quasi-civilian enforcement agency" for the U.S. International Religious Freedom Act in China, conducting activities primarily in the following areas:
First, it schemes, promotes, and directly participates in domestic "religious incidents" within China, using these so-called incidents as material to pressure China through the U.S. and other international bodies. We can see the active presence of this organization in the vast majority of religious-related mass incidents [7] in China. Second, it systematically fabricates and propagates the "China religious persecution theory" both within the U.S. and internationally. Coordinating closely with the implementation of the U.S. International Religious Freedom Act, it submits an annual "Report on Religious Persecution in China" to the U.S. Congress and State Department. Third, it obstructs the normal external exchange activities of Chinese religious organizations. The CAA vehemently criticizes friendly exchanges between overseas religious institutions (and related individuals) and China’s legal religious organizations, arguing that such interactions "send a misleading and discouraging signal to believers worldwide" by ignoring "religions not controlled by the government."
In order to establish a "state within a state" that is "uncontrolled by the Chinese government," institutions represented by the U.S.-based China Aid Association have invested significant effort into ideological and organizational construction. The "nationalization of the church" [8] has become the explicit goal of many missionary agencies; thus, the establishment of national church leadership bodies within China—independent of Chinese government control—became an urgent priority. In 2007, under the direct manipulation of the China Aid Association, the "Chinese House Church Alliance" was cobbled together. This organization set up provincial branches, appointed branch presidents, and carried out nationwide "ministry expansion." Under the manipulation of various forces, the organization quickly degenerated into a "tool for amassing wealth under the banner of ministry expansion." In November 2008, this illegal organization was banned by the Chinese Ministry of Civil Affairs in accordance with the law.
To adapt to the new human rights strategy led by the United States, newly constructed religious penetration organizations targeting China exhibit distinct characteristics of "de-religionization" and "politicization." Internationally, a pressure group targeting "China's religious issues" has formed, with the U.S. government, Congress, and related religious institutions as leaders, and the China Aid Association as the organizational core. Domestically, the China Aid Association covets leadership over Chinese house churches, attempting to establish a national religious leadership body that "integrates urban and rural areas" to achieve a "nationalization of the church" under its control. Furthermore, it attempts to use house churches as a foundation to transcend the religious sphere, "artfully editing various liberal elements of Chinese society" to form a "rights defense" (weiquan) [9] political organization system encompassing "the internet, the politico-legal system, house churches, and the media."
II. The Ideological Evolution of U.S. Religious Penetration into China
As Marx stated: "The so-called Christian state takes a religious attitude towards politics and a political attitude towards religion." (Karl Marx, On the Jewish Question). Since the end of the Cold War, U.S. religious right-wing forces have entered a "Golden Age" through "political ascent." Some scholars describe this phenomenon as an American-style "theocracy" marked by the restoration of religious power. A "New Cold War" mentality has emerged in the U.S., built on the ideology of "new theopolitics" and old geopolitical goals. This ideological evolution has not only changed the domestic political climate of the U.S. but has also exerted a profound influence on international politics, military affairs, and diplomacy.
(1) The Ideology of Theopolitics
The signing of the International Religious Freedom Act by Clinton in 1998 marked the formal formation of a "new human rights strategy" led by the U.S., with "international religious freedom" as its core. George W. Bush, taking office in 2000 as "one of their own in the White House" for the American religious right, provided his supporters with "faith-based war, faith-based law enforcement, faith-based education, faith-based medicine, and faith-based science" (Kenneth D. Wald and Allison Calhoun-Brown, Religion and Politics in the United States). As the White House and Congress competed to please influential evangelical activists, the relationship between church and state in the U.S. fell into serious imbalance. Supporters of the Christian Right "had their hands on the policy process," to the extent that the U.S. Evangelical Right preacher Jerry Falwell directly declared that "the idea of separation of church and state was invented by the devil." This trend toward the "theocratization of politics" raised alarms among some 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's rhetoric—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 were God and claims supremacy for itself."
The greatest paradox of American theopolitics is that the religious universalism it preaches conflicts with the doctrine of "America's interests first." When and where religious universalism aligns with American interests, the U.S. staunchly supports it; when and where they diverge, the U.S. sacrifices universalism to become a steadfast proponent of American interest supremacy. In the history of Sino-U.S. relations, the double standards of American theopolitics have been displayed to the fullest extent. In the second half of the 19th century, the U.S. secured "equal sharing of interests" through the "Open Door" policy and obtained religious privileges in China through "toleration clauses" [10]. Ironically, in 1882, the U.S. passed the Chinese Exclusion Act—the only law in its history targeting a specific foreign nationality. The ideas expressed in this act were a strange hybrid; its core ideology was derived from several contradictory sources: religiously, it viewed the Chinese as dangerous pagans; socio-culturally, it included the demagoguery of the "Yellow Peril" threat; while its racism stemmed from Social Darwinism, which was incompatible with Christian creationism. American racist ideology held that people of color were at a lower stage of the evolutionary sequence, while Anglo-Saxons sat at the top of the racial hierarchy. Other "lower-tier" races were expected to either follow the lead of Anglo-Saxons or plummet to the bottom of the hierarchy to face their ultimate extinction (Michael H. Hunt, Ideology and U.S. Foreign Policy).
Under the dominance of this heavily theopolitical ideology, the Chinese were severely demonized as stubborn pagans—licentious, shameless, and morally corrupt. They were seen as huddling like rats in plague-ridden slums; "Chinatowns" were considered a grave threat to the health, morality, and well-being of white communities. "Therefore, dealing with the Chinese required a two-pronged approach: on the one hand, the religious rituals of Christian missionaries, and on the other, the strict exclusion of the Chinese from Hawaii and the remote civilized areas of the West Coast."
In the late 20th century, mainstream American society engaged in 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 worsened under the impetus of various political forces. Traditional religious discrimination and exclusive ideologies have gradually evolved into the modern "clash of civilizations," while the ancient "Yellow Peril" theory has transformed into the 21st-century "China threat theory." Within the U.S.-led "new human rights strategy," China has become the primary imaginary enemy; it is not difficult to understand the profound ideological roots contained therein.
(2) Geopolitical Ideology
In the late 19th century, the American missionary community in China played a pivotal role in shaping the image of China and the Chinese people among the American public. Some contemporary American scholars point out: "Those articulate and opinionated missionaries broadcast their impressions widely across the United States. These evangelical pioneers reported to America that China was a 'moral desert' and its people were ignorant, morally corrupt, and filthy." However, missionaries also sensitively discovered China's great geopolitical significance. China had enormous potential; Asia would change, and China would be the fulcrum of that change. The U.S. was advised to 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 loathsome creatures to be kept at a distance at all costs; second, that China was a "responsibility ward" for which Americans held a special mission—that Americans had a duty to teach and protect them, and even to punish their misbehavior. The mutual influence of theopolitics and geopolitics gave U.S. diplomacy toward China a dualistic nature from its inception; in the eyes of traditional American diplomatic elites, the "toleration clauses" and the Chinese Exclusion Act were not contradictory.
Following the end of the Cold War, American 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 "universalism of the West is increasingly bringing it into conflict with other civilizations, most seriously with Islam and China." (Samuel Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order). In analyzing "emerging alignments," Huntington hypothesized a so-called "Confucian-Islamic connection" against the West, though he admitted that "China's enthusiasm has been relatively low." To maintain the superior position of the West led by the U.S., the West "must skillfully use 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."
Geopolitically, "China is becoming the dominant power in East Asia." Balancing and containing China—the "biggest player in the history of mankind"—through the balance of power fits the logic of Western hegemony. According to the "clash of civilizations" paradigm, to obtain the most favorable geopolitical landscape, the U.S. exerts force from two directions: encouraging and forcing China to become a primary 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" (William Engdahl, Full Spectrum Dominance [11]).
In a sense, the "civilizational harmony" paradigm would leave the United States "isolated overseas," becoming a "minor participant" in the world; whereas under the U.S.-driven paradigm of the "clash of civilizations," East Asia and Europe both 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. U.S. missionary organizations targeting China have adjusted their strategies: while continuing to emphasize "the evangelization of China" and "the Gospel entering China," they have placed "the Gospel exiting China" in a prominent position. "Back to Jerusalem" [12], as a westward plan for "the Gospel exiting China," possesses a strong geopolitical ideological character. This plan does not merely aim to "bring the Gospel to Jerusalem," but rather "to bring the Gospel to every country, city, town, and ethnic minority between China and Jerusalem, and to establish fellowship with those believers." (Yang Tianmin: Back to Jerusalem: Calling to Fulfill the Great Commission, Kairos Press, 2005 edition, p. 5). A core part of this plan is to dispatch at least 100,000 missionaries from China to Islamic, Hindu, and Buddhist countries. The reason the "Back to Jerusalem" plan is so widely pursued in the United States is inseparable from the fact that the geopolitical ideology it contains aligns with America's global strategy.
(3) New Cold War Ideology
During the Cold War, many famous American missionaries became natural "Cold War preachers" [13]. They believed that: "Western culture and its fruits are rooted in the Bible, the Sacred Word, and the Great Awakenings of the 17th and 18th centuries. Whereas Communism 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 an instrument of Satan, they argued: "There is only one system of philosophy in the world today that can stand against the schemes of Communism, and that is a vital, dynamic, orthodox Christianity… The greatest and most effective anti-Communist tool 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 U.S. 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" with the "Clash of Civilizations," has formed in the United States.
Influenced by this "New Cold War ideology," certain wishful "hypotheses" have circulated among some American Chinese Christians: if China becomes a Christian country, Sino-American friendship would surpass the Japan-U.S. relationship because Japan is a non-Christian country (Yuan Zhiming); whereas if China fails to become a Christian country, the U.S. 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). Therefore, they argue, "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 a Christian contribution to and leadership within the cultural, ideological, educational, political, and social spheres." (Jonathan Chao [14], Lead Me Forward, Taipei: C.M.P. Ltd., 1993 edition, p. 184). "When a godless socialist state promulgates laws banning religion or issues policies resisting the progress of the Kingdom of God, 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-Christ evil spirit behind that government." (Jonathan Chao, Wise as Serpents: A Critique of CCP Religious Policy and the Three-Self Movement, Taipei: C.M.P. Ltd., 1993 edition, p. 170). They suggest not only further expanding mission work toward urban universities, intellectuals, and overseas students, but also a perceived necessity to launch a sustained global movement—both inside and outside China—to "preach the Gospel to Communist Party members."
In American Chinese churches, the majority of Chinese Christians view the Christian faith as a lifestyle; they neither identify with nor care about the U.S.-led international religious freedom movement (the "New Human Rights Movement"). To solve the widespread lack of motivation for political participation in Chinese churches, under the deliberate guidance of certain missionary organizations, the "Christianization of the overseas democracy movement" has become a "win-win" political engine. "Specifically developing Gospel work among democracy activists" and "fighting side-by-side with overseas activists" have become important steps in the "political Christianization" of China. After more than 20 years of careful cultivation, many activists "participate in various overseas democracy movements and call for religious freedom in the name of Christian organizations," and are "playing a huge role within Christianity and the overseas democracy movement." Meanwhile, they argue that house churches within China should not only abandon the "martyrdom spirit" of "waiting to be struck," but should also become the spiritual pillar and organizational force for China's democratization. They call for Chinese house churches to unite to "walk out" of the history of the "Party-State" and "walk out of the red ocean of Communism."
"The tree desires stillness, but the wind will not subside" [15]; the "New Cold War" ideology makes "the world face such a dangerous confluence of forces and events as it has never seen before," yet "almost no one realizes how dangerous the madness driving Washington's policy has become." (William Engdahl, Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order, p. 319).
III. Harmony Between Church and State and the China Model
The so-called "religious infiltration" is, in essence, "political infiltration." "The decisive role in this 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 kind of "penultimate subject" or "surface subject." (Duan Dezhi, Religious Studies, People's Publishing House, 2010 edition, p. 444). The "restoration" of American theopolitics and its diplomatic manifestations are, to a large extent, an ideological reaction to the decline of its global hegemony. Therefore, in viewing the problem of overseas religious infiltration, we must neither commit "Leftist" errors nor "Rightist" errors, but should "let religion return to its original face as religion." (Zhou Enlai, "Four Talks on Christian Issues" (May 1950), Selected Works of Zhou Enlai on the United Front, People’s Publishing House, 1984 edition, p. 181).
First, we must exclude all interference and persist in improving a new type of church-state relations 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 separation, drawing clear boundaries between the two to prevent the state from replacing the church or the church from replacing the state, thereby providing institutional protection for freedom of religious belief. However, separation is not treated as the ultimate goal; rather, on the basis of separation, we strive for harmony in church-state relations to form a positive interactive relationship." (Wang Zuoan, "On Contemporary China's 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 relations.
Second, we must adhere to the principle of independent, self-governing, and self-run churches. 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 individuals in China's Protestant and Catholic circles proposed the principle of independence and self-governance, which was established with the strong support of the Party and the government. Article 36 of our Constitution stipulates: "Religious bodies and religious affairs are not subject to any foreign domination." We must correct the absence or displacement of legal concepts regarding religion among some individuals. No religion enjoys privileges that can exceed the laws and regulations of our country (or any sovereign state with territorial integrity), and no other country's law can become a higher law to the Constitution of the People's Republic of China. A "state within a state" based on "religious extraterritoriality" should not and will not appear in China again.
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 "religious politicization" and "the movementization of politics" [16] 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" lauded 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 detonate the results of long-term ideological infiltration, toppling an existing regime in an instant. The American futurist Alvin Toffler once prophetically and meaningfully predicted that "today's China is not very stable, and it is possible that religious leaders will come to power in the near future." "The expansion of local religious protests into large-scale social action" could very likely lead to the violent overthrow of the existing state power. Perhaps some people hope this is a "self-fulfilling prophecy"; however, "whether a prophecy is fulfilled 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 the 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 believers in promoting economic and social development" is not only the fundamental solution for our country's church-state harmony and political stability but also a "stone from another mountain" [17] that can help overcome the international religious and political crises haunted by the curse of the "clash of civilizations."
Responsible Editor: Wang Jiafei