The Indigenization and Zhongguohua of Christianity

In recent years, discussions on the “Zhongguohua (Chinafication) of Christianity” have garnered widespread attention, sparking debates over whether “Zhongguohua” is synonymous with “indigenization.” This article aims to delve into an exploration and comparative analysis of the official discourse concerning the Zhongguohua of religions and the historical backdrop of indigenization within the context of Chinese Christianity.

Zhongguohua and Indigenization

While the conceptual framework of Zhongguohua has been introduced by numerous scholars (Zhuo Xinping, Zhang Zhigang) of mainland Chinese religious studies, its prominence is closely intertwined with the persona of Xi Jinping, then-General Secretary of the Communist Party of China (CPC). Between 2015 and 2022, Xi referenced the notion of “Zhongguohua” in relation to religious matters on four separate occasions during speeches delivered at the Central United Front Work and National Religious Work Conferences¹ Serving as a distinctive hallmark of religious theory within the milieu of “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for the New Era,” a comprehensive grasp of its essence requires a revisiting of the context of official documentation.

Scholars who have delved into the historical trajectory of Chinese Christianity are well-acquainted with the principle of indigenization.² As far back as the nineteenth century, endeavors undertaken by Western missionaries in China bore the aspiration of “localizing the gospel within China.”³ In 1922, the term “Indigenous Church” made its debut within the “Message of the National Christian Conference.”⁴ Subsequently, scholarly discourses germinated encompassing themes such as indigenization, contextualization, and localization, concepts that continue to endure.⁵

Thus, the question arises: can Zhongguohua be equated with the notion of indigenization? An attempt to draw a comparison is pursued through the lens of three distinctive dimensions: objectives, content, and essence.

On Objectives: Why?

The comprehension and resolution of religious concerns have consistently occupied central positions within the purview of the CPC’s endeavors in the religious domain. In 1993, Jiang Zemin, the then General Secretary of the CPC, introduced the proposition of  “actively work[ing] for the mutual adaptation of religion and socialism,” thereby mandating that religious bodies undertake reforms that harmonize with socialist doctrines and institutions, while also advocating for constructive contributions to socialist undertakings.⁶ This transformative stance marked a departure from the Party’s earlier position that classified “religion as the opium of the people,” towards an acknowledgment of the adaptive role that religion could play within socialist society.⁷ In the twenty-first century, Xi Jinping underscored the imperative of “actively guiding religions to adapt to socialist society, while steadfastly upholding the path of Zhongguohua in religious matters.”⁸ Serving as a cardinal guiding tenet for the governance of religious affairs within the contemporary Chinese milieu, the concept of Zhongguohua represents an evolution of the adaptational paradigm, introducing innovative interpretations thereof.

In contrast, indigenization emerges as an internal dialogue within the realm of Chinese Christianity. Ng Lee Ming, a scholar in religious studies, points out that the underpinning purpose of indigenization is evangelistic in nature—“to foster the assimilation of Christianity within a non-Christian environment” and “to illuminate and elucidate the relevance of Christianity within an ever-shifting cultural context.”⁹

Evidently, Zhongguohua and indigenization delineate divergent objectives. As articulated by Xi Jinping, the “positive role of religion does not reside in transforming religion into a universal remedy for societal challenges or artificially augmenting religious fervor.” Instead, it entails “guiding religion to proactively contribute to the advancement of economic progress, cultural flourishing, national unity, and territorial integrity.”¹⁰ Consequently, the prime objective of Zhongguohua pertains to directing religious practice in alignment with national priorities, in contradistinction to the evangelistic emphasis intrinsic to indigenization.

On Content: How?

The approach toward realizing the objectives of Zhongguohua warrants scrutiny. Xi Jinping outlines the necessity of  “imbuing diverse religions with Chinese culture by drawing upon the core values of socialism.” This entails facilitating religious communities in devising interpretations of religious doctrines and canons that coalesce with the exigencies of the times, while also safeguarding against the infiltration of Western ideologies and countering the sway of extremist dogmas.¹¹

In the realm of indigenization, the endeavor encompasses several facets: (1) the establishment of self-governing and self-supporting ecclesiastical structures; (2) a cultural exploration of the interplay between Christianity and traditional cultural elements; (3) an artistic enrichment of Christianity’s integration with culture through innovations in domains such as music, literature, visual arts, rituals, and architecture; and (4) a social contemplation of the interrelationship between Christianity and societal contexts, particularly those pertaining to socio-cultural transformation.¹²

Evidently, the main drive of Zhongguohua centers around “guiding” religious teachings towards alignment with socialist foundational values, underscored by a heightened focus on reinforcing ideological “guardrails” and mechanisms for “resisting” external influences. In 2021, Xi further expanded upon these requisites, urging the religious community to strengthen its commitment to “patriotism, collectivism and socialism,” while also advocating for an augmented learning about the history of CPC, the PRC, reform and opening up, and the development of socialism. This directive serves to intensify adherents’ commitment to “our country, the Chinese nation, and the Chinese culture, and to support the CPC, and socialism with Chinese characteristics.”¹³

Undoubtedly, the discourse on the Zhongguohua of religions also engages with “Chinese culture,” wherein the notion of cultural “permeation” within religious paradigms is more closely aligned with the cultural, ritualistic, and artistic dimensions inherent in efforts of indigenization. However, upon comprehensive analysis of the broader scope of discourse surrounding Zhongguohua, it emerges that the propagation of traditional Chinese cultural elements should not be viewed in isolation from the recent official exhortations for the “revitalization of the Chinese nation.” The central thrust lies in the premise that the cultural facets of religion, within the Zhongguohua paradigm, should significantly contribute to the overarching rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. Conversely, indigenization, in addition to fostering “seeking the common ground,” accentuates the need to critically supplement the limitations inherent in traditional culture within the realm of this common ground. Instances from history, such as the “harmonization with Confucianism (he ru, 合儒)” and the “complementing to Confucianism (bu ru, 补儒)” theories articulated by late Ming and late Qing missionaries, such as Matteo Ricci, James Legge and Young J. Allen, serve as poignant illustrations of this approach.¹⁴

On Essence: What?

The divergences in purpose and content underscore their intrinsic disparities. In actuality, Zhongguohua transcends the ambit of merely fostering a culturally congruent manifestation that aligns with Chinese cultural norms or the “Sinicization” (which is sometimes translated to hanhua漢化) of religious paradigms. As expounded by Xi, “both native religions and foreign religions must consistently adapt to the evolutionary trajectory and progress of our society, infusing the spirit of the times, thereby catalyzing religious harmony, social cohesion, and national unity.”¹⁵ At its core, the essence of Zhongguohua is germane not solely to foreign religions (such as Catholicism and Protestantism), but it extends to indigenous faiths (like Taoism and Sinicized Buddhism) and ethnic religious practices (such as Islam and Tibetan Buddhism). In the event that religions deeply entrenched within local cultures necessitate alignment with Zhongguohua principles, it follows that the political identification with the PRC emerges as the absolute value.¹⁶ Functioning as a religious theory emblematic of the contemporary era, the Zhongguohua of religions signifies a “from above” enterprise that synergizes religious ideologies with the core values of socialism.¹⁷

In contrast, deliberations within the realm of Chinese Christianity concerning indigenization lack a centralized driving impetus, instead unveiling an array of disparate “from below” voices.¹⁸ Some stakeholders underscore the importance of identifying commonalities between Christianity and traditional cultural elements, while others accentuate inherent contradictions between Christian doctrines and cultural paradigms, contending that the rejuvenation and salvation offered by Christianity are imperative for Chinese culture. Naturally, apprehensions arise that indigenization might inadvertently distort the fundamental essence of Christianity, leading to religious syncretism. A review of the history of modern Chinese Christianity reveals a tapestry of internal diversity and even antithetical perspectives on the question of indigenization. Ultimately, within the context of the interface between religion and culture, the delicate equilibrium between “relevance” and “uniqueness” engenders an enduring and constructive internal tension.

Tasks and Challenges

In summation, it is imperative to acquire a comprehensive understanding of the distinctions separating Zhongguohua and indigenization, refraining from conflating the two, even when they manifest certain semblances at specific levels.

After the Cultural Revolution, the Chinese Church rose from the ashes and continued to grow despite various constraints. Today, although Christians still account for a relatively low proportion of the Chinese population, Christianity is no longer a “foreign religion” of the past, from the perspective of either Chinese Christian history or social reality, but instead, it has become a religion rooted in local society.¹⁹

Reflecting on the dissemination of Christianity within Chinese societies, the central aim of indigenization lies in the endeavor to “seek and elucidate the significance of Christianity for human beings living within an ever-changing cultural landscape.”²⁰ How Christianity perceives its current circumstances, particularly in relation to its comprehension of the people embedded within this context, alongside the relevance of the principles of the Kingdom of God at this critical juncture, assumes paramount significance. These queries cast the spotlight on the enduring responsibilities that the Church is entrusted with, as it grapples with the vicissitudes of time.

*For the full Chinese version, please refer to Newsletter of the Research Center for Chinese Christianity, Chung Yuan Christian University 18 (September 2023): 1-4.

1. Editor’s note: Xi Jinping referenced the notion of “Zhongguohua” in relation to religious matters on at least three separate occasions during speeches delivered at the Central United Front Work and National Religious Work Conferences between 2015 and 2022. These include the Central United Front Work Conference (May 18-20, 2015), the National Religious Work Conference (April 23, 2016), and another Central Conference on United Front Work (July 30, 2022).
2. Sumiko Yamamoto, History of Protestantism in China: the Indigenization of Christianity (Tokyo: Tōhō Gakkai Institute of Eastern Culture, 2000).
3. V. C. Hart, “The Native Ministry,” Chinese Recorder XVII, no. 12 (December 1886): 473.
4. Editorial Committee, The Chinese Church as Revealed in the National Christian Conference (Shanghai: The Oriental Press, 1922), 502.
5. Stephen Bevans, Models of Contextual Theology (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1992).
6. Editor’s note: Refer to the official records of the 18th National United Front Work Conference, 1993; and subsequent CPC documents on religious affairs.
7. Ying Fuk-tsang邢福增, “Mutual Adaptation to Socialism: TSPM and Church-State Relations,” in Concilium: International Review of Theology 2008, no. 2 (June): 71-87.
8. 〈習近平論民族及宗教工作（2015年）〉[Xi Jinping on Ethnic and Religious Work (2015)], 學習強國學習平台 [Xuexi Qiangguo], November 16, 2018, accessed January 12, 2025, https://www.xuexi.cn/lgpage/detail/index.html?id=10801265639896748920.
9. Wu Liming吳利明, 〈從文化層面探討本色化問題〉[Exploring the Issue of Indigenization from a Cultural Perspective]，《文藝》[Literature and Art], 3 (September 1982): 13.
10. See notes 6 above.
11. See notes 6 above.
12. See notes 7 above.
13. “Religions in China Should Conform to China’s Realities,” December 3, 2021, in Xi Xinping: The Governance of China VI, Qiushi, accessed January 18 2025, http://en.qstheory.cn/2023-07/24/c_904585.htm.
14. John D. Young, Confucianism and Christianity: The First Encounter (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1983).
15. Xi Jinping習近平, 〈深入推進我國宗教中國化〉[Deepening the Sinicization of Religion in China], edited by 中共中央文獻編委會 [Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on Literature and Documentation], 《習近平著作選讀》 [Selected Readings of Xi Jinping’s Works] 2 (Beijing: Renmin Chubanshe, 2022), 566.
16. Yang Fenggang楊鳳崗, “Sinicization or Chinafication? Cultural Assimilation vs. Political Domestication of Christianity in China and Beyond,” in The Sinicization of Chinese Religions: From Above and Below, edited by Richard Madsen (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2021), 16-43.
17. Richard Madsen, “Introduction,” in The Sinicization of Chinese Religions: From Above and Below, 1-4.
18. Madsen, “Introduction,” 1-4.
19. Ying Fuk-tsang 邢福增, “Christianity in China,” in Routledge Research Encyclopedia of Chinese Studies, Chinese Religion and Philosophy Section, ed. Lu Zhouxiang (London: Routledge, 2024), 11, published online 28 June 2024, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367565152-RECHS33-1.
20. See notes 6 above, 20.