What Is the Significance of the “Sinicization of Christianity”?

In recent years, the Sinicization of Christianity (as part of the “Sinicization of Religions”), as an important requirement from the Chinese leadership and an official directive from the United Front Work Department of the Communist Party of China (CPC) and its religious bureaus at all levels (formerly the “State Administration for Religious Affairs” and Ethnic and Religious Affairs Bureau in all provinces and cities), has become not only the focus of work for the Christian churches throughout China, but also a topic of discussion in Chinese religious studies.¹

The authorities’ demand was driven by the strategic concern over religious influence of “hostile forces from the West” and the political need for nationalist-statist ideology. The churches’ response was driven by the social condition of “politics’ domination over religion,” which was rooted in the Chinese tradition and has been further reinforced since 1949 when the People’s Republic of China was founded.

What distinguishes the current situation is the unprecedented intensity of the authorities’ demands and the corresponding efforts by the church. This time, the resources and energy invested by the churches, along with the visible—though often superficial—outcomes, have reached unparalleled levels. At the same time, the related academics’ engagement with the topic in line with the above direction is more evident than ever, as they have found that it is relatively easy to get governmental funding for research on “Sinicization” in the direction and to publish related essays in academic journals.²

What, then, is, the significance of the proposition “Christianity should be Sinicized” (the meaning of “Sinicization of Christianity”), from the perspective of religious studies (including philosophy and history of religion)?

We can first examine it from the perspective of theory or concept.

The demand for the “nationalization” or “ethnicization” of religions should not entail transforming religions into something non-religious or requiring them to renounce the very essence that defines them. In other words, it is not a call for the “de-religionization” of religion. Just as every entity has its own essence (i.e., those fundamental qualities that, if lost, will strip it of its unique identity), so too does religion. To demand that a religion relinquish its essence is as absurd and impossible as asking a chicken to become a duck.

Similarly, the call for the “nationalization” or “ethnicization” of a specific religion should not demand that it transform into another religion or abandon its core teachings. Every religion possesses an intrinsic essence, expressed through its fundamental doctrines, that distinguishes it from other religions. These teachings cannot simply be renounced. For instance, the Sinicization of Buddhism does not imply that Buddhism should become Taoism. Likewise, the Sinicization of Islam and Christianity does not suggest that they should morph into Buddhism or Taoism.

So, what does it mean for a religion to be “nationalized” or “ethnicized” (and for any religion to be “Sinicized”)? From the perspective of religious studies, all religions consist of intangible ideological concepts and emotional experiences rooted in a belief system. These intangible elements require tangible expressions, such as behavioral practices and organizational structures, with language serving as the backbone.³ The intangible elements are intrinsic, inherent, and relatively stable, and do not change due to external forces. In contrast, the tangible elements—external, subordinate, and more variable—are shaped by external circumstances. The former embodies the inner essence of the religion, which, if transformed to a certain extent, would fundamentally change the religion itself. The latter, however, pertains to the external form of the religion. When adjusted and adapted to meet the needs of a specific social environment, these external elements can facilitate the smoother spread and development of the religion within that context.

Therefore, the “nationalization” or “ethnicization” of a religion does not mean transforming it into another religion or abandoning its spiritual faith and essential content. Instead, it just means taking on the related nation’s (or ethnic group’s) expressive forms, first language, then arts and various cultural forms, and behavioral practices and organizational structures pertaining to the local environment. However, it is vitally important to remember that form must serve content—forms such as language and the arts are merely means of religion, while spiritual faith alone is its ultimate purpose.

In this way, the “Sinicization” movement, which embraces the Chinese language, arts (including painting, sculpture, architecture and music), and other cultural expressions—without necessarily rejecting foreign influences—should be understood as a means rather than an end. It does not serve as the ultimate end of a religion but enables it to thrive and develop more effectively. This is the broader significance of the “Sinicization” of any religion, including Christianity.

However, we can identify different answers to this question, from the perspective of history or facts.

Firstly, since the dawn of civilization, every religion has emerged in the cultural milieu of a certain ethnic group or nation. Most religions have naturally expressed themselves through the cultural forms of their place of origin. Their languages, arts and other expressions have often been characterized by the national features of their context. For the majority of these religions, which remain confined to their home countries, there is little need to advocate for “nationalization” or “ethnicization,” as they have been inherently “nationalized” or “ethnicized”. For example, it is meaningless to call for “Sinicization” of Taoism, for “Japanization” of Shintoism or for “Indianization” of Hinduism. Scholars of religion often categorize these religions as “national or ethnic religions” as opposed to “world religions”.

Of course, if some religions in this category begin to spread beyond their original borders, with some new ideas or circumstances due to the changes of history, they would require a degree of “domestication” or “transformation.” However, this process is not a matter of “nationalization,” but on the contrary, involves a form of “foreignization.” Therefore, only by embracing the cultural forms of the target society or target nation can these religions successfully spread and establish themselves. For instance, Hinduism and Tibetan Buddhism, when disseminated beyond their homelands, have had to incorporate aspects of foreign cultures, lifestyles and languages, such as English, to facilitate their spread.

Secondly, another category of religions in the history of civilization—the “world religions,” as opposed to “national religions”—also emerged within the cultural context of specific nations. However, driven by their universal beliefs or concepts, these religions aspire to spread globally. The so-called “three great world religions”—Christianity, Buddhism, and Islam—are prime examples. With this purpose, from their inception, these religions have sought to transcend the cultural and geographical limitations of their origins, such as Judea, Kapilvastu and Arabia. They (to different extents) incorporated the cultural characteristics of their target nations, adapting their language, arts and even explanations of doctrines to the target populations. This adaption has enabled them to achieve remarkable success in foreign contexts, not only spreading across the world but also becoming integral to the cultures and national identities of the regions they reached. In essence, the process of “nationalization” in the countries to which they spread has been both a necessity and a natural outcome. Consequently, asking these religions to “nationalize” themselves is redundant, as they have consistently pursued, realized, and kept continuing to achieve such a goal, as part of their global expansion. For them, such a demand holds little practical significance.

This fact is particularly evident in the case of the “Sinicization of Christianity.” From its first documented entry into China during the reign of Emperor Taizong in the Tang Dynasty (7th century CE), Christianity demonstrated a remarkable degree of active and conscious adaptationto Chinese culture. This is evident in various aspects, such as its Chinese name, “Jingjiao (meaning Bright Teaching),” the designation of its places of worship as “si (temples),” and the creation of artifacts like the Jingjiao Stele (also known as the Nestorian Stele), which recorded the spread of early Chinese Christianity from the Da Qin (or Roman Empire). The Stele’s “Ode” and “Preface” reflected an emphasis on harmony between church and state. Additionally, many of the Jingjiao literature from that period employed Buddhist and Taoist terminology. All of these showcased the high level of Sinicization of Christianity at that time. Emperor Taizong announced this teaching (Christianity) as “benevolent and beneficial to people and suitable for the whole world,” highlighting its level of acceptance within Chinese society. Scholars of religion have also noted that during Emperor Wuzong’s anti-Buddhist campaign, Christianity was confused and grouped with Buddhism and suffered similar persecution—this is further evidence of its deep cultural integration with Chinese traditions.

During the late Ming and early Qing dynasties (17th century CE) when Christianity began to take root in Chinese society, Matteo Ricci and other Jesuits, who represented the highest achievement of missionaries at that time, followed a radical “Sinicization” policy––they not only took on Confucian robes and spoke Chinese, but also learned Confucian and other Chinese classics and introduced them to the West; not only opposed the “anti-Sinicization” direction from the Pontiff, but also made all efforts to express Christian concepts in Chinese terms; even today’s Chinese scholars imbued with traditional literature would highly admire the beautiful style of those missionaries’ works in classical Chinese.    

From the nineteenth century to the present, the “Sinicization” of Christianity in China has been much more evident in various ways. It is reflected in the collaborative efforts between foreign missionaries and Chinese locals to translate the Bible into Chinese and the countless Christian works written by native literati and scholars in Chinese language. It can also be seen in the involvement of missionaries in the Western Affairs Movement⁴ and the Hundred Day’s Reform, as well as the significant contributions of Chinese Christian elites in politics, business and culture to various aspects of Chinese society—science and technology, education and scholarship, medicine and public health, journalism and publishing, philanthropy and social services, and so on. Moreover, the advocacy by both Chinese and foreign church leaders for a “self-reliant” Chinese church and the eventual establishment of the “three-self” principles (self-governance, self-support, and self-propagation) marks further milestones in this process. All these efforts and achievements have showcased that the “Sinicization” of Christianity in China has already been fully realized.

All in all, today’s Chinese Christians are mostly ordinary Chinese people who have grown up in China and are immersed in Chinese culture. Most of them have very little knowledge of foreign languages and cultures. Their Christianity has endured over 1,300 years of history in China, weathering many challenges and undergoing a long course of “assimilation.” For much of history, Christianity in China has been largely isolated from the outside world. All of this raises a question: Do Chinese Christians today need more “Sinicization,” or would they benefit more from “going out and inviting in”—fostering broader and deeper exchanges with their brothers and sisters around the world?

Of course, the conclusions drawn here are from academic, religious, and historical perspectives. Perhaps from a political standpoint, the “Sinicization of Christianity” may carry its own significant and practical implications, but that lies beyond the scope of this essay.

Editor’s note: This article was originally written in Chinese and has been translated and edited by the ChinaSource team with the author’s permission and approval.

近年以来，同各种不同宗教都要“中国化”的口号一样，“基督教中国化”，作为中国领导的官方要求，作为中国共产党各级统战部及其宗教管理机构（以往各级政府的“宗教事务管理局”或“民宗局”）的重要要求，不但变成了全中国基督教界的工作重心，而且变成了宗教学界的论说主题。^[1]

当局的要求，是出于反对西方“敌对势力”宗教影响的战略考虑，以及民族-国权主义（national-statist）意识形态的政治需要；教会的反应，是由于来自传统又胜过传统的“政主教从”(political domination over religions)的社会环境——自1949年以来，一直如此。但是这一次，一方面“上级”要求的力度空前加大，教会也不得不尽最大力量做出响应，以至于时间、空间、金钱、精力的投入和看得见的表面成果，都是前所未有；另一方面，学术界的“跟风”响应，也是前所未有地明显，因为事实表明，按照上面的“导向”研究中国化的课题，更容易获得政府资助，以中国化为题又符合“导向”的文章，更容易获得杂志刊登^[2]。

那么，从宗教学（包括宗教哲学和宗教史学）的角度来看，“基督教中国化”这个命题，意义何在？

先从理论上或概念上来看。

要求宗教“某国化”或“某族化”，应该不是要求宗教转化成某种不是宗教的东西，不是要求宗教放弃自身之所以为宗教的本质，即不是要求宗教“非宗教化”。因为，正如任何事物都有自身的本质（即舍之则丧失与他物之区别，则不再成其为自身的那些基本性质），宗教亦然；所以，如果是要求宗教“化”成非宗教，那就同要求鸡变成鸭一样，既荒谬，又不可能。

同理，要求某种宗教“某国化”或“某族化”，应该不是要求该宗教转化成别的宗教，不是要求该宗教放弃自身之所以为该宗教的本质，即不是要求它放弃它的基本教义。因为，任何宗教都有区别于其他宗教的本质，体现为其所特有而不可放弃的基本教义；所以，正如要求佛教中国化，不是要求佛教变成道教，同样，要求伊斯兰教和基督宗教中国化，也不是要求他们变成佛教或道教。

那么，某一宗教“某国化”或“某族化”（以及任何宗教的“中国化”）是什么意思呢？从宗教学角度来看，任何宗教都有以信仰为核心的无形的思想观念、情感体验，都需要以语言为主干的有形的行为活动、组织制度等予以表达^[3]。那些无形的要素是内在的、固有的、相对稳定的，不因外部的强力而改变；而那些有形的要素是外在的、附随的、较易变化的，会因外在的环境而改变。前者体现该宗教的内在本质，如其“转化”到某种程度，该宗教就不再是该宗教了；后者只是该宗教的外在形式，如其“转化”而适应了某种社会环境的需要，该宗教反而可以更加顺利地在那个环境中得到传播、得到发展。

所以，某一宗教的“某国化”或“某族化”，意思既然不是变成别的宗教，不是放弃自身的信仰精神或本质内容，就应该是采用该国该族的表达形式，包括语言、艺术以及适应环境的行为活动和组织制度等形式。然而不能忘记，形式是为内容服务的，作为内容的信仰精神是目的，作为形式的语言艺术等等是手段。所以，在不排斥外来文化形式的心态下，大力倡导采用中国的语言、艺术（包括绘画、雕塑、建筑、音乐等）和其他中国文化形式的“中国化”运动，应该是手段而非目的，更不是各宗教的终极目的；这种运动可以服务于、有助于相关宗教的传扬和发展。这就是任何一种宗教“中国化”的意义所在；“基督教中国化”的意义，也在于此。

再从历史上或事实上来看。

第一，文明时代以来，所有的宗教都产生于某个民族（或国家）的文化环境之中。其中大多数宗教一直采用所出自的国家或民族的文化形式来表达自身，其语言和艺术等等一直具有所出自的国族之特性，传播范围和基本信众也主要是该国族。对这些留在本国的多数宗教来说，倡言“该国化”或“该族化”没有意义，因为这些宗教本来就天然地“该国化”或“该族化”了。例如，要求道教“中国化”，同要求神道教“日本化”，或要求印度教“印度化”一样，确实毫无意义。宗教学界常常把这些宗教归类为“民族宗教”，而与“世界宗教”相对照。

当然，如果这类宗教随着时势变易，环境和观念都有变化，有了向外族外邦传播的趋势，那么，它们也会需要某种“化”，即“转化”。但那绝不是“本国化”，而是相反——它们必须在传播形式上进行某种程度的“外国化”，因为，只有采用传播对象国的文化形式（最重要的是其语言），它们的传播才能成功。所以，我们会发现离开了本土的印度教和西藏佛教，都不得不使用英语或其他外语，或多或少地采纳外国的生活方式或文化形式。

第二，文明史中的另一类宗教，即同“民族宗教”相对照的“世界宗教”，当然也产生于某一个国族的文化环境，但却出于其普世性的信仰或理念，志在“往普天下去”传扬自身，所谓“三大世界宗教”即基督教、佛教和伊斯兰教，都是如此。为此目的，它们从一开始就努力超越了原来极其狭小的国族（犹太、迦毗罗卫、阿拉伯）的局限和文化形式，从语言到艺术到教理解说，都不同程度地带上了传播对象的国族特性，从而让其传播在外国异邦得到了极大的成功，让其自身在世界上得到了极大的扩展，不但成了遍布世界各国的宗教，而且成了那些国族自己的宗教（至少是“自己的宗教之一”）。总之，它们在传播对象国的“该国化”，既是必须的、必然的、不得不然的，又是自然的、已然的，已经实现的，因此，要求它们“该国化”，等于要求它们去做它们总体上不但立志要做、不但已经做了、而且还在努力去做的事情，一般而言，实际上已经没有多大意义了。

就“基督教中国化”而言，这个事实特别明显。从公认的、有据可查的第一次进入中国，即从唐朝贞观年间开始，基督教就已经主动地、自觉地、非同寻常地“中国化”了——从其教名称为“景”，到其教堂称为“寺”，从“大秦景教流行中国碑”的“颂”和“序”均体现政教和谐，到大量景教文献使用佛道语言概念……都可以看到其“中国化”的程度之高。唐太宗诏曰此教“济物利人，宜行天下”，说明了其被中国接受的程度。学者们还发现，在唐武宗“灭佛”运动中，它竟被混同于佛教而遭受株连，这也反证了其中国化的程度。

基督宗教在汉族民众和汉文化中扎根的明末清初时代，曾经代表天主教传教成果的利玛窦等耶稣会士，更是采取了彻底的“中国化”方针。他们不但穿儒服戴儒冠，说中国话读中国书，而且认真学习中国古籍，将其介绍到西方世界；他们不但反对当时教廷的非中国化做法，而且努力采纳并运用地地道道的中国语词、中国概念来表达教义；他们著作的古文水平之高，足以令有传统文化修养又有自知之明的当代汉语作者自愧弗如！

19世纪到现在，从传教士与中国人合作翻译圣经为中文，到无数中国文人学者用中文宣教；从传教士参与中国的洋务运动、戊戌变法，到政界商界文化界等的基督徒精英对中国的科学技术、教育学术、医疗卫生、新闻出版、慈善事业以及社会其他领域的重大贡献；从中外教会人士提出中国教会应该“自立”、“三自”，到中国教会逐步完成“自立”、“三自”……所有这些，全都是基督教在中国已经实现了“中国化”的标志。

说到底，当今的中国基督徒，就是普通的中国人，他们生长在中国，浸润在中国文化之中，大多都不很了解外国的文化； 他们的基督教，在中国经历了一千三百多年的风雨和“同化”，而且大部分时间都在很大程度上与世隔绝……那么，他们更加需要的，是更多的“中国化”，还是更多的“走出去、请进来”，同世界各地兄弟姊妹更多的交流呢？

当然，这里所说，是从学术的、宗教的、历史的角度来看的结论。也许，从某种政治的角度来看，“基督教中国化”自有其重大的、现实的意义，不过，那已经超出本文论述的范围了。

1. During recent visits to churches in Guangzhou and in Wenzhou—including those directly and indirectly managed by the China Christian Council and the National Committee of the Three-Self Patriotic Movement (CCC&TSPM)—I observed forceful propaganda focusing on the “Sinicization of Christianity.” This was apparent in various ways, such as large slogans displayed in church courtyards and content on bulletin boards. The most prominent spaces were dedicated to showcasing related speeches by Party leader Xi. In fact, online photos frequently depict religious groups holding meetings to study the leader’s speeches and ceremonies of lifting national flag in temples of various religions, among which even Taoism, the native Chinese religion, is doing such “Sinicization of Religion.”
2. In China, private funding for research in the humanities and social sciences is very rare and difficult to operate, and academic journals require official approval to publish. Among state-funded programs in these fields, topics related to religion are quite limited; essays related Christianity in the scarce religious journals face even stricter censorship.
3. Cf. He Guanghu 何光滬, “Religion,” in A Dictionary of Religions, ed. Jiyu Ren (Shanghai: Shanghai Dictionary Press, 2009).
4. Editor’s note: “洋務運動, often called “the Self-Strengthening Movement” (自強運動), also known as the Westernization or Western Affairs Movement (c. 1861–1895), was a period of radical institutional reforms initiated in China during the late Qing dynasty following the military disasters of the Opium Wars.