“Seizing China’s Head and Spine”

The “Academic Trends” section of the 2011 second issue of *Science and Atheism* introduced the situation of a “Symposium on Strategies for Countering Religious Infiltration in Higher Education” held at Beijing Normal University. Having read it, I have some reflections to offer here, though I am unsure whether they are appropriate.

2011年第2期《科学与无神论》的“学术动态”，介绍了北京师范大学召开“宗教在高校渗透应对策略研讨会”的情况。读后有感，在此奉上，不知妥否?

The “Academic Trends” states: “At present, within the university sphere, the Chinese-language Christian theological movement has a broad influence; one manifestation is the promotion of the dissemination of non-ecclesiastical theology. This is generally regarded as an academic viewpoint and is not taken very seriously. There is also a new ‘religious market theory,’ which seeks to open China as a market to religion and opposes accepting state management according to law. Both of these fall within the scope of cultural missionization, and their impact is far more harmful than that of missionizing in rural areas.” [1]1 The original Chinese text uses a footnote marker ① here, which is retained in the translation as [1].

“学术动态”说：“目前在大学领域，汉语基督教神学运动影响广泛，表现之一是推动非教会神学传播。一般认为是一种学术观点，不很在意。还有一种新的‘宗教市场论’，要将中国作为一个市场对宗教开放，反对接受国家依法管理，这都属于文化传教的范围，它的影响比在农村传教的危害要大得多。”①

As universities founded by a socialist state, their basic task is to impart knowledge in every branch of science. In universities where conditions permit, teaching general knowledge about religion and enabling university students to understand what religion is, is very necessary. Nevertheless, this is still different from schools run by churches (seminaries, Buddhist academies, Islamic colleges, etc.). This is because the task of ordinary institutions of higher education is not to train religious professionals, or, in other words, not to train missionaries. Their task differs from that of church-run schools; each has its own function, and the two cannot substitute for each other. There is an essential distinction between treating religion as an object of subjective belief and treating it as an object of objective understanding and study. For universities, their task is by no means to “promote the dissemination of non-ecclesiastical theology” or to promote a “Chinese-language Christian theological movement.” Disseminating theology is the task of seminaries. Strictly speaking, popularizing religious knowledge is a completely different matter from disseminating theology and training “professional missionaries.”

作为社会主义国家创办的大学，它的基本任务是传授各门科学知识。在有条件的大学里，讲授一般宗教知识，让大学生了解什么是宗教，很有必要。但这毕竟与教会办的学校（神学院校、佛学院校、经学院校等）仍有区别。因为一般高校的任务不是培养宗教从业人员，或者说，不是培养传教士。它与教会学校的任务是各有所司，两者不能相互替代。把宗教视为主观信仰对象抑或是视为客观了解、研究对象，有着本质区别。对大学来说，它的任务决不是“推动非教会神学传播”，或是推动“汉语基督教神学运动”。传播神学是神学院的任务。严格说来，普及宗教知识与传播神学、培养“职业传教士”是两码事。

As I understand it, theology is a discipline that argues for the existence and creation of the world by a worshipped deity (God…). In a word, it is theism as opposed to atheism. Whether it is ecclesiastical theology or non-ecclesiastical theology, its object is theism, and what it opposes is precisely atheism. The only possible differences among those engaged in such activities lie in their identity, occupation, status, etc. Among them, some may be full-time missionaries, some may be part-time missionaries, some may be laypeople without clerical office who are enthusiastic about voluntary missionizing, and some may be “cultural Christians,” as the “Academic Trends” puts it, who have this or that background or identity. The forms, objects, and methods of their propaganda, dissemination, and interpretation may differ, but the purpose of their claims, sermons, and discourses is one and the same. In contemporary society, especially the latter category differs from the first two in identity, occupation, and status. The first three have clear religious beliefs; ordinary people may keep a certain distance from them. The fact that recently in some public places, believers have been distributing pamphlets, and not everyone is willing to accept their propaganda materials, illustrates this point. The latter may be believers or may have no faith, but in propagating theism, they are more capable of attracting and deceiving people. In many places, especially in institutions of higher learning, they can play a role that missionaries find difficult to achieve. On the surface, they often create new formulations, theories, concepts, etc., which seem to “fall within the scope of cultural missionization”; in essence, they are still arguing and preaching for the existence and creation of the world by God, and are in fact no different from the evangelical preaching of missionaries, serving, defending, and promoting the cause of theistic belief.

就个人的理解，神学是为论证所信奉的神灵（上帝……）存在、创世的一门学科。一句话，它是相对于无神论而言的有神论。无论教会神学还是非教会神学，它的对象都是有神论，而其反对的正是无神论。只是从事这类活动的人的身份、职业、地位……，可能有所不同而已。其中，有的可能是专职的传教士，有的可能是兼职的传教士，有的可能并无神职而热衷于从事义务传教的俗人，有的可能具有这样那样背景或身份的、“学术动态”中所说的“文化基督徒”。他们宣传、传播、阐释……的形式、对象、方法可能有所不同，但其主张、说教、论述……的目的则同一无二。在当今社会中，特别是后一类人的身份、职业、地位……与前两者有别，前三者有着明确的宗教信仰，对于一般老百姓来说，可能会与之保持一定的距离；最近在一些公共场所，有教徒在散发小册子，并非人人都愿意接受其宣传品就说明了这一点。后者可能是教徒，也可能无信仰，但在传播有神论方面，他们却更能吸引人、迷惑人，在很多地方，特别是在高等学府，可以起到传教士难以起到的作用。表面上，他们往往创造出一种新的说法、理论、概念……，似乎是“属于文化传教的范围”；本质上，仍然是为上帝的存在、创世论证、说教，实际上与传教士的宣教布道无异，是在为有神论的信仰服务、辩护、张目。

The kind of rhetoric that treats religion as a commodity and advocates opening the religious market is undoubtedly creating public opinion for the disorderly development of religion within the country. Just as allowing vendors to hawk their wares through the streets and alleys, set up stalls anywhere on the streets, or even advocate that they sell all kinds of counterfeit and shoddy goods, it reflects a mentality of being anxious to promote and even worried that religion cannot be sold. It should be said that religion as a commodity being peddled everywhere by missionaries is nothing new. In Shanghai in the 1930s, this was indeed the case. At that time, foreign missionaries hired a few people to play music and beat drums on the streets to attract passersby. They would place a chair by the roadside, and the crowd of onlookers would grow larger and larger. Then the foreign missionary would appear, holding a megaphone, stand on the chair, and begin to preach. In coordination with the missionary’s preaching, those hired would distribute colored pictures of various sizes among the crowd. Some pictures printed the image of Jesus nailed to the cross, some showed Mary holding a baby (clearly Jesus), some depicted several gorgeously dressed people standing reverently before a manger, and some showed a shepherd in a robe holding a long staff beside a flock of sheep… The captions on the pictures told stories from the Bible. Out of curiosity, young children and adolescents would often ask for and collect these pictures. During the missionary’s sermon, the gathered crowd came and went; when the missionary finished speaking, the listeners would disperse in all directions. However, after liberation, it is in fact no longer possible to open the religious market again and allow foreign missionaries to peddle their commodities as they did before liberation.

那种把宗教视为商品，主张开放宗教市场的论调，无疑是为宗教在国内的无序发展制造舆论。正如允许商贩可以走街串巷，在大街小巷随地设摊，或是主张他们贩卖各种伪劣商品一样，反映的是为宗教卖不出去而急于推销、甚而为之发愁的心态。应该说，宗教作为一种商品，由传教士四处推销，并不是什么新鲜事。20世纪30年代，在上海确实如此。那时，洋教士雇几个人在大街上吹吹打打，吸引来往过路行人。他们在街边放把椅子，看热闹的人会越聚越多。这时，洋教士登场，他手里拿着话筒，站在椅子上，开始传教。配合洋教士传教，那些受雇者就人前人后散发大小不一的彩色图片。有的图片印的是钉在十字架上的耶稣像，有的是玛利亚抱着婴儿（显然是耶稣），有的是在马厩前站着几个毕恭毕敬而又穿着华丽者，有的是在羊群边有个手持长杖穿着长袍的牧羊人……。图片上的说明，讲的是《圣经》里的故事。出于好奇的少年稚子，往往会索取、收集这类图片。洋教士宣讲过程中，聚集的民众来来往往，等洋教士讲完，听讲的人也就一哄而散。可是，在解放后再想开放宗教市场，让洋教士像解放前那样，推销他们的商品，事实上已无可能。

Today, for those with devout faith, going to temples and churches to practice religion is for the sake of obtaining spiritual satisfaction and psychological needs. They make offerings (including some alms) to temples and churches, considering it a good deed and an act of accumulating merit, without any further thoughts or justifications. If one were to use some “profound” “market theory” to reduce religion to a commodity, and going to temples and churches is like going to the morning market to buy tofu and cabbage or to the department store to buy clothes, hats, and shoes, these religious believers would clearly consider it a denigration and desecration of their faith.

今天，对那些有着虔诚信仰的人们来说，信仰宗教，到寺院教堂去，为的是求得心灵上的满足，精神上的需要。他们向寺院教堂有所奉献（甚至包括一些施舍），认为是一种善行，在履行功德，并没有其他什么更多的想法或说词。如果用什么“高深”的“市场论”，把宗教归咎于商品，到寺院教堂去如同到早市去买豆腐、白菜或是到商场去买衣帽、鞋袜一样，这些宗教信仰者显然会认为是在贬损、糟蹋他们的信仰。

Historically, from ancient times to the present, religion has always had a close relationship with the economy. Without the economy, religion cannot survive for a single day. In ancient times, temples were regarded as “sacred banks,” the dwelling places of the gods of wealth. For devout male and female believers, going to the temple could bring them blessings and satisfy their spiritual needs; at the same time, they were happy to make offerings to the temple for the spiritual satisfaction they obtained, which brought economic benefits to the temple. The priests who served the temple profited from this. If religion is treated as a commodity, then these ancient temples and priests become the sellers, and it goes without saying that those devout male and female believers are the buyers. Interpreting religious behavior in this way and saying that religion is a commodity has no novelty. Using some “religious market theory” to explain an extremely simple principle is nothing more than causing young people who are knowledgeable, educated, but inexperienced in the world to fall into the trap of its “market theory” under the name of the sociology of religion, to be influenced spiritually, and to become captives of its logic.

从历史上来看，从古至今，宗教都与经济有着密切的关系。宗教离开经济，一天也活不下去。在古代，神庙被视为“神圣的银行”，是财富之神居住的场所。对那些善男信女来说，到神庙去，可以保佑他们、满足他们精神生活的需要；同时，也为心灵上获得满足而乐意向神庙奉献，这就为神庙带来经济上的好处。那些侍奉神庙的祭司，则从中获利受益。如果把宗教作为一种商品，这一古代的神庙和祭司也就成为卖方，不言而喻的是，那些善男信女就是买方。这样解释宗教行为，说宗教是一种商品，也就没有什么新意了。用什么“宗教市场论”来说明极其简单的道理，无外乎是让那些有知识、有文化而涉世不深的年轻人，在宗教社会学的名义下，堕入其“市场论”的陷阱，在精神上受其影响，成为它的逻辑的俘虏。

As for those who “oppose accepting state management according to law” of religion, this probably does not reflect the thinking of ordinary religious believers within the religious circles. It reflects the expectations and views of overseas churches, or, more precisely, the views of that part of overseas churches that still hold the views of the early missionaries who invaded China. At present, it is nothing more than transmitting and peddling their commodities through domestic mouthpieces or agents.

至于“反对接受国家依法管理”宗教的人，这可能不是宗教界一般的信教民众的思想。它反映的是境外教会的期望和观点，或者说，是境外教会中那部分仍然持有早年侵华的传教士的观点。当前，它无外乎是通过境内的传声筒或代理人而在传递、推销其商品而已。

The “Academic Trends” states: “In a certain contemporary Chinese university, an overseas theologian was actually hired to teach a long-term course on the *Bible*. In such an atmosphere, some doctoral students later became devout believers and professional missionaries.” [2]2 The original Chinese text uses a footnote marker ② here, which is retained in the translation as [2]. “A university press accepted a missionary’s recommendation to translate and publish a book opposing Darwinian evolution and advocating ‘creationism,’ which was in fact disseminating evangelical doctrine.” [3]3 The original Chinese text uses a footnote marker ③ here, which is retained in the translation as [3].

“学术动态”说：“当代中国某高校，竟然聘请海外神学家长期开课，讲授《圣经》。在这样的氛围中，有些博士生后来成为虔诚信徒和职业传教士。”②“有大学出版社接受传教士的推荐，翻译出版反达尔文进化论和提倡‘神创论’的书，实际是传播福音派的教义。”③

As everyone knows, modern Christianity was introduced to China in the 19th century along with imperialist invasion. Reviewing history helps people to recognize the seriousness of the problem more clearly.

众人皆知，近代基督教是在19世纪伴随着帝国主义的入侵而传入中国的。重温历史，有助于人们更清晰地认识到问题的严重性。

In 1887, the missionary to China William Muirhead and the Englishman Robert Hart, who controlled the Chinese Maritime Customs Service, founded the “Tungwen Hui” (同文学会) in Shanghai. Hart served as chairman of the board, and Muirhead as general secretary. The “Tungwen Hui” was a publishing organ established by Western Christian churches in China. The books it published were intended to introduce “Western learning” and propagate Christianity, with the aim of “spreading the learning of the Western nations in China.” Muirhead, then general secretary, wrote in a letter: “The motive for establishing this organization was to ideologically ‘disarm the Chinese people and make them prostrate themselves at our feet.’” [4]4 William Muirhead (1822–1900), a British Protestant missionary with the London Missionary Society, worked in China for over 50 years. Robert Hart (1835–1911) served as the second Inspector-General of China’s Imperial Maritime Customs Service from 1863 to 1911. The “Tungwen Hui” (同文学会) was a Christian publishing house; its name was later changed to the Society for the Diffusion of Christian and General Knowledge Among the Chinese (广学会). After Muirhead’s death, Timothy Richard succeeded him as general secretary of the “Tungwen Hui.” In 1892 (or, according to some accounts, 1894), the “Tungwen Hui” was renamed the “Society for the Diffusion of Christian and General Knowledge Among the Chinese” (广学会). In 1899, Richard wrote in a letter to the British Consul-General in Shanghai, Brenan, even more bluntly: “I consider it a very important subject to reconsider how we are to control Chinese public opinion; how to obtain more control over the principal higher educational institutions in China. If we control these institutions and the leaders of China’s religious circles, we will have seized China’s head and backbone.” [5]5 Timothy Richard (1845–1919), a British Baptist missionary, was a leading figure in the Society for the Diffusion of Christian and General Knowledge Among the Chinese. The letter is cited from Chinese secondary sources.

1887年，来华传教士韦廉臣与控制中国海关的英国人赫德在上海创办“同文学会”。赫德任董事长，韦廉臣任总干事。“同文学会”是西方基督教会在中国设立的出版机构。它出版的图书，为的是介绍“西学”和传播基督教，以“广西国之学于中国”为宗旨。时任总干事的韦廉臣在一封信中说：“设立这个组织的动机，是要在思想上‘解除中国人的武装，使他们俯伏在我们的脚下’”④。韦廉臣去世后，李提摩太继任“同文学会”总干事。1892年（一说1894年）“同文学会”更名为“广学会”。1899年，李提摩太在给上海英国总领事布仁南的信中，更为露骨地说：“我认为十分重要的课题是重新考虑我们如何控制中国舆论；如何对中国的主要高等教育学府取得更多的管理权的问题。掌握了这些机关和中国宗教界领袖，我们就抓住了中国的脑袋和脊背。”⑤

The letters of Muirhead and Richard were written at the end of the 19th century. At that time, China was in a semi-colonial and semi-feudal position, and popular resistance to foreign invasion never ceased. Apart from using guns and cannons to slaughter the Chinese people, the aggressors had no secret weapon for disarming the Chinese people and seizing their heads and backbones; their sole means was to use missionaries to peddle their faith. It can be said that the corrupt Qing government at the time could only be carved up at will and was powerless to act against the missionary activities of Western missionaries. Moreover, the preaching and proselytizing of Western Christian churches enjoyed the protection of extraterritoriality, and Christianity spread under a green light.

韦廉臣和李提摩太的书信，是在19世纪末写的。当时，中国正处于殖民地半殖民地的地位，民间的反抗外来入侵的活动从未中止。除了用枪炮屠杀中国人民外，用什么来解除中国人的武装，用什么来抓住中国人的脑袋和脊背，侵略者并没有什么秘密武器，唯一的手段就是利用传教士来推销他们的信仰。可以说，当时腐败的清政府，只能任人宰割，对西方传教士的传教活动难有作为。加之，西方基督教会的宣教布道，有着治外法权的庇护，基督教是在一路绿灯下传播的。

The Kuomintang did not change the semi-colonial and semi-feudal nature of the country. By this time, Marxist-Leninist and scientific socialist ideas had already begun to spread in China. In 1921, the Communist Party of China was founded in response to the needs of the times. It shouldered the historical mission of changing China’s backwardness.

国民党并没有改变国家的殖民地半殖民地的社会性质。这时，马列主义、科学社会主义思想在中国已经获得了传播。1921年中国共产党应运而生。它肩负着改变中国落后面貌的历史使命。

On the eve of the nationwide liberation, in January 1949, John Leighton Stuart, the former U.S. ambassador to China who had been a missionary, telegraphed the U.S. State Department: “Nowadays, thoughtful Chinese are all influenced by the new doctrine… Therefore, if the Christian Bible can be widely distributed, it will inevitably have incalculable value.” [6]6 John Leighton Stuart (1876–1962), an American missionary and educator, served as U.S. Ambassador to China from 1946 to 1949. The telegram is cited from Chinese secondary sources. In March of the same year, John R. Mott, president of the World Council of Churches, planned to solicit 500,000 members for the American Bible Society, attempting to use the Bible to counter the revolutionary ideas already circulating in China. He said: “The Bible not only continues to play a major role in leading people to Christ, but now it has also acquired a political value, namely, that it can serve as a fortress against a worldview based on atheism that is about to sweep the globe.” [7]7 John R. Mott (1865–1955), an American Methodist lay leader and evangelist, was a key figure in the YMCA and the World Council of Churches. The statement is cited from Chinese secondary sources. The “new doctrine” Stuart referred to was undoubtedly Marxism-Leninism. The “worldview based on atheism” Mott spoke of was the atheism and socialist ideas already circulating worldwide.

在全国解放前夕，1949年1月，曾任驻华大使的传教士司徒雷登，在给美国国务院的电报中说：“现在有思想的中国人都受到新主义的影响……因此基督教的圣经如果能广泛推销，必能有不可预测的价值。”⑥ 同年3月，世界基督教协进会会长穆德拟为美国圣经会征求50万会员，企图利用《圣经》来对抗当时在国内已经流传的革命思想。他说：“圣经不但继续在引人归主上起着重大作用，而且现在又增加了一种政治价值，那就是它可以作为一个堡垒来对抗一种行将席卷全球而基于无神的人生观。”⑦ 司徒雷登所说的“新主义”，无疑指的是马克思列宁主义。穆德所说的“无神的人生观”，就是在世界范围内已经流传的无神论和社会主义思想。

Clearly, these foreign missionaries adopted a hostile and fearful attitude toward Marxism-Leninism and the Chinese revolution, vainly hoping to use the “wide distribution” of “their Christian Bible” to resist the spread of atheism and socialist ideas. They emphasized the “incalculable value” and “political value” of the Bible, seeking to use it to oppose Marxism-Leninism, socialism, and atheism, with their spearhead aimed directly at the burgeoning cause of people’s liberation.

显然，这是外国传教士以敌视、畏惧的态度对待马列主义和中国革命，妄想以“广泛推销”其“基督教的圣经”，来抵制无神论和社会主义思想的流传。他们重视、强调《圣经》的“不可预测的价值”、“政治价值”，并企求以此对抗马列主义、对抗社会主义和无神论，其矛头就是对着正在蓬勃发展的人民解放事业。

After the founding of New China, the state implemented a policy of freedom of religious belief. The various Western Christian missions were unwilling to withdraw from their missionary positions on the mainland. They neither wished to see the Chinese Christian community sever its ties with imperialism and throw off the control of the Western missions, nor did they wish to see the vigorous development of China’s socialist construction. Consequently, they used every possible means, even unscrupulous ones, to infiltrate the mainland in order to perpetuate their influence.

新中国建立以后，国家在宗教领域实行信仰自由的政策。西方基督教各差会，并不甘心退出在大陆的宣教阵地。它既不愿看到中国基督教界割断同帝国主义的关系、摆脱西方各差会的控制；更不愿看到中国社会主义建设事业的蓬勃发展，从而千方百计的，甚至是不择手段的向大陆渗透以延续它们的影响。

On a personal level, I do not deny that the Jewish and Christian Bible is a precious legacy of human civilization; nor do I believe that all missionaries who came to China before liberation were hostile to the Chinese people, like Muirhead, Richard, Stuart, and Mott. However, Christian figures like Muirhead, Richard, Stuart, and Mott did not simply regard Christianity as a faith, nor did they simply view the Bible as a religious scripture. More importantly, for Muirhead, it was about “disarming the Chinese people” and “controlling Chinese public opinion”; for Richard, it was about seizing “China’s head and backbone” and making the Chinese people “prostrate themselves at their feet”; for Stuart, using diplomatic euphemisms, it was about the Bible’s “incalculable value,” pinning all hopes for opposing the “new doctrine” on “distributing” the Bible; and Mott bluntly affirmed its “political value,” using it as “a fortress” against the “new doctrine,” atheism, and socialist ideas. This undoubtedly politicized Christianity and the Bible. It tore off the cloak of religion and nakedly exposed their hypocritical and despicable political aims.

就个人来说，我并不否认犹太教和基督教的《圣经》，是人类文明宝贵的遗产；同样的，我也不认为解放前来华的传教士都像韦廉臣、李提摩太、司徒雷登、穆德那样，个个都敌视中国人民。可是，像韦廉臣、李提摩太、司徒雷登、穆德一类的基督教人士，不是单纯的把基督教看作是一种信仰，不是简单的把《圣经》看作是宗教经典，更为重要的是，在韦廉臣那里，是要“解除中国人的武装”、“控制中国舆论”；在李提摩太那里，则是要抓住“中国的脑袋和脊背”、使中国人民“俯伏在”他们的“脚下”；在司徒雷登那里，还以其外交辞令含糊的说《圣经》有其“不可预测的价值”，把对抗“新主义”的一切期望都寄托在“推销”《圣经》上；而穆德干脆肯定其“政治价值”，把它作为对抗“新主义”、无神论和社会主义思想的“一个堡垒”。这无疑是把基督教、把《圣经》政治化了。这就撕去宗教的外衣，赤裸裸地暴露出他们伪善的、卑鄙的政治目的。

What the Western churches dreamed of before the founding of New China but failed to achieve has actually been realized by relevant universities hiring overseas theologians to teach the Bible, handing over the sacred university lectern to theologians; and by university presses accepting recommendations from missionaries to publish books on “creationism” and the like. This is truly baffling. It shows that religious infiltration into universities has reached an appalling level.

西方教会在新中国建立前的梦想，未能实现的事，居然由有关的高校聘请海外神学家讲授《圣经》予以落实，把大学神圣的讲坛拱手让给神学家；让大学出版社接受传教士的推荐，出版“神创论”一类图书，真是令人费解。由此可见，宗教向高校的渗透，已到令人发指的地步。

Fortunately, “the leadership of Beijing Normal University has a clear understanding and a firm stance on the spread of religion on campus.” [8]8 This is a quotation from a Chinese source, likely a report or official statement, referenced in the original text. If all university leaders could have such a stance, understanding, and attitude as the leadership of Beijing Normal University, the problem of religious infiltration might not have occurred as described in the “Academic Trends” report, with theologians lecturing in universities and university presses publishing anti-evolutionary religious books. If these theologians were lecturing in theological seminaries, that would be a matter for the religious community; if theological seminaries published such books, outsiders would have no right to interfere. Unfortunately, the current situation is not like this.

有幸的是，“北京师范大学领导对宗教在校园传播有着清醒的认识和明确的立场。”⑧ 如果所有高校的领导都能有北京师范大学领导这样的立场、认识和态度，宗教渗透问题可能不会发生像“学术动态”所介绍的那样，让神学家在高校讲课、让大学出版社出版反进化论的宗教书。如果这些神学家是在神学院讲课，那是宗教界的事；如果是神学院出版这类书籍，外人无权干涉。遗憾的是，目前的情况并非如此。

Religious infiltration into universities, especially Christian infiltration, is not a new problem. In fact, Western Christian circles have long recognized that emphasizing education is one of the most important means. “The various foreign missions believe that religion must make use of education, because religion needs the power that education and educational institutions can exert.” [9]9 This is a quotation from a Western source, likely a missionary or scholar, referenced in the original text. John King Fairbank, a former professor at Tsinghua University, believed that “China’s modern universities, which had been repositories of American ideas and American-trained personnel, were the main hope for leading China onto our path.” [10]10 John King Fairbank (1907–1991), a prominent American historian of China, taught at Harvard University and served as a professor at Tsinghua University in the 1930s. The quotation is cited from Chinese secondary sources. However, the rapid advance of the Chinese people’s liberation cause completely shattered the wishful thinking of the missionaries in China, and they left the mainland in disgrace as the country was liberated.

宗教向高校渗透，特别是基督教向高校渗透，不是什么新问题。事实上，西方基督教界早就认识到重视教育是最为重要的手段之一。“各个国外传教差会相信，宗教一定要利用教育，这是因为宗教需要教育和教育所发挥的能力”⑨，曾任清华大学教授的费正清认为，“中国现代化大学，它们曾是美国思想和受美国训练的人员的仓库，是领导中国到我们道路上来的主要希望。”⑩ 可是，中国人民解放事业的迅速推进，彻底打破了在华传教士的痴心妄想，他们随着全国的解放而灰溜溜地离开了大陆。

Before liberation, Western Christian circles continuously sent missionaries to China to preach. A common feature of their work was opposition to alien ideas, views, doctrines, and beliefs. Since reform and opening up, Western Christian circles have realized that this is a golden opportunity for infiltration into the mainland. To make infiltration easy to realize, the Western churches constantly change their tactics, and their infiltration into universities has never ceased. This is the key point of their infiltration into the mainland. In the 1980s, it was not uncommon for foreign teachers and experts who came to teach in Chinese universities through various channels to use the university lectern to preach and proselytize. Thirty years later, infiltration is still ongoing, and they are using unscrupulous means to infiltrate universities, with an increasingly aggressive and serious trend. This is because Western Christian circles have always regarded universities as “the main hope for leading China onto our path,” which was the dream of missionaries before liberation. Today, their strategic intention to infiltrate the mainland has not changed. Whether some universities, using the power in their hands, are consciously or unconsciously opening a green light for missionaries to infiltrate universities, and have abandoned the “Four Cardinal Principles” [11]11 The “Four Cardinal Principles” (四项基本原则) are the four fundamental principles of the CPC: upholding the socialist path, the people’s democratic dictatorship, the leadership of the CPC, and Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought. on the ideological front, is a question people are forced to raise. Whether such universities should “mend the fold after the sheep are lost” [12]12 “Mend the fold after the sheep are lost” (亡羊补牢) is a Chinese idiom meaning to take remedial action after a loss has occurred, implying it is not too late to prevent further damage. is not something others can argue for them.

解放前西方基督教界不断派遣传教士来华宣教，他们的一个共同点，就是反对异己的思想、主张、学说和信仰。改革开放以来，西方基督教界意识到这是向大陆渗透的千载难逢的大好时机。西方教会为使渗透轻而易举地变成现实，它不断变化花招，向高校渗透从未中止。这是它向大陆渗透的重点所在。上世纪80年代，通过不同途径到高校任教的外籍教师、专家，利用高校讲坛，宣教布道已不是什么罕见的事。30年后，渗透仍在进行，它不择手段地向大学渗透，有其咄咄逼人日趋严重之势。因为西方基督教界历来把高校视为“领导中国到我们道路上来的主要希望”，这是解放前传教士梦寐以求的事；今天，它向大陆渗透的战略意图并未改变。有的高校是否以手中之权，在为传教士向大学渗透自觉不自觉地开启绿灯放行，在思想阵地放弃了“四个坚持”，这是人们不得不提出的问题。这类高校应否“亡羊补牢”，他人无法为之说项。

As for the theologians who come to China to teach the Bible, whether they are carrying out William Muirhead’s intention to “disarm the Chinese” and “control Chinese public opinion,” or Timothy Richard’s intention to seize “China’s head and back” and “make them prostrate at our feet,” only God knows. As for how many young students have been “disarmed,” and how many have had their “head and back” influenced and dominated so that they “prostrate” at its “feet,” only God knows. At present, when institutions of higher learning enter into marriage with theologians, their actions are unequivocally adapting to the needs of Western Christian circles. In addition, teaching and research “controlled by cultural Christians” provide support. For our country and our people, this is not good news at all, but a problem worthy of close attention.

至于来华讲授《圣经》的神学家，是否在贯彻韦廉臣的“解除中国人的武装”、“控制中国舆论”的意图，贯彻李提摩太的抓住“中国的脑袋和脊背”、“使他们俯伏在我们的脚下”的意图，只有上帝知道了。至于究竟有多少青年学生的“武装”被“解除”，“脑袋和脊背”受其影响、支配而“俯伏”在它的“脚下”，也只有上帝知道了。当前，这类高校与神学家联姻，它的作为，是在不折不扣地适应了西方基督教界的需要。另外，还有“文化基督徒掌控”的教学、研究助阵，对我们的国家和人民来说，这并不是什么福音，而是值得人们密切关注的问题。

The issue of Christian infiltration into institutions of higher learning should be the subject of special research; this article does not intend to delve into it too deeply. Because, as far as infiltration is concerned, it takes many forms and means. It should be recognized that theologians are merely senior missionaries with slightly more knowledge, while ordinary missionaries are merely theologians slightly inferior in knowledge. There is no difference between the two in terms of preaching the gospel, propagating the faith, and believing in God’s creation of the world. As for the situation where university authorities take the initiative to hire theologians, i.e., missionaries, to give lectures, this is clearly not a simple case of infiltration in the ordinary sense. If viewed from the perspective of the currently hyped “religious market theory,” it should be classified as a kind of “attracting investment” (attracting overseas theologians) and “introducing capital” (introducing the Christian Bible, thereby enabling the large-scale sale of religious books). Since the theologians who come to the universities do so in the capacity of “professors” with the task of giving lectures, they are not sneaking in through “infiltration” but are openly, swaggeringly, and by invitation employed. This can be seen as a new development and a new evolution in the form of religious infiltration. How many such “professors” have “infiltrated” through this channel is a matter for the education departments in each locality. As an individual, I have no conditions to conduct relevant social investigations and therefore have no say in the matter.

基督教向高校渗透问题，应有专题研究，本文拟不过多深究。因为就渗透而言，它有多种形式和手段。应该认为，神学家不过是掌握稍多知识的高级传教士；而一般的传教士不过是在掌握知识方面稍逊的神学家。两者在宣教布道、信仰上帝创世造物方面，并无差别。至于由高校当局出面聘请神学家，即传教士讲课，显然不是一般意义下的单纯的渗透。如果从当前炒热的“宗教市场论”的视角来看，应该归于“招商”（招境外的神学家）、“引资”（引基督教之《圣经》，从而可以大量出售宗教书籍）一类。由于来到高校的神学家，是以“教授”身份、有着讲学的任务，不是偷偷摸摸“渗透”进来的，而是冠冕堂皇、大摇大摆、受聘而来的，这可以视为宗教渗透形式的新发展、新演变。通过这类途径“渗透”进来的“教授”究竟有多少，这是各地掌管教育部门的事。就个人来说，没有条件从事相关的社会调查，也就没有什么发言权。

In short, the infiltration of our country by Western Christian circles is nothing new. They have specialized research institutions engaged in research on everything from strategy to tactics concerning external infiltration. We cannot take this lightly.

总之，西方基督教界对我国的渗透，不是什么新问题。它们有专门的研究机构，从事有关对外渗透从战略到策略方面的研究。对此，我们不能等闲视之。

Notes:

注释：

① *Science and Atheism*, p. 64, 2011•2, total issue no. 70.

①《科学与无神论》，第64页，2011•2，总第七十期。

② *Science and Atheism*, p. 64, 2011•2, total issue no. 70.

②《科学与无神论》，第64页，2011•2，总第七十期。

③ *Science and Atheism*, p. 64, 2011•2, total issue no. 70.

③《科学与无神论》，第64页，2011•2，总第七十期。

④ Luo Guanzong: *Past Lessons, Future Guides*, Religious Culture Press, 2003, p. 83.

④ 罗冠宗：《前事不忘 后事之师》，宗教文化出版社，2003年，第83页。

⑤ Luo Guanzong: *Past Lessons, Future Guides*, Religious Culture Press, 2003, p. 474.

⑤ 罗冠宗：《前事不忘 后事之师》，宗教文化出版社，2003年，第474页。

⑥ Luo Guanzong: *Past Lessons, Future Guides*, Religious Culture Press, 2003, p. 376.

⑥ 罗冠宗：《前事不忘 后事之师》，宗教文化出版社，2003年，第376页。

⑦ Luo Guanzong: *Past Lessons, Future Guides*, Religious Culture Press, 2003, p. 377.

⑦ 罗冠宗：《前事不忘 后事之师》，宗教文化出版社，2003年，第377页。

⑧ *Science and Atheism*, p. 64, 2011•2, total issue no. 70.

⑧《科学与无神论》．第64页，2011•2，总第七十期。

⑨ Luo Guanzong: *Past Lessons, Future Guides*, Religious Culture Press, 2003, p. 475.

⑨ 罗冠宗：《前事不忘 后事之师》，宗教文化出版社，2003年，第475页。

⑩ Luo Guanzong: *Past Lessons, Future Guides*, Religious Culture Press, 2003, p. 475.

⑩ 罗冠宗：《前事不忘 后事之师》，宗教文化出版社，2003年，第475页。