The Theory of Cultural Evangelism

We should pay attention to the issue of “cultural evangelism.” Many words that were once distant from one another—religion and the market, God and commodities—are now linked under this concept. Not long ago, a popular saying went: “To capture his heart, first capture his stomach.” Contemporary evangelists can be said to be deeply versed in this art; they too attempt to capture the hearts of the Chinese people by capturing their stomachs. As for whether this constitutes praise or blasphemy toward their God, they seem to have no time to care.

我们应当关注“文化传教”问题。许多过去距离遥远的词汇：宗教和市场，上帝和商品，都在这个概念下联结了起来。不久前流行一句俗话说，要想抓住他的心，首先要抓住他的胃。当代的某些传教家们可说是深谙此道，他们也企图用抓胃的方式来抓中国人的心。至于这样做是对他们上帝的赞美还是亵渎，似乎无暇顾及了。

So-called cultural evangelism includes both evangelizing through cultural means and evangelizing to cultural elites. [1]1 “Cultural elites” (文化人) here refers to intellectuals, artists, and other educated individuals who shape public opinion and cultural trends. Preaching always to grassroots women who enjoy idle gossip and to people who cannot distinguish Jesus from the Jade Emperor—what real effect does this have on Chinese society? Hence, some evangelists have turned their thoughts to cultural elites and cultural methods. They hope to capture the hearts of these so-called “Chinese brains and backbones” by capturing their stomachs, and then use the hearts of these elites to satisfy their own stomachs, thereby realizing their political and economic interests. On this point, the author who discusses the issue of cultural evangelism is clear-eyed. This journal publishes such an article in the hope that more people will become clear-eyed as well.

所谓文化传教，包括用文化的方式传教和向文化人传教。总向基层一些喜欢寻闲的妇女和分不清耶稣与天王老爷区别的人们传教，对于中国社会，又有多大作用呢？于是，一些传教者想到了文化人和文化的方式。他们指望，用抓胃的方式抓住这些所谓“中国的脑袋和脊背”们的心，然后用这些精英们的心满足自己的胃，实现他们政治的、经济的利益。对于这一点，论述文化传教问题的作者，是清醒的。本刊发表这样的文章，也是希望有更多的人们清醒起来。

Spreading one’s own religion is, from the standpoint of devotion to one’s own faith, beyond reproach, because it is required by their doctrine. Buddhism seeks to save all sentient beings; Jesus commanded his disciples to go into all the world and preach the gospel. [2]2 The phrase “go into all the world and preach the gospel” alludes to the Great Commission in the Gospel of Mark 16:15. But from the perspective of those being proselytized, they are to have their faith and convictions changed. That conflict is unavoidable goes without saying. Let us set aside traditional religious conflicts represented by the Crusades; even in contemporary local wars, how many lack a religious factor? Although real relations of interest are the fundamental cause of conflict, religious divisions undoubtedly add another division to those of nation, ethnicity, and the like, and thus add another factor that triggers conflict.

传播自己的宗教，从虔诚于自己宗教的立场上来说，无可厚非，因为这是他们的教义。佛教要普度众生，耶稣要他的门徒到普天下去传播福音。但从被传者一方来说，却是要被改变信仰和信念。不发生冲突，是不可能的。以十字军战争为代表的传统宗教冲突不必说，即如当代的局部战争，几处没有宗教的因素在内？虽然，现实的利益关系才是冲突的根本原因，但宗教的分野，无疑使人们在国家、民族等分野之外，又多了一个分野，因此也多了一个引发冲突的因素。

Nevertheless, the introduction of Buddhism into China and its spread throughout the world, and the introduction of Islam and Christianity into China before the Opium War, were also beyond reproach. [3]3 The Opium War (1840–1842) was a military conflict between Qing China and Britain, triggered by disputes over trade and opium, which resulted in China’s first unequal treaties. People, for their own reasons, could believe or not believe.

然而无论如何，佛教的传入中国，传到世界各地；鸦片战争以前，伊斯兰教、基督教的传入中国，也都无可厚非。人们出于自身的原因，可信，也可不信。

Starting from the Opium War, China’s situation was different. Clauses on spreading Christianity were written into almost every unequal treaty forced upon China under the supervision of gunboats. Those unworthy descendants of Matteo Ricci no longer wore Confucian robes but scurried alongside the gunboats. [4]4 Matteo Ricci (1552–1610) was an Italian Jesuit missionary who adapted to Chinese culture by wearing Confucian robes and learning classical Chinese, a strategy later abandoned by missionaries backed by Western military force. At that time, the nature of evangelism became the same as demands for ceding territory and paying indemnities: it demanded that the Chinese also cede their souls and pay out their hearts.

中国从鸦片战争开始，情况就不同了。传播基督教的条款被写进几乎每一份在坚船利炮监押下强迫中国所签订的不平等条约上，那些利玛窦的不肖子孙们，也不再穿什么儒服，而是奔走在坚船利炮之旁。这时候，传教的性质，也就和要求割地赔款一样，要求中国人同时也割让自己的灵魂，赔出自己的心。

Now, as the factor of gunboats gradually recedes into the background, the economic factor has come to the fore. Although the lives of the Chinese people have improved considerably, they are still among the poor. The U.S. government, the leader of the rich, has even set up some committee specifically to monitor the situation of evangelizing and being evangelized. We know that in safeguarding and protecting its own national interests, the United States is, if not the most clear-eyed and intense, then among the most clear-eyed and intense. One only wonders whether those Chinese cultural elites who act as pawns for evangelism are clear-eyed about this. If they are clear-eyed, do they understand what they are doing? Or, to use a phrase often said in the past: what role are they playing? [5]5 “What role are you playing?” is a rhetorical question from Mao-era political criticism, implying complicity with an enemy.

现在，当坚船利炮的因素逐渐走向后台的时候，经济的因素又突出出来。中国人的日子虽然好过多了，但仍然在穷人之列。富人们的头领美国政府，甚至成立了什么委员会，专门盯着传教和受教的情况。我们知道，在维护和保障自己的国家利益方面，美国即使不是最清醒和强烈的，也是最清醒和强烈者之一。只是不知道那些替传教充当马前卒的中国文化人们是否清醒这一点。如果清醒，又是否明白自己在干什么。或者用过去曾经常说的一句话：扮演什么角色！

During the War of Resistance Against Japan, there was a literacy textbook whose first lesson was: “We are Chinese; we love our motherland.” [6]6 The War of Resistance Against Japan (1937–1945) was China’s war against Japanese invasion, often referred to as the Second Sino-Japanese War. When we face certain rich people who want to capture our souls and tell us to place their so-called “universal values” above the interests of the nation and our ethnicity, it is necessary for certain cultural elites to review this lesson.

抗日战争时有一本识字课本，第一课是：我们是中国人，我们爱自己的祖国。当我们面临某些富人要来抓我们的灵魂、告诉我们应该把他们定下来所谓“普世价值”放到国家和民族利益之上的时候，有必要让某些文化人重温这一课。