As a Christian who grew up in the Three-Self Church system, serves full-time in it, and has enjoyed friendships with many brothers and sisters from the house churches, the Sinicization or Zhongguohua campaign is something I am personally experiencing and participating in. Therefore, when I saw that the latest issue of ChinaSource Journal focused on the topic of the Sinicization of Christianity in China, I was very interested and curious how scholars would evaluate the actions and responses of the Three-Self Church, to which I am committed with conviction and conscience.
Understanding the Nature of the Sinicization Campaign
Overall, I believe the scholars have accurately grasped the nature and intention of this campaign. Though their analysis and interpretation have different emphases, they all point to one basic fact: the Sinicization of Christianity is an ideological campaign initiated by the Chinese Communist regime. It aims to strengthen control and remold Christianity in China, ensuring and reinforcing its political loyalty, thereby securing ideological control and political dominance over society. This campaign is neither initiated, led, nor intended for the benefit of the Church in China.
In government propaganda and in the Three-Self Church’s own narrative, the Sinicization campaign is described as a continuation and expansion of the 1998 Theological Thought Construction (TTC) movement and the earlier 1950 Three-Self Reform movement—as if they were part of an unbroken lineage. I admit that these three are related, and that in terms of rhetoric, form, and outcome, they share many similarities. But there is still a huge difference—the initiator.
A Comparison of Three Movements
The 1998 TTC movement was very different from the current Sinicization campaign. The former was initiated by the late Bishop K. H. Ting, a prominent leader in the Three-Self Church. Deeply disturbed by what I would call as “the scandal of the Chinese Christian mind,” Ting intended to encourage theological reflection and renewal within the registered churches to safeguard the healthy development of Christianity in China and to free the church from superstitious, anti-intellectual, combative, escapist, and socially disengaged thoughts and practices—traits inconsistent with our Christian identity. He hoped that Chinese Christians would not only pursue religious piety and numerical growth but also promote the rationality, virtue, and public witness of our faith, so that Christian life and witness could be more faithful and effectual.
Even the 1950 Three-Self Reform movement differs from Sinicization. Though it was nominally initiated by Chinese church leaders—what historian Daniel Bays calls the “Sino-Foreign Protestant Establishment”—they did so under pressure, inducement, and direction from the new regime. The government masterminding behind the curtain, it was a forced political statement of loyalty, filled with self-criticism, intended to gain a narrow and difficult space for survival in the new political order. Later events, which culminated in the Cultural Revolution, saw this ecclesiastical establishment themselves being condemned and cleansed. That was the inevitable outcome of the Communist political purges.
Scholars also noted that although this ideological campaign appears aimed at all Christians, in practice, it mainly or even exclusively targets the Three-Self Church. Unregistered house churches don’t even have a seat at the table until they get their legal status. Of course, the government wants to control and remold them too, but they are not the priority. The open, legal, and well-structured Three-Self Church is the real focus of further suppression and control.
Beyond Appearances: How Three-Self Church Responds
Unfortunately, I didn’t see scholars delve into how the Three-Self Church perceives, responds to, or implements this state-issued mandate. Readers may be left with the impression that the Three-Self Church either willingly cooperates and blindly accepts the government’s agenda, or passively submits, powerless and resigned. But is that really the case? In China’s highly repressive political context, what we often see is a highly choreographed public performance. What you see is not necessarily what it really is. To fully understand the Three-Self Church’s attitudes and actions, one must look beyond those public documents and propagandistic reporting and look for their undisclosed discussions and undocumented negotiations. I’d like to offer my knowledge and observations.
When the government first proposed the Sinicization campaign, some Three-Self Church leaders immediately reacted “oh no, (political) campaign time again.” Just as a famous Chinese poem goes, “When the spring river water warms, the ducks are the first to know,” those who work with the authorities tend to be more aware of policy trends. So even before the campaign was officially launched, the Church knew that one government concern had reached a boiling point. This concern had two main aspects: first, the government believed Christianity in China has been developing too fast—too many churches, too much energy, too much growth in numbers and influence. Second, they believed Christianity in China leaned too much toward Western churches and the West in general, subtly or overtly aligning with Western values and/or interests. These combined concerns presented a perceived threat to the state’s rule and ideological security. For Christians familiar with the history of the Three-Self movement, the Sinicization campaign looks like a new round of ideological reformation—1950 all over again.
The Three-Self Church quickly realized the Sinicization campaign boiled down to three key demands: (1) Christianity must be Sinicized—not that China should be Christianized. The government stresses the political principle of “state-over-religion”(政主教从), said to be a long historical Chinese tradition. Christianity is not allowed to dominate or transform China. It should be adapted, integrated and assimilated into China. (2) Christianity in China must be a Chinese Christianity, not a Western Christianity. Why? Because “those who are not of our kind must have a different mind.” (3) The Church must move from “being made to Sinicize” to “wanting to Sinicize.” The government demands both submission and internalization.
In response, the Three-Self Church began carrying out prescribed activities. On the church property, they raised the national flag, promoted the Constitution and selected laws and regulations, quoted the 24-character socialist core values, and showcased some traditional Chinese cultural elements (many of them stereotypical and clichéd). But do they abandon the core Christian doctrines? Do they cease to worship the one true God? Do they give up the apostolic and catholic faith? Do they stop proclaiming Christ as the only Savior? Do they reject the Bible’s supreme authority? Do they set aside the Great Commission? They do not. Despite constraints, many continue to prioritize the church’s mission. I have yet to encounter a Three-Self congregation that openly denies these fundamentals. Such a case would be highly unusual in the Chinese context—and if it does exist, it would be worth examining carefully.
Is the Church Too Westernized?
Furthermore, while the government clearly aims to control and change the church, is it entirely wrong to say that Christianity in China is overly Westernized or Americanized? Three-Self churches are conceivably pro-government and submissive to official directives, but what about the teachings and sermons in churches and seminaries? Do they foster a sense of Chinese identity? Does Chinese culture and history play a significant role in theological thinking and ministry practice? No, I personally don’t see much of it. I will say, the pervasive atmosphere in the church in China for quite a long time is “let’s learn from the West/America” in terms of theological articulation and church operation.
It is with regret, and indeed a sense of shame, that I have come to recognize a longstanding tendency within some or even many churches in China that mirrors the broader phenomenon in Chinese society—namely, a tendency among some churches to highly value foreign models—what some have described as “worshiping the West.” I’ve come to see this dynamic with a mix of concern and introspection. Many believers exhibit uncritical praise for foreign churches and pastors, using their strengths—or at times merely contextual differences shaped by national conditions, denominational distinctives, and cultural customs—as grounds to disparage and judge local churches. This often results in a posture that elevates the foreign/western ones while diminishing one’s own. Among some clergy, this pattern is reflected in their preaching, theological reflection, ministry methods, and even in their personal tastes and lifestyles. These elements are frequently and deeply influenced by Western ecclesiastical and societal models. Whether consciously or not, the gospel is equated with Western theology and cultural values, which diminishes the integrity of the faith. Consequently, certain Western churches become the default reference point and developmental benchmark. This undermines the capacity and willingness of both clergy and laity to explore and embody the Christian faith within the context of China’s own rich and enduring cultural and historical heritage.
Emerging Indigenous Theologies
Ironically, the current campaign has stimulated some efforts in the indigenization work. In fact, many Three-Self churches have made some interesting theological innovations and explored the possibility to doing contextualized constructive theologies which engages their regional cultures. For example:
- In Shandong, the birthplace of Confucianism and the home of Confucius and Mencius, churches are exploring “Qi-Lu Theology.” Qi-Lu is another name for Shandong because of the history of Spring-and-Autumn and Warring States periods in ancient China.
- In Fujian, which is the Min Chinese region and has the historical memory of catastrophic collapse of the ancient China proper and massive migration and exile, churches propose “Beatitude Theology” or literally “Eight Blessings Theology”. The Fujian regional historiography claims that “civilization moved southward, and eight clans entered the land of Min”. Meanwhile, Fujian includes the beloved Chinese character 福 (blessing) in its name.
- In Guangdong, known for its Lingnan Culture and close ties to overseas Chinese due to massive emigration, churches are attempting to explore their cultural richness and address the diaspora identity in their theological reflection.
- In Shanghai and Zhejiang, churches have launched theological and pastoral conferences called “Exploring the Way at the Sea” and “Seeking the Way along the Zhejiang”, exploring their peculiar lived theologies and highlighting their maritime and commercial culture.
- In the Yangtze River Delta, the most industrialized and urbanized area in China with a distinctive Wu Chinese culture, churches in Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Shanghai, and Anhui gather to discuss on the common challenges and opportunities in urban church development and seek collaboration and partnership in ministries.
These efforts are interesting, meaningful, creative, and worth our attention and appreciation. One day, in addition to Latin, Greek, Syriac, Byzantine, Celtic, and Coptic Christianity, we might also have Qi-Lu Christianity, Min-Fu Christianity, Lingnan Christianity, and Yangtze Delta Christianity. Who knows? Or, if early Christians could engage Greek philosophy, Chinese Christians could also dialogue with Confucianism. If you value Dutch Reformed theology and marvel at “the Protestant ethic and the Spirit of capitalism”, consider how churches in the Yangtze Delta are thriving on values of prudence, discipline, diligence and entrepreneurship. If you’re fascinated by the spirituality of the Coptic Church in Egypt and Ethiopia or that of the Celtic tradition in Ireland, you might find something equally compelling in the theology emerging from the Min Chinese culture in Fujian. Am I dreamy? Well, people do need dreams, imagination and hope.
Silent Faithfulness and Enduring Witness
So has the Sinicization campaign corrupted the Three-Self churches? I think it’s too early to tell.
Yes, we are reminded—sometimes sternly—that the church in China must be surnamed “China, not the West,” and that we must “Sinicize Christianity rather than Christianize China,” but our confession and preaching remain orthodox. We still teach and encourage evangelism among our brothers and sisters.
Yes, we have specific Sinicization tasks. Pastors and full-time staffers must include Sinicization topic study and repeat some cliches and slogans in our work meetings, but our main business remains the ministry and mission of the church because of the call from our Lord. We also try to frame church ministries as Sinicization efforts. Conferences, seminars, and workshops are held by many provincial, prefectural, and local Christian councils in the name of Sinicization, but the main content is about theological reflection and practical ministerial work discussion.
Yes, we face restrictions. Many ministries have been banned. But over the years, we’ve regained some ground. We do not adopt a posture of resignation, nor do we boast. Rather, we choose to walk cautiously and faithfully in the space available to us. In China, we know a truth: there is a time that you can talk about some things but cannot do them; there is a time that you can do some things but cannot talk about them. There is still space and opportunity to do the works of the Lord in China.
I admit that the Three-Self Church has had to spend much time and effort cooperating with this campaign. Ministries have been disrupted. Some say we are losing members because of compromise and failure to focus on the gospel. But I find this argument unconvincing. The 1998 Theological Thought Construction movement also caused controversy and conflict, yet the Church still grew. Other viable factors like economy, demographics, and culture may be more relevant.
In short, many Three-Self churches have withstood the test. We submit to authority—even unjust authority—but we hold fast to the truth. We obey the Lord’s words that we should be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. We seek principled flexibility and patient endurance, adapting to the changing circumstances. We minimize our public complaints and grievances. Specifically, we won’t tell or sell dramatic stories about persecution to the concerned in overseas Christian communities to gain sympathy and material support. Many overseas Christians are particularly drawn to stories of persecution and endurance, especially those emerging from house church contexts. However, the Three-Self churches won’t do that although they could add well-documented numbers to shocking stories—how many crosses were demolished, how many churches shut down, how many church preachers dismissed. We won’t speak of these because “Vengeance is mine; I will repay,” says the Lord. The God who told Elijah, “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed to Baal,” will also give us protection and healing and then challenge us with his words “Arise and go.”
