Monday, October 10, 2022

Contextualizing Christianity: In Memory of Matteo Ricci

On March 31 last year, The Economist published an article about “Sinifying Christianity,” that is, seeking to make Chinese Christians more “Chinese.” The article begins by referring to James Hudson Taylor, the famous 19th-century Protestant missionary. They could have looked back much further.

Italian Jesuit missionary Matteo Ricci sought to Sinicize (=to change or modify by Chinese influence) Christianity in the 16th century. His pioneer evangelistic activity is noteworthy even now, and there are Protestants as well as Catholics who remember his missionary work with deep appreciation.

Christianity Today, the flagship moderate evangelical Christian magazine, published an article in June of this year with praise, and a picture, of Ricci. 

Ricci and Chinese scholar Xu Guangqi

Ricci was born 470 years ago, on October 6, 1552. He was ordained to the priesthood in 1581, and the next year he arrived in Macao and prepared for entering China. He did enter the mainland in 1583 and remained there until his death 27 years later, in 1610.

As Baptist missiologist Justice Anderson wrote in 1998, “to win the favor of the Chinese, Ricci adopted their culture and appeared in the guise of a Confucian scholar.” He was quite successful: by 1650, forty years after his death, there were some 250,000 Christians in China.*

According to the article in The Economist, since 2018 the Chinese government has encouraged churches “to use Chinese architecture and Chinese tunes for hymns, as well as Chinese-style painting, calligraphy and other ‘popular cultural forms.’” All this would have pleased Ricci.

The Catholic Church, though, was not pleased with Ricci’s emphasis. Ricci and his successors “permitted converts to engage in ancestral and state rites regarding those as social and civil rather than religious in character.”**

That led to what is known as the Chinese Rites controversy (which is summarized well in Wikipedia). It was settled by the Pope in the early 1700s—against the Jesuits and to the great detriment of the continued expansion of Christianity in China.

I first learned about Ricci when I was a graduate student in the 1960s. Dr. Hugo Culpepper, a Missions professor at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, stressed the importance of what was then often called accommodation.

Later the terms indigenization, inculturation, or contextualization became more common. The emphasis was the same, however: effective mission activity must seek to relate intentionally and positively to the culture in which the missionary is located. That is certainly what Ricci sought to do.

Even now, and perhaps now even more than in past decades, there are many who criticize missionary activity as being a form of imperialism.

The critics think that Western missionaries were intentionally linked to the Western powers that sought to gain political and economic control over Asian and African countries.

Unfortunately, that was often the case in the 19th and early 20th century. Missionaries sought to make Christians and churches in non-Western lands look much like the Christians and churches of the West. Converts were given “Christian” names, and church buildings exhibited Western architecture.

My first Japanese pastor was an elderly man who was born into a samurai family in 1890. When he was baptized as a young man, he was given the name Timothy. (Fortunately, he was not using that name when I first met him in 1966.)

As the article in The Economist notes, “long before the Communist Party seized power in 1949, people used to say, ‘One more Christian, one fewer Chinese.’ Officials in China still mutter this phrase today.”

But to cite the same 4/3/21 source again, in 1867 the prominent English missionary Hudson Taylor (1832~1905) “wrote a letter home defending his policy of encouraging fellow preachers in China to wear Chinese robes and the Manchu-style pigtail.”

Taylor’s emphasis was quite similar to what Catholic missionary Ricci had advocated 275 years earlier.

While the specifics changed, the central point of Ricci (and Taylor) was adopted more and more in the last half of the 20th century.

Along with many of my missionary colleagues, during my 38 years in Japan I intentionally sought to practice accommodation/indigenization as much as possible—and have bristled some when accused, directly or indirectly, of fostering Western (Christian) imperialism.

_____

* “Medieval and Renaissance Missions (500-1792),” Missiology: An Introduction to the Foundations, History, and Strategies of World Missions (1998), p. 192.

** R. Pierce Beaver, “The History of Mission Strategy,” Perspectives on the World Christian Movement: A Reader (1981), p. 194.

17 comments:

  1. Leroy, thanks for this effective reminder of Matteo Ricci in indiginization of Catholic evangelism in China. In Japan where you and I invested our lifetimes, of course, indiginization spotlights Uchimura Kanzo and his Non-Church Movement. Wikipedia lists 35,000 members for the Non-Church Movement. D.Yagi

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good to hear from you again, Dickson, and I appreciate you calling attention to Uchimura Kanzo. For a country as populous as Japan, 35,000 is a rather small number perhaps, but I think that from the beginning and through the years his No-Church Movement had a far greater impact on Japanese society than the number of members would indicate. I also think that you and I probably had more positive evaluation of Uchimura than some of our Baptist colleagues.

      Delete
  2. The only other comment received so far this morning is from Thinking Friend Glenn Hinson in Kentucky:

    "You touch on the main point I made in "The Evangelization of the Roman Empire: Identity and Adaptability," Leroy. At the same time, I underscored the need to guard the Church’s identity as it adapted itself to Roman culture. As a Roman Catholic, of course, Ricci had the heavy weight of is Church, but he saw reason to be adaptable as early Christian missionaries did."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, it is always a difficult balance between helpful accommodation (contextualization) and detrimental syncretization.

      Delete
  3. Once I finished stumbling over "sin"-ifying Christianity (is that like bringing coals to Newcastle?) I was delighted by the post. I think most of Christianity can be divided into Imperial Christianity (such as "Onward, Christian soldiers,/ Marching as to war,/ With the Cross of Jesus/ Going on before.") and peace Christians who would like to get the shadow of the ancient Roman Emperors out of the church. From an intellectual perspective, there are many interesting twists and turns through the centuries, such as the story of Matteo Ricci. Still, we are back to Dostoyevsky's dark analysis that the Grand Inquisitor has reinvented Christianity in a way that "works" better than Jesus' gospel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The words in quotation marks (in my blog article) are directly from The Economist, but I wondered if they would be confusing. As you no doubt know but others may not, "Sinicization, sinofication, sinification, or sinonization (from the prefix sino-, 'Chinese, relating to China') is the process by which non-Chinese societies come under the influence of Chinese culture, particularly the language, societal norms, culture, and ethnic identity of the Han people—the largest ethnic group of China" (Wikipedia).

      Delete
  4. I've always found Ricci's work very interesting, even laudable. But the internal conflicts within the Catholic Church over this stuff led one emperor to toss them out. When I interviewed for a job at a college run by and for the largest missionary society in the world, Society of the Divine Word (Societas Verbi Divini), I told them I could work with them because their mission is to serve the poor. I also told them I'd be unable to work with them if they're out there trying to proselytize Hindus, Muslims, and others.

    Christian mission work has been a complicated affair, sometimes doing good work, often accompanying other Western interests--business, trade, politics, or whatever. Creating schools and hospitals where there weren't any is a very good thing, in my view, but, of course, that's been carrying Western patterns of education and Western medicine, which can also be seen as a kind of imperialism. The British in their colonialism in India outlawed Sati, which I think was a good thing, but clearly imperialistic. My own denomination, the UCC, some years back issued an apology for the efforts of their missionaries against the indigenous cultures of Hawaii in the 19th century.

    You probably already know this, Leroy, and I was quite hesitant to respond to this blog because of it, but, in my view, all Christian missionary work that carries the message that Christianity is the one and only true religion to people already practicing other faiths is spiritually arrogant and inherently spiritually imperialistic.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Because I was born in Morocco, I later became friends with the “MK’s” of the missionaries who my parents knew there, after the missionaries were all kicked out in the late 1960s. Many of the missionaries continued working from Europe by broadcasting radio classes and correspondence courses for seeking Berbers and Arabs.

    Looking back now, I realize that this particular group of missionaries held to a more Fundamentalist brand of Christianity, meaning that they would not consider “contextualizing” much of anything that had been touched by those cultures that had been influenced by Islam (or pagan superstitions before Islam). Those foreign cultures were considered to be Satanically inspired.

    I remember talking with the missionary leader there about using the terms the people were used to, like “Isa” for “Jesus,” for example—but anything that came from the Qu’ran was verboten, as far as he was concerned. They needed to use the world “Jesus.”

    On Anton’s last paragraph above: Over the years I’ve wrestled with these same concerns; so far, however, I’ve mostly come down on the side that Jesus’ message is helpful enough and “anti-imperialistic” enough to make it worth spreading anywhere that a people’s religious or state ideology keeps people ignorant of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fred, I appreciated your comments, and especially your last paragraph--but I wish I knew who you are. I know that some of the Freds who read my blog (at least from time to time), but none of them as far as I know were born in Morocco.

      Delete
  6. Here's what I would add to this thread: My experience of God and God's grace has come to me through Christianity, even a hardcore fundamentalist Christianity. I can't deny that. And in the interest of human community it's something like an obligation to be open and willing to share my/our Christian story with others, even others of other faiths or no faith. However, it is also an obligation for us as Christians to listen to others' stories of their faith and to listen with respect and affirmation, except, of course, for those who also argue, as does much of Christianity, that theirs is the one and only truth faith.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anton, thanks for posting comments twice on this string, and please know that I appreciate your honesty and straightforwardness. But also please know, as you probably already do, that I both agree and disagree with your comments.

      I agree with your denunciation of imperialism, although I question whether taking Western medicine and medical expertise to non-Western countries is imperialistic--and if it is, should it be criticized for being such? Surely the number of lives saved by modern (Western) medicine are worth some imperalism, if that is what it is. And surely the benefits of opposing "sati" (or "suttee") in India or foot binding in China have been of great benefit to a considerable number of Indian and Chinese women, and so that effective opposition is worth some imperalism, if that is what it is.

      And I agree with you that the UCC, apologies have needed to be made for the efforts of missionaries against the indigenous cultures of Hawaii in the 19th century--as well as for the Indigenous Peoples of North America. Much of what was done by missionaries overseas as well as by Christians in North America is reprehensible.

      And I also agree with you about the vice of arrogance. The fourth chapter of my book "Fed Up with Fundamentalism" is titled "The Problem with Fundamentalism," and the first of three subdivisions of that chapter is "The Problem of Arrogance."

      But what about Ricci? I don't know in detail how he presented his Catholic Christian faith, but his initial approach was to share his extensive scientific knowledge. According to the Christianity Today article I referred to above, "in the 16th century, Chinese philosophy and worldview was dominated by Confucianism. Buddhism (with Chinese characteristics) and Taoism. Chinese intellectuals and officials did not value science and technology and science was especially under-developed." But soon after his arrival in China, Ricci (and his associates) "became known for their zeal in introducing scientific knowledge to China."

      Again, I don't know this for sure, but my guess is he did not start off by telling the Chinese scholars he had contact with that their scientific knowledge was insufficient and he had come to teach them superior scientific ideas that they should adopt and get rid of their old, mistaken, or outdated ideas. No, he probably just started teaching/explaining his scientific knowledge and scholars, such as Xu Grangqi (1562~1633), saw and accepted the new scientific ideas because they could see their merit. When Ricci showed them maps that were obviously better than the ones they had, they readily accepted them. I am quite sure he did not try to convince them that his maps were superior so they ought to discard their maps and use only his. The same is true for the clock that he presented to the Chinese emperor, who was so impressed with it that he allowed Ricci to remain in Peking (Beijing) so he could fix it when or if needed. He surely didn't start out by denouncing their traditional ways of telling time.

      Again, my guess is that his presentation of Christianity was much the same; that is, he didn't talk about the superiority of Christianity and the need for the Chinese to give up their religious belief/affiliations.

      In theological discussions, there may be those who talk about "the one and only" true faith. But in sharing the Christian message, there is rarely need for theological debates.

      In my own work and witness as a missionary, I never tried to convince anyone to abandon their own firmly held religious faith and accept Christianity as a superior religion. Rather, I sought to present the gospel of Jesus Christ as being the good news about life, love, light, and liberty.

      Delete
    2. I have had trouble spelling the name of Xu Guangqi. I have just corrected the misspelling of his name in the caption of the picture in the blog article, and his name in the longest paragraph above should be Guangqi.

      Delete
    3. In learning more about Xu Guangqi (properly spelled), I was a bit dismayed (in light of what I had written about "Christian names" given to Asian people) to learn that he was given, or took, the name Paul when he was baptized in 1603.

      Delete
  7. Yesterday afternoon, Thinking Friend Eric Dollard also sent comments:

    "Thanks, Leroy, for bringing up Matteo Ricci and missionary work in general. I am familiar with Ricci from studying the history of China. And I applaud your efforts as a missionary to use and respect Japanese culture without diluting your Christian message. Ricci had the right idea, and although his approach was condemned by the RCC, other Jesuits, more or less, adopted his approach in other places, such as among the indigenous cultures in South America. Ricci was also something of a scientist as the Jesuits have generally stressed education, much to their credit."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comments, Eric. Yes, Ricci was a scholar who knew much about science and shared that with Chinese intellectuals. And, yes, the Jesuits through the centuries have stressed education, and some of the top colleges / universities in the U.S. (and elsewhere, such as Sophia University in Tokyo) are Jesuit schools--and I am thinking specifically of Georgetown University in D.C. and Boston College--and there is Loyola University Chicago, where you live, and Rockhurst University here in Kansas City, where I had the privilege of teaching as an adjunct for 17 semesters after retiring and moving to Liberty.

      Delete
  8. Yesterday afternoon, I received the following comments from Thinking Friend Glen Davis, who for many years was a Presbyterian missionary whose ministry was with Koreans living in Japan:

    "Thanks for this reminder of Ricci. I studied his work in 1975 as part of research for a paper on Christian Mission in Asia. My work in the Korean church in Fukuoka led me to adopt some Korean cultural rites in my pastoral work, i.e. honoring the memory of folk (pretty well always men!) by holding an annual home worship service, including great food too! You probably encountered requests to go to the start of building a new business site and saying prayers of blessing and dropping Christian symbols into the hole where the foundation pillar was to be raised.

    Good memories!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Leroy,
    Your comments about the manner of Ricci's witness and presence are encouraging. When visiting that part of the Imperial Museum Beijing--the Forbidden Palace and its clock exhibition, it's startling at first to recognize the cultural dichotomy expressed in the great collection of clocks and other devices Europeans brought to China, in Ricci's time and since (were they so backward, the Europeans so advanced?).
    When we went to China from the 90s to the 2010s, our university hosts--and their students--surprised us with their knowledge and appreciation of Matteo Ricci--perhaps partly to strengthen connections between us, but also, perhaps, to say that Ricci not only was unusual among Westerners in his time, but admirable because of the depth of his own program as a Christian, best as a westerner could, to master and inhabit traditional Chinese culture. They knew this and respected it about Ricci centuries afterward. Imagine that! He and his fellow Jesuits (with all their exacting linguistic training and learning) mastered the language, its scripts and the literate traditions, mastering the heights of Confucian scholarship equal with the topmost "junzi" scholars; and to that extent Ricci's witness to Christ Jesus could be expressed authentically within the Chinese cultural context. I still am astonished at such achievements.

    ReplyDelete