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.