As we all know, Christianity seems to have returned to facing as much tension as ever. No matter whether it is the suspension of gathering places or delivering live-streaming services, the situation has been changing. It has been determined by the international environment and on the other hand, by the COVID-19 pandemic. With a pool of many other factors, it is how the current situation faced by Chinese Christianity come to be.
So under such a background, a voice within Christianity has emerged - that is returning to the underground state to seek development. Despite all kinds of unwillingness that Chinese Christianity has shown, “returning to the underground” could be a long legacy in the Christian historical tradition. It is this traditional consciousness rooted in history that leads to Chinese Christianity being convinced that “underground development” is the inevitable state of Christianity.
About the development of Christianity, there have been two voices colliding with each other. One is the faith in persecution and the other is nationalism. These two ideas are two extremes, but they can even coexist safely in the same group.
Persecuted believers hold that the revival of Christianity does not come from peaceful times, but from the era when Christianity is persecuted. This view holds that without the persecution of the Roman Empire in the early history of Christianity, there would be no latter rise of Christianity. They even think that where there is persecution, there is revival. Based on this view, as early as ten years ago, when the social space of Christianity was constantly expanding, there were believers who missed the era of Christian persecution starting to express the thought that the present relaxed environment would bring about the decline of Christianity.
Of course, at first glance, this view makes sense, but it can’t stand scrutiny. According to Rodney Stark’s view of religious sociology, indeed, the tense environment will increase the cost to Christian believers thus excluding hitchhikers. So the remaining believers are people who highly agree with the church groups. However, in the tense environment, the inevitable result is the great tension between religious doctrine and the secular world. The ultimate orientation of this tension is not the revival of religion, but the shrinking of religion. Because this orientation points to the yearning of the secular world and at the same time the denial of the secular world. This denial isolates Christianity from the world.
Yet the persecution of Christianity by the Roman Empire was not the fundamental reason for the revival of Christianity, the rise of Christianity lies in its gospel itself. At that time, there were many religions in the Roman Empire, but only Christianity remained among the masses during the plague, showing concern and respect for the weak children and facing the upheaval bravely. Therefore, it is a wrong judgment to attribute the revival of Christianity to persecution. What can only be produced under coercion is a religion that rejects society.
Another view, on the contrary, holds that the revival of Christianity originates from the nationalization of Christianity.
This view probably comes from the historical legacy of Constantine the Great of the Roman Empire, who positioned Christianity as the state religion. It is in this view that Christianity was keen to create rumors that national leaders believe in religion.
However, did the revival of Christianity in the Roman Empire originate from nationalization? We can ask this question, why wasn’t any Roman emperor converted to Christianity before Constantine except Constantine himself?
According to Stark’s statistics, in Constantine’s time, the number of Christians already accounted for more than half of the Roman Empire. Just because of the consideration of a large number of Christians, Constantine the Great, who was suffering from the anxiety of the split between East and West Rome at that time, took Christianity as a lifeline to bond the cracks of the empire. Therefore, the reason that Christianity maintained steady growth during the period of persecution by the Roman Empire was why Christianity was nationalized.
However, it was only after Christianity became an established religion that the Middle Ages began. In this era, history obviously didn’t evaluate it very positively. Therefore, it also tells us that the nationalization of Christianity itself is not the revival of Christianity, but a manifestation of the ‘religionization’ of Christianity. The Christian revival was actually the Renaissance and the Enlightenment because it was the result of relying on the culture brought by the Christian faith and clinging to freedom.
Observing these two viewpoints, we can find that although they are obviously contradictory to each other, they all have a common pursuit, that is, power: forcing believers to sanctify themselves so that believers can become special voters in heaven, and their privileges as citizens in heaven are compared with those outside the church. Nationalization also gives religious individuals a real privilege. Therefore, one pays attention to the privilege of heaven and the other pays attention to the privilege of earth.
Then, these two views ignore the power of the gospel of Jesus, and at the same time provide two kinds of shelters for Christianity in extreme circumstances. When the external environment is tense, it goes underground because persecution revives Christianity. When the external situation turns less tense, it returns to the ground, tries to preach the gospel to the leaders and nationalizes Christianity.
Apart from these two ideas, what is the development model suitable for the gospel of Jesus? Obviously, we should go back to Jesus and think about the way out of Christianity in his teachings.
After the mother gave birth to Jesus, in order to avoid Herod’s persecution, she fled to Egypt under the guidance of an angel. Later, after Herod died, she returned from Egypt. An angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream in Egypt, saying, “Get up! Take the child and his mother to the land of Israel, because the man who wanted the child’s life is dead.” (Matthew 2:19-20)
The spread of the gospel of Jesus, the followers of Jesus, and even the whole ministry of Jesus all developed in their own hometown. Why did God call Jesus back to Israel instead of letting him complete his mission in Egypt? Apparently, Alexandria in Egypt had the largest Jewish community in the world.
After Jesus returned to Israel, he preached the gospel among Jews. He shared the gospel with the weak around him, not to the strong around him. I haven’t encountered any message of Jesus preaching the gospel to the high priest or Roman officials for the sake of his gospel prosperity, although his disciples were eager to share power from him.
Jesus’ way of preaching the gospel has always been to start from his own side, to give the Samaritan woman water and teachings, to heal the demon-possessed woman and the woman suffering from blood leakage, and so on. What Jesus did was to care for those around him who needed help.
From Jesus, the inspiration for us is that the root cause of the rise of Christianity is the gospel of Jesus, and this gospel should start from the people around us - neither from the other side nor from the temple, but from the side of the local place.
Therefore, what the present environment brings us is just to let us look back to the gospel itself from a distance and high temple, and start the practice of the gospel from the village or community where our church is located, so that, like Jesus, people around us can feel the warmth of the gospel.
At present, what we should do most is not to consider the conversion between underground and going public. But let us understand that it is the gospel that really plays the leading role, and it is the people around us who really need the gospel.
Therefore, instead of going underground, we go to our communities and neighbors. Let the church return to its native land, which is the real development path.
- Translated by Charlie Li
众所周知的原因，眼下的基督教好像又回到了曾经那个紧张的时代，不论是物理空间还是网络空间，都在改变。这种状况一方面因为国际背景，另一方面因为新冠疫情，还有其它各种因素的原因聚集，遂产生了基督教当下所面临的处境。
于是在这种状态下，基督教中产生了一种声音，那就是回到地下状态发展自己。尽管基督教有种种不舍，但是“回归地下”可能是基督教历史传统中的悠久财产。正是这种扎根于历史的传统意识，让基督教认为“地下”的发展，才是基督教的必然状态。
关于基督教的发展，一直以来有两个声音彼此碰撞。一个是逼迫主义，一个是国家主义。这两种观念是两种极端，但是却能安然无恙地存在于同一个群体中。
逼迫主义认为，基督教的复兴不是来源于和平时期，而是来源于基督教被逼迫的时代。这种观点认为，如果没有罗马帝国在基督教早期历史的逼迫和迫害，就没有基督教后来的兴起。甚至认为：哪里有逼迫，哪里才有复兴。正是基于这种观点，早在十年前，基督教社会空间不断扩大的时候，就有怀念基督教逼迫时代的信徒，认为现在的宽松环境反而会带来基督教的衰落。
当然，这种观点乍一看来有它的道理,但是经不住细究。按照斯塔克的宗教社会学观点，的确，紧张的环境会增加基督教信徒的信教成本，从而将搭便车者排除，于是，剩下的信徒都是对教会团体高度认同的人。
然而，在紧张环境中，带来的必然结果是宗教教义与世俗世界的巨大张力，这种张力的最终导向，不是宗教的复兴，而是宗教的萎缩。因为，这种导向指向的是彼岸世界的向往，以及对此岸世界的否定。这种否定让基督教与世界隔离。
罗马帝国对基督教的逼迫，并不是基督教复兴的根本原因。基督教的兴起在于其福音本身。在那个年代中，罗马帝国宗教林立，但是只有基督教能做到在瘟疫中对大众的不离不弃，对弱者儿童的关怀和尊重，勇敢地面对苦难。
因此，把基督教的复兴归根于逼迫，这是一种错误的判断。逼迫之下所产生的只能是排斥社会的宗教。
另一种观点，则与此相反，认为基督教的复兴源于基督教的国教化。
这种观点大概来源于罗马帝国君士坦丁大帝将基督教定位国教的历史遗产。正是在这种观点之下，基督教才热衷于制造国家领导人信教的谣言。
然而，罗马帝国基督教的复兴，是不是源于国家化呢？我们可以问一个问题，为什么在君士坦丁之前，罗马皇帝没有一个皈依基督教，而偏偏是在君士坦丁时期呢？
根据斯塔克的统计，在君士坦丁时代，基督徒人数已经占到罗马帝国的一半多。正是出于对基督教人数众多的考量，当时苦于东西罗马分裂焦虑的君士坦丁大帝，才将基督教作为救命稻草，用以粘合帝国的裂痕。因此，是什么原因让基督教在罗马帝国的逼迫时期，依然保持了稳定的增长，才是基督教国教化的原因所在。
然而，正是基督教国教化之后，才开始了中世纪时代，在这个时代中，历史对其评价显然并不是十分正面。所以这也告诉我们，基督教国家化本身，不是基督教的复兴，而是基督教宗教化一种的表现。基督教的复兴其实是文艺复兴和启蒙运动，因为这是依靠基督教信仰带来的文化和执着于自由的结果。
观察这两种观点，可以发现，尽管他们彼此明显矛盾，但是都有一个共同的追求，那就是权力：逼迫带来教会信徒的圣洁化，从而使信徒个人自我成圣，这种自我成圣可以使自己成为天堂的特殊选民，相较于教会之外的人，他们天堂公民的特权；而国家化，同样让信教个体有种现实的特权。因此一个关注天上的特权，一个关注地上的特权。
那么，这两种观点都忽略了耶稣福音本身的力量，同时为基督教提供了两种极端环境下的避难所。外部环境紧张的时候，转入地下，因为逼迫使基督教复兴；外部环境不紧张的时候，转入地上，努力为领导人传福音，使基督教国家化。
在这两种观念之外，什么才是适合耶稣福音的发展模式呢？显然，我们要回到耶稣身上，在耶稣的教导中，思考基督教当下的出路。
耶稣母亲生下耶稣之后，为了躲避希律的迫害，在天使的引领之下，逃到了埃及。后来希律死了之后，才从埃及回来。希律死了以后，有主的使者在埃及向约瑟梦中显现，说：“起来！带着小孩子和他母亲往以色列地去，因为要害小孩子性命的人已经死了。”(马太福音 2:19-20)
耶稣的福音传播，耶稣的信徒，甚至耶稣的整个一生的事业，都是在本乡本土发展起来的。上帝为什么要把耶稣召唤回以色列，而不是让他在埃及完成自己的使命。要知道，在埃及的亚历山大里亚有着世界上最大的犹太人社区。
耶稣回到以色列之后，就在犹太人之间传福音，他传福音的对象是那些身边的弱者，而不是像身边的强者。并未看到耶稣为了自己的福音兴旺而向大祭司或者罗马官员传福音，尽管他的门徒可是渴望着从他那里分享权力。
耶稣传福音的方式，一直是从自己身边开始，给撒玛利亚妇女喝水论道，为那个被鬼附的医治，医治患血漏的妇女等等。耶稣所做的是关心身边需要帮助的人。
从耶稣那里，给我们的启发就是，基督教的兴起根本原因是耶稣的福音，而这福音要从身边的人开始——既不是从彼岸，也不是从庙堂之上，而是从本土本乡的身边开始。
因此，当下环境所带给我们的只是让我们把眼光从遥远的彼岸和高高的庙堂回到福音本身，从我们教会所在的村或者社区，开始福音的实践，让我们像耶稣一样，让我们身边的人感受到福音的温度。
当下环境，我们最应该做的，不是考虑地下还是地上的转换。而是让我们明白，真正唱主角的是福音，真正需要福音的是我们身边的人。
因此，我们不是转入地下，而是转入我们的社区和邻舍。让教会回归本乡本土，才是真正的发展路径。
角声| 回到本乡本土——对当下基督教一种出路的探讨
As we all know, Christianity seems to have returned to facing as much tension as ever. No matter whether it is the suspension of gathering places or delivering live-streaming services, the situation has been changing. It has been determined by the international environment and on the other hand, by the COVID-19 pandemic. With a pool of many other factors, it is how the current situation faced by Chinese Christianity come to be.
So under such a background, a voice within Christianity has emerged - that is returning to the underground state to seek development. Despite all kinds of unwillingness that Chinese Christianity has shown, “returning to the underground” could be a long legacy in the Christian historical tradition. It is this traditional consciousness rooted in history that leads to Chinese Christianity being convinced that “underground development” is the inevitable state of Christianity.
About the development of Christianity, there have been two voices colliding with each other. One is the faith in persecution and the other is nationalism. These two ideas are two extremes, but they can even coexist safely in the same group.
Persecuted believers hold that the revival of Christianity does not come from peaceful times, but from the era when Christianity is persecuted. This view holds that without the persecution of the Roman Empire in the early history of Christianity, there would be no latter rise of Christianity. They even think that where there is persecution, there is revival. Based on this view, as early as ten years ago, when the social space of Christianity was constantly expanding, there were believers who missed the era of Christian persecution starting to express the thought that the present relaxed environment would bring about the decline of Christianity.
Of course, at first glance, this view makes sense, but it can’t stand scrutiny. According to Rodney Stark’s view of religious sociology, indeed, the tense environment will increase the cost to Christian believers thus excluding hitchhikers. So the remaining believers are people who highly agree with the church groups. However, in the tense environment, the inevitable result is the great tension between religious doctrine and the secular world. The ultimate orientation of this tension is not the revival of religion, but the shrinking of religion. Because this orientation points to the yearning of the secular world and at the same time the denial of the secular world. This denial isolates Christianity from the world.
Yet the persecution of Christianity by the Roman Empire was not the fundamental reason for the revival of Christianity, the rise of Christianity lies in its gospel itself. At that time, there were many religions in the Roman Empire, but only Christianity remained among the masses during the plague, showing concern and respect for the weak children and facing the upheaval bravely. Therefore, it is a wrong judgment to attribute the revival of Christianity to persecution. What can only be produced under coercion is a religion that rejects society.
Another view, on the contrary, holds that the revival of Christianity originates from the nationalization of Christianity.
This view probably comes from the historical legacy of Constantine the Great of the Roman Empire, who positioned Christianity as the state religion. It is in this view that Christianity was keen to create rumors that national leaders believe in religion.
However, did the revival of Christianity in the Roman Empire originate from nationalization? We can ask this question, why wasn’t any Roman emperor converted to Christianity before Constantine except Constantine himself?
According to Stark’s statistics, in Constantine’s time, the number of Christians already accounted for more than half of the Roman Empire. Just because of the consideration of a large number of Christians, Constantine the Great, who was suffering from the anxiety of the split between East and West Rome at that time, took Christianity as a lifeline to bond the cracks of the empire. Therefore, the reason that Christianity maintained steady growth during the period of persecution by the Roman Empire was why Christianity was nationalized.
However, it was only after Christianity became an established religion that the Middle Ages began. In this era, history obviously didn’t evaluate it very positively. Therefore, it also tells us that the nationalization of Christianity itself is not the revival of Christianity, but a manifestation of the ‘religionization’ of Christianity. The Christian revival was actually the Renaissance and the Enlightenment because it was the result of relying on the culture brought by the Christian faith and clinging to freedom.
Observing these two viewpoints, we can find that although they are obviously contradictory to each other, they all have a common pursuit, that is, power: forcing believers to sanctify themselves so that believers can become special voters in heaven, and their privileges as citizens in heaven are compared with those outside the church. Nationalization also gives religious individuals a real privilege. Therefore, one pays attention to the privilege of heaven and the other pays attention to the privilege of earth.
Then, these two views ignore the power of the gospel of Jesus, and at the same time provide two kinds of shelters for Christianity in extreme circumstances. When the external environment is tense, it goes underground because persecution revives Christianity. When the external situation turns less tense, it returns to the ground, tries to preach the gospel to the leaders and nationalizes Christianity.
Apart from these two ideas, what is the development model suitable for the gospel of Jesus? Obviously, we should go back to Jesus and think about the way out of Christianity in his teachings.
After the mother gave birth to Jesus, in order to avoid Herod’s persecution, she fled to Egypt under the guidance of an angel. Later, after Herod died, she returned from Egypt. An angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream in Egypt, saying, “Get up! Take the child and his mother to the land of Israel, because the man who wanted the child’s life is dead.” (Matthew 2:19-20)
The spread of the gospel of Jesus, the followers of Jesus, and even the whole ministry of Jesus all developed in their own hometown. Why did God call Jesus back to Israel instead of letting him complete his mission in Egypt? Apparently, Alexandria in Egypt had the largest Jewish community in the world.
After Jesus returned to Israel, he preached the gospel among Jews. He shared the gospel with the weak around him, not to the strong around him. I haven’t encountered any message of Jesus preaching the gospel to the high priest or Roman officials for the sake of his gospel prosperity, although his disciples were eager to share power from him.
Jesus’ way of preaching the gospel has always been to start from his own side, to give the Samaritan woman water and teachings, to heal the demon-possessed woman and the woman suffering from blood leakage, and so on. What Jesus did was to care for those around him who needed help.
From Jesus, the inspiration for us is that the root cause of the rise of Christianity is the gospel of Jesus, and this gospel should start from the people around us - neither from the other side nor from the temple, but from the side of the local place.
Therefore, what the present environment brings us is just to let us look back to the gospel itself from a distance and high temple, and start the practice of the gospel from the village or community where our church is located, so that, like Jesus, people around us can feel the warmth of the gospel.
At present, what we should do most is not to consider the conversion between underground and going public. But let us understand that it is the gospel that really plays the leading role, and it is the people around us who really need the gospel.
Therefore, instead of going underground, we go to our communities and neighbors. Let the church return to its native land, which is the real development path.
- Translated by Charlie Li
Voice: Back to Homeland — Exploring a Way Out for Chinese Christianity
