Active Adaptation and Passive Dependence: A Comparison of Protestant and Buddhist Social Services in Contemporary China

Abstract

China’s religious social services complement the statutory welfare. Clarifying the situations and characteristics of different types of religious social services is conducive to promoting their better integration into public welfare. With the help of existing policy texts, research documents, and website data, this paper employs the thematic framework analysis method to analyze texts and documents and uses NVivo12 and SPSS26 to analyze website data. We explore the similarities and differences between contemporary Chinese Protestant social services and Buddhist social services from the perspectives of the service program, service organizations, and service resources, starting from multiple dimensions such as vertical and horizontal, similarity and difference. The main findings include the following: (a) In terms of service programs, Protestant social services are more inclusive than Buddhist social services and more public in terms of participant selection, religious environment, and the use of spiritual methods. Protestant social services are more open in terms of service value and public expression, while Buddhist social services are more localized and are politically consistent with the government. (b) In terms of service organizations, Protestant social services and Buddhist social services are based on three main types of legal persons. Protestant social services were the first to register organizational legal persons. Protestant social organizations differentiated into special service institutions and have core organizations with strong mobilization capabilities (CCC/TSPM). There is little difference between Protestant and Buddhist social services in private non-enterprise units and foundations (transparency index, business scope). (c) In terms of service resources, both Protestant and Buddhist social services rely on donations. The sources of funds for Protestant social services are more international, diversified, and market-oriented. In terms of government resource acquisition, Protestant social services actively “adapt”, while Buddhist social services passively “rely”.

1. Introduction

The major religions practiced in China are Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Catholicism, and Protestantism, with nearly 200 million believers and more than 380,000 clerical personnel. Protestantism has 38 million followers in China, with 57,000 clerical personnel. China has numerous Buddhist believers, but it is difficult to accurately estimate their numbers as there are no set registration procedures that ordinary believers must follow as part of their religion. There are around 222,000 Buddhist clerical personnel (The White Paper 2018).

Religious social service is an important strategy to cope with the challenges of human livelihood and plays an important role in the provision of statutory welfare. Historically, religious charity has undertaken the responsibility of helping the poor and the weak in Chinese society. Folk charity with religious social services as an important pillar, together with government public services and family support systems, constitute the basic types of social services. However, in practice, the social services of different religious backgrounds exhibit many differences. This paper compares Protestant social services and Buddhist social services from the perspectives of the horizontal current situation and vertical history in an attempt to understand the macro level of religious social services. We not only offer a pure description of the two types of religious social services, but we also compare the homogeneity and heterogeneity of the two types of religious services and their organizations and explain the social reality of religious social services so as to present an academic perspective of the development status of local religious social services in China. In policy practice, this paper attempts to promote a better embedding of religious social services into public welfare undertakings.

1.1. Social Context

Protestant social services and Buddhist social services have received a high degree of official recognition in Chinese history. Buddhist social services commenced earlier and had a high degree of official recognition in history. However, they began to decline after the Song Dynasty and were more traditional in terms of their social embeddedness, service response, degree of organization, and operation mechanism. Protestant social services entered China relatively late, but due to their long history of overseas social service development, these services spread rapidly throughout the Republic of China. Based on community service and organizational transformation, they showed greater modernity, and modern Protestant social services show a higher level of specialization.

Chinese Buddhist social services began in the Zhou Dynasty and reached a relatively mature stage in the course of the Tang and Song Dynasties. Buddhist monasteries spontaneously formed a Buddhist charity, the Beitian Courtyard, in order to help the poor. The Beitian Academy marked the beginning of Buddhism’s participation in modern philanthropy. It formed a dual governance model with monks as the main body and the government providing official supervision and management. It was an important part of statutory public welfare in the Tang and Song Dynasties. Buddhism has made great contributions to traditional Chinese philanthropy. Its main services include disaster relief, charity, medicine, and education related to people’s livelihoods. Buddhism led to the establishment of some permanent relief agencies, formed a systematic management system with aspects such as the “Inexhaustible Storehouse” and “Monastic”, and involved the widespread foundation of charity schools, in which temples “took on the responsibility of social education” (Chen 2010). In short, the characteristics of Buddhist social services before the Song Dynasty are as follows: monks as the main body; institutionalized management; cooperation with the government in providing welfare; and scattered relief combined with routine services. During the Ming and Qing Dynasties, due to the imperial suppression of Buddhist culture and the excessive intervention of secular power in Buddhism, Chinese Buddhism changed from practicing Buddhism to just doing funeral services. The organized, large-scale Buddhist social service activities gradually declined. At the beginning of the 20th century, Buddhism was widely criticized by intellectuals for ignoring the idea of entering the world and only paying attention to the idea of leaving the world. Some Buddhists, represented by the Buddhist monk Taixu, also began to advocate the concept that Buddhism’s preference for the world should be exchanged for the promotion of the living, and that money used for the dead should be used to promote the living (Jing and Gao 2018). This “Human Buddhism” revolution affirms and emulates the Christian spirit of self-sacrifice, altruism and social care services, promotes the modern transformation of Buddhism, and constructs a Buddhist belief in human society. Buddhist social service activities have gradually increased, and the scope of the services has gradually expanded. For example, during the Anti-Japanese War from 1937 to 1945, Buddhist monks participated in activities such as donating materials, organizing monks to support the front line, sheltering refugees, and rescuing the wounded after the war. Modern Buddhism mostly falls under the leadership, support, and coordination of government functional departments. The excessive infiltration of government power and responsibility has caused monks to be less inclined to leave the temple as legal persons and carry out independent investigations and assistance. Buddhist social services, as a whole, have not yet established an effective social organization (Wang and Liu 2010) and carried out charitable initiatives.

Protestant social services began comparatively later in China. Since the 16th century, Protestantism has had extensive contact and interaction with Chinese society. After entering modern society, social service organizations based on churches in Western society also arrived in China one after another, establishing various Western-style schools and building many clinical hospitals. The YMCA is one of the representatives of this process (Cao and Chen 2010). During the period of the Republic of China, Protestantism, as an international religion with a foreign background, was protected by unequal treaties. The religious policies and regulations formulated by the national government did not apply to Protestantism. The national government exercised very limited administrative power over Protestantism and made greater use of Protestantism to change customs and cultivate new citizens. Therefore, a large number of missionaries poured into China and set up hospitals, schools, nurseries, and other service-providing institutions. By 1920, there were 7382 Protestant schools and 214,254 students. International religious social service organizations set up branches throughout China, such as the National Council of YMCA of China, established in 1912. The Salvation Army was introduced into China in 1916. From 1918 to 1935, it expanded from north to south, setting up missionary stations in 13 places and opening church hospitals and schools. By 1937, the United States and Britain had set up more than 300 Protestant church hospitals in China, with more than 21,000 beds and more than 600 small clinics. The Protestant charity was well received by the Chinese public, which led to the improvement and development of non-religious charities in China (Cao 2008). The rapid expansion of Protestant social services during this period laid a solid foundation for the specialization of Protestant social services in China and enabled the influence of Protestant social services to rapidly surpass that of the local Buddhism.

After the establishment of the People’s Republic of China, religious social services were interrupted for a while, but since the reform and opening up, Protestant and Buddhist social services have developed rapidly. Their service functions have continuously improved, the scope of services has expanded, the quality of services has continuously improved, and the number of professional service organizations has increased.

However, compared with international religious social services, there remain common problems such as limited professional ability, a narrow source of service resources, weak service standardization, and imperfect service supporting policies (Wang 2015). Meanwhile, there is still a large gap between contemporary Protestant social services and Buddhist social services in terms of specialization. For example, after the Wenchuan earthquake in 2008, the domestic religious circles donated more than CNY 400 million in half a month. Among them, the Buddhist circles donated approximately CNY 200 million, and approximately 120 million came from the Protestant circles. The total donation of the Buddhist circles was much higher than that of Protestant circles (People’s Daily Overseas Edition 2012). However, the direct service role of Protestantism after the earthquake was more professional and systematic, and its professional level exceeded that of various Buddhist charities. For example, the Amity Foundation responded quickly within one hour after the earthquake, held disaster relief meetings, set up emergency rescue teams, tracked the disaster situation in a timely manner, and arranged disaster relief plans. In one day, it received donations of HK$ 300,000 and CNY 62,422.09. The 13 May Amity Earthquake Disaster Relief Briefing was issued on the day after the earthquake, and the names and donation amounts of all the donors were announced (Wei 2008). The foundation left a donation account and other information, managed by a professional team, adopting a professional approach to providing services. Many Buddhist temples, including the Luohan Temple, are actively involved in disaster relief public welfare activities such as helping the poor, and professional Buddhist social service organizations, such as the Tzu Chi Foundation (Taiwan, China), are also involved in the provision of donations, assistance, and other services. However, in the face of the earthquake, most Buddhist charities were slow to respond, had no plans, lacked organization and order, and could not quickly carry out substantive relief work, so that Buddhist social care activities played a weak role in the disaster (Wu 2012). Buddhist social services must be transformed from “relief charity” to “service charity”, focusing on professional charity and service quality.

At the same time, Protestant social services and Buddhist social services have demonstrated different development characteristics and circumstances in different historical stages. Particularly in transforming traditional charity into modern charity in today’s religious social service organizations1, Protestant social services and Buddhist social services have experienced different levels of transformation difficulties. These difficulties are related to the religious social service organization itself, as well as to the institutional background and policy environment, and the comparison of Protestant and Buddhist social services must be placed in the macro structure of the entire social background.

1.2. Policy Context

Since the reform and opening up, religious social services have entered a period of organizational reconstruction, and service functions have gradually been restored. In recent years, the Chinese government has encouraged organizations with a religious background to carry out social services. In 2012, the Chinese government’s six administrations, including the National Religious Affairs Administration, jointly released “Opinions on Encouraging and Regulating Religious Circles’ Participation in Public Welfare Charitable Activities” (NRAA et al. 2012). The space for religious circles to engage in social services was relaxed, and the “ceiling” was removed, allowing religious groups to participate in charitable activities (Gu 2016). The Charity Law of the People’s Republic of China (SCNPC 2016) and the newly revised Regulations on Religious Affairs in 2017 improved the norms for religious circles to engage in public charitable activities. Specifically, the orientation of the policy text was mainly reflected in the following: (a) At the policy orientation level, the rationality of religious social services was consistently affirmed. The NRAA pointed out that religious charitable activities are “an important way to give play to the positive role of religious circles and religious believers” and “a useful supplement to the healthy development of public welfare philanthropy” (NRAA et al. 2012). The newly revised regulations clearly stated that religious personnel carrying out religious charitable activities are protected by law (State Council, People’s Republic of China 2017). (b) The form and scope of religious social service activities were further clarified, and the space for religious circles to engage in charitable activities was expanded. The NRAA stipulated the basic forms and main areas of charitable activities for religious circles. In fact, this left some flexibility for the further expansion of the scope of religious social services (NRAA et al. 2012). (c) The nature of religious social services was clearly defined. The documents stipulated that “Religious bodies, institutions of religious education and religious venues are non-profit organizations; their property and income shall be used for activities consistent with their purposes and for public welfare and charitable undertakings” (State Council, People’s Republic of China 2017). (d) More requirements were proposed for the standardization of religious social services. In addition to the scope and form of religious social services stipulated by the NRAA, based on the Charity Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Regulations on Religious Affairs expanded the understanding of charity activities and expressed the provisions that religious bodies, institutions of religious education, venues for religious activities, and religious personnel “may conduct public welfare and charitable undertakings in accordance with law” (State Council, People’s Republic of China 2017). Although there have been some positive changes at the policy level to provide an institutional basis for religious social service organizations to participate in social services, at the practical level, the degree of participation, participation level, and participation space of religious organizations in social services have not changed substantially.

1.3. Academic Background

Many reliable studies have examined the practices of Western religious social services, and some studies classified the mature types of religious social services (Dinham et al. 2009; Scott 2003). Some studies focused on the resource dependence of religious social services on the government (Green and Sherman 2002; Chaves 1999), some studies discussed the religious expression in the services (Chambré 2001; Monsma and Mounts 2002), and some studies explored the service efficiency of the religious social services compared with secular services (Cnaan et al. 1999; Byron et al. 2002; Robert 2004). Previous research on religious social services in China has focused on social services of a single religious background. Many scholars explored the role of Protestantism in public service and analyzed the transformation of traditional charitable services into modern charitable services (Wang 2001; Huang 2013; Lin 2008), considering the important role of Protestant “love” in social reconstruction and welfare in China (Gerda 2011). Some studies have also combed and analyzed Chinese Buddhist social services (Wang and Liu 2010), analyzed the public welfare transformation of Mundane Buddhism (Jing and Gao 2018), and analyzed the relationship between Chinese Buddhist social services and the state welfare system (André 2022).

Academia has held many meaningful discussions on the issues of social services and organizations of different religious backgrounds, but there is relatively little research on the direct comparison of Protestant and Buddhist social services in contemporary China. Wu used “Grey Zone” theory to compare Chinese Buddhist charity and Protestant charity. Some scholars analyzed Protestant and Buddhist social services using a case study method (Cao and Lei 2021). Chen compared the doctrinal foundations of Buddhist social service practice (Chen 2010).

2. Research Question and Methodology

We examined Protestant and Buddhist social services to answer the following research questions: How much institutional space is available for religious social service organizations to participate in social services? What are the respective service development strategies of Protestant and Buddhist social services? What are the similarities and differences between Protestant and Buddhist social services in service programs and service organizations? In terms of gaining government resources, how can the two types of service organizations interact with the government through their own strategic choices? How do we achieve effective management and promote the orderly development of religious social services?

Based on the documentary research method and quantitative research method, this paper begins with multiple dimensions such as vertical and horizontal, similarity and difference. The main sources of qualitative data were official policy texts (including government regulations and work reports), academic literature, and website information (including the China Foundation Center, Charity in China, and China’s social organization public service platform). There were three sources of quantitative data: first, the data on religious background foundations in 2018 and 2019 published in the “Report on China’s Religious Charity and Philanthropy Development” (2018) and “Report on China’s Religious Charity and Philanthropy Development” (2019)2; second, the data published by the China Foundation Center and Charity in China; third, the data queried on the official website of China’s social organization public service platform. We analyzed qualitative data mainly using the frame analysis method, assisted by NVivo12 software. SPSS26 software was used to analyze the quantitative data.

3. Service Program

According to the definition of “religious characteristics” by R. J. Sider and H. R. Unruh, the religious characteristics of a service program include “religious environment”, “religious content of program”, “main form of integration of religious content with other program component”, and “excepted connection between religious content and desired outcome” (Sider and Unruh 2004).

Protestant and Buddhist social services have common service program characteristics: (a) the service motivation arises from religious values, and service values have high “universal value” and are humanitarian in spirit; (b) service program resources are usually related to religious groups such as temples, churches, or followers; (c) service participants and users possess “internality” characteristics, and they have a certain tendency toward groups with similar beliefs.

The differences between Protestant social services and Buddhist social services are mainly reflected in the following:

3.1. Inclusion of Services

As far as volunteer choice is concerned, Protestant social services volunteers are both faith-based and secular. They rely on private and public networks and are highly mobile. Protestant social services volunteers are highly socialized and usually do not include mandatory provisions of faith elements in volunteer recruitment. Organizations usually actively cooperate with local universities and other secular organizations to recruit volunteers in addition to Protestant followers and catechumen by providing practice bases and open recruitment needs. Buddhist social service organizations pay more attention to belief consistency; volunteers are more dependent on private networks and trust and have strong stability. Some Buddhist background foundations follow the Tzu Chi model. For example, the Lingshan Charity Foundation established a special Lingshan volunteer Development Service Center and the Philanthropic Foundation of Xi-xin Temple Changsha Hunan. There are special charity volunteer organizations that formulate volunteer measures and train special office management volunteers (Zhao 2015). Most of the volunteers in Buddhist social service organizations belong to a stable network that includes lay Buddhists, lay Buddhist society, and laity. The organizations expect participants to share the faith, values, and practices of the organization, and they obtain management advantages through homogeneous culture values to achieve organizational goals. Buddhist social services prefer salaried Buddhists and lay Buddhists and do not rely on secular volunteers, which more clearly reflects the charitable stance and practice of Buddhist temples, rather than lay Buddhists or volunteers’ charity behavior patterns (Cao and Lei 2021).

In terms of the cultural identity of service products, the overall visibility of religious symbols in Protestant services is moderate. In organizations with a high degree of specialization, religious elements only exist in the mission and purpose of the organization, and religious symbols are completely removed from services. These organizations are known for their transparency, credibility, and high-quality services of capital operations such as the YMCA and the Amity Foundation. Most other services involve missionary content, religious elements, and religious methods, but there are few purely spiritual technologies, which is related to the fact that contemporary Protestant churches rarely conduct social services directly through church entities. Protestant social services are more flexible regarding religious symbols and more adaptable to institutions and policies. For example, when government departments carry out on-site supervisions and inspections of Protestant social service venues, most institutions will take the initiative to arrange for religious symbols and religious elements to be temporarily hidden and choose a flexible way to align the government and the institution. Buddhist social services demonstrate the polarized characteristics of a strong association of religious elements and a weak association of religious elements. Wang pointed out that Buddhism emphasizes the internal maintenance of faith, and their charity practice involves almost no missionary activities. In charitable activities, it reflects the purpose of help and service, and little missionary activity is involved (Wang 2010). Wang refers only to a type of Buddhist social service organization where faith and services are not highly integrated and usually operate through foundations. Such organizations are ahead of Protestant organizations in terms of the publicity and sociality of social service delivery. There are few religious elements in their social service products, and they have a certain local cultural affinity. Another type of Buddhist social service is the faith-permeated organization, in which faith and services are highly integrated, and it is difficult to distinguish between religious practices and non-religious practices. For example, Buddhist pension service agencies give priority to receiving believers or only receiving believers who have long occupied a major position in temple services. Jing pointed out that 26 temple pension service agencies in Jiangsu are equipped with 2050 beds, their elderly population has reached more than 1400 people, and Buddhist believers accounted for more than 99% (Jing and Gao 2018). There are also organizations that receive both monks and laity (Qingtai Nursing Home, Suzhou Lingyan Mountain Temple Buddhist Nursing Home), but the final recipients of services are mainly Buddhist followers, and there are few clients who do not believe in Buddhism. The purpose of these organizations is usually chanting Buddhism, and religious elements in the service process are extremely obvious. The daily life of the service recipient is consistent with that of the monks and nuns: chanting, walking around the Buddha, meditating, eating vegetarian food, and following the temple work and rest schedules.

In contrast to the values of Protestantism, the merit-making culture is important in Chinese Buddhism, according to which goodness will result in a good reward. Part of Buddhist charities’ income is used to support the personal religious welfare of Buddhist believers. The composition of the income of temples in China is generally divided into four parts: donations from believers, commercial income (such as tourism via cooperative development) and investment income, self-sufficient income, and public funds provided by the government (for maintenance projects). In terms of charity expenditure, there is a large proportion of reciprocal expenditure for monks and believers. For example, the annual revenue of Shaolin Temple is 140 million yuan, 70% of which is used for temple repair and the protection of cultural relics, while 20% is designated for monks and 10% for public welfare and charity. The cultural characteristics of Buddhism determine that the Buddhist social service is more interior than Protestantism, and it has the characteristics of a “small community” standard in terms of the publicity of the selection of service objects. Many Buddhist believers receive priority in temple nursing homes or lay Buddhist society owing to years of continuous donations (money and time).

3.2. Self-Identification and Public Expression

As for self-identification and its public expression in service practice, there were some differences between Protestant and Buddhist social services. We entered the organizational goals, missions, purposes, and values of 127 Protestant and Buddhist foundations into the NVivo software for analysis, and the following three differences were found. First, there were different core values. The Protestant social service value was clearly embodied as “love” (Figure 1), while in the public expression of Buddhist social services, “mercy” appeared many times (the fourth word frequency), highlighting the Buddhist value of compassion (Figure 2). Second, Protestant social service values were open and cosmopolitan, while Buddhist social service values were traditional and localized. As an international faith, Protestant social service emphasized broader values beyond the home, such as peace, sharing, and the world. In our analysis of the public expression of Buddhist social services, tradition (counts 32, weighted percentage 1.38) and culture (counts 76, weighted percentage 3.27) were closely combined. The term traditional culture (word frequency count 12) and the value of Buddhist social service have been internalized as a part of Chinese traditional culture after a long history of evolution. Third, the expression and prominence of political consistency were different. Protestant social services rarely had clearly political claims and expressions; in terms of public expression, they highlighted concern for vulnerable groups, respect for life, and yearning for a better life. Protestant social service public expression was closely integrated with the micro goal of social service. The political direction of Buddhist social services was very clear; in terms of the mission, purpose, and goal of the organization, Buddhist social services lay great stress on abiding by the Constitution, laws and regulations, and national policies, also putting forward clear requirements on patriotism and social morality.

4. Service Organization

The comparison between Protestant and Buddhist social services regarding service organization was mainly conducted through two aspects: legal person typology and religious characteristics typology.

4.1. Legal Person Typology

Chinese Protestant and Buddhist social service organizations are mainly registered as three types of legal person organizations: associations, private non-enterprise units, and foundations. Since 2019, religious venues can be registered as independent donation corporations; institutions of religious education can also register as a legal person according to the Regulations on Religious Affairs3 (State Council, People’s Republic of China 2017). The above five types of corporate organizations have relatively different social service and education functions.

In terms of registration as service organizations, Protestant and Buddhist social services differed in the number of years organizations were registered. Through the “National Social Organization Query” port of China’s social organization public service platform, we found 2110 social organizations with the word “Protestant” in their names and 1795 social organizations with the word “Buddhist“ in their names. In terms of the years of registration, there was a significant difference between Protestant and Buddhist social service organizations in the group of “10 to 15 years” and the group of “more than 15 years”. Among the organizations registered for more than 15 years, there were 1021 Protestant social service organizations and 787 Buddhist social service organizations. The proportion of Protestant social service organizations (56.5%) was higher than that of Buddhist ones (43.5%). The chi-squared test showed a statistically significant difference in registration years (α = 0.05, Pearson’s chi-squared 7.412, p = 0.006). Compared with Buddhist social services, Protestant social services started registering organizations and independent legal entities earlier.

4.1.1. Associations

The common point between religious and Buddhist associations is that their main function is faith activities, and their secondary social service functions are mainly reflected in three ways: (1) advocating and coordinating internal charitable activities; (2) directing and providing social services by the social service department or non-regular professional committees (including social services and family services); and (3) establishing or funding of a service organization with a certain affiliation to provide services. The services are short-term and fragmented, for example, “Religious Charity Week”, which for 10 consecutive years has carried out short-term joint actions based on unified coordination by religious administration departments and extensive organization by religious associations.

As of 2017, there were 5000 registered religious associations, accounting for 1.4% of the 355,000 associations nationwide. After 2018, the category was removed from the official social organizations’ statistics. Through a search of China’s social organization public service platform, we found that by 2021, there were 1713 associations with the word “Buddhist“ in their names, accounting for 0.46% of the country’s 371,000 social organizations. A total of five were identified as charitable organizations, sixty-three were industry associations and chambers of commerce, and ten were voluntary service organizations. Among the Buddhist associations, 96% were associations with a Buddhist background at various levels, and the rest were lay Buddhist societies, charity societies, and cultural promotion groups. There were 2078 Protestant associations, accounting for 0.56% of the total number of associations nationwide. These included national religious organizations officially recognized by the government: National Committee of Three-Self Patriotic Movement of the Protestant Churches in China, China Christian Council, National Council of Young Men’s Christian Associations of China (YMCA of China), and National Council of Young Women’s Christian Associations of China (YWCA of China). These four organizations were all registered by the Ministry of Civil Affairs, and together with their counterparts in different regions, accounted for 97% of Protestant associations. In addition, registered Protestant associations included church management committees, churches, and other organizations with a Protestant background.

There are two differences between Protestant and Buddhist associations:

One difference is between specialized social services agencies. As opposed to Buddhist associations, Protestant associations have specialized social services agencies such as the YMCA and YWCA (national and local)4, for a total of 23, all of which are engaged in social services. Although 10 Buddhist associations, such as the Buddhist Association of Xianyang and the Buddhist Charity Association of Qianshan District (Anshan City, Liaoning Province), have obtained the organizational identity of voluntary service organization, their main business is still to organize and coordinate religious venues for activities, and their social services are marginal. Buddhist social organizations have no specialized social service agencies.

The other difference is the functional difference in the core organization. Today, Protestant and Buddhist social services have a relatively complete organizational system; the Buddhist Association of China and the CCC/TSPM are the core organizations in the development of Protestant and Buddhist social services. They play an important role in promoting the modernization of religious social services. For example, the CCC/TSPM continues to organize social service training courses every year, and in the late 1990s, the Buddhist Association of China promoted the establishment of merit associations and foundations, and Buddhist charitable foundations with modern features began to operate. In contrast to the Buddhist Association of China, the CCC/TSPM has a strong organization and coordination ability and has set up a full-time Social Service Department. In 2003, this special department was set up to coordinate and guide local churches in carrying out social services. Using pension services as an example, in the early stage of the CCC/TSPM, questionnaires were sampled throughout the country, and seminars on elderly care services were held regularly to improve the service capacity of church elderly care services. By 2019, it had set up a database of basic information about 171 Protestant pension service agencies nationwide, held 16 sessions of pension service director exchange programs and training for pension service as well as multiple training courses for nursing staff, cultivated 532 nursing staff with primary and intermediate qualifications, and sent three groups to the United States and Australia to learn nursing services knowledge (CCC/TSPM 2018). Shandong Province alone had 22 Protestant pension service agencies, with more than 2800 beds. Nursing beds accounted for 75% of the total, with an occupancy rate of more than 90%. It used a management model of modernization, informatization, and professionalization and recruited students who majored in social work to participate in the management. Shandong CC/TSPM held social service professional training, post qualification training, and pension service exchange seminars; more than 1100 people have been trained in old-age services for Shandong and other provinces (Gao and Wang 2017).

4.1.2. Private Non-Enterprise Units

Private non-enterprise units are social organizations that use non-state-owned assets to engage in non-profit social service activities (State Council, People’s Republic of China 1998). Private non-enterprise units are highly specialized according to the high degree of differentiation in modern times, and their undertakings are considered specialized group undertakings, which are social groups independent of the national market. They engage in public welfare work and have real social public characteristics (Li 2008). In 2016, the Ministry of Civil Affairs modified the name of “private non-enterprise units” to “social service organizations” in order to align them with the Charity Law of the People’s Republic of China. At present, the terms “private non-enterprise units” and “social service organizations” are in a transitional period, and they are both used in official documents. Among the 400,000 private non-enterprise units registered by the end of 2017, only 115 were explicitly registered as “religious units” (MCA 2018). In fact, some religious social service organizations are not registered as “religious” organizations. Some are the nominal affiliates of the registered organizations, some are registered as commercial institutions, and some do not register; therefore, it is hard to collect accurate statistical standards and data.

Through a search of the National Social Organization Query portal of China’s social organization public service platform5, we found thirty-two private non-enterprise units with the word “Protestantism” in their names, including fifteen pension service agencies, six hospitals and clinics, two Protestant community organizations (TSPM, Management Committee, etc.), four churches, four training centers, and one other organization (Shengle Studio). Through a search of the same portal of the platform, we found seventy private non-enterprise units with the word “Buddhism” in their names, including eight pension service agencies, two hospitals and clinics, ten community organizations (management institutes, etc.), thirty-seven cultural research centers (research institutes, cultural research centers, museums, calligraphy and painting institutes), twelve training centers, and one other organization (charity service center, charity institute). Protestant social service organizations are mainly pension service agencies, and Buddhist social service organizations are mainly cultural research centers. In addition, some religious social service organizations adopt secular names or names with spiritual terms for registration. The words “Protestantism” or “Buddhism” do not appear in the organization names, and there are no accurate statistics on the number of these institutions.

The chi-squared test was performed for the two variables of “religion type” and “legal person type”, and the results indicated that the proportion of Buddhist social service organizations was higher than that of Protestant among the types of registered private non-enterprise units, and the proportion of Protestant social service organizations was higher than that of Buddhist among institutions registered as associations. The results suggested an association between the two variables of “legal person type” and “religion type”, and there was a significant difference between Protestant private non-enterprise units and Buddhist private non-enterprise units in terms of registration type (α = 0.05, Pearson’s chi-squared value was 110.59, p = 0.000). This difference was statistically significant. Protestant social service organizations are more likely to register as associations, while Buddhist social service organizations are more likely to register as non-enterprise units.

4.1.3. Foundations

By the end of 2019, there were 151 foundations with religious backgrounds, 112 foundations6 with Buddhist backgrounds, and 15 foundations with Protestant backgrounds on the mainland (Qiu et al. 2020). The number and proportion of foundations with Protestant backgrounds were significantly smaller than those with Buddhist backgrounds (Qiu et al. 2020). At the government level, there were two foundations centralized by state-level departments (Tzu Chi Foundation and Master Hsing Yun Cultural and Educational Foundation), eighty-four foundations centralized by provincial departments, twenty-three foundations centralized by municipal departments, thirteen foundations centralized by the county and district level, and five without government authority. The Tzu Chi Foundation was the first foundation on the Chinese mainland to have non-mainland people as its legal persons.

In 2018, the average CFC Foundation Transparency Index (FTI) value was 50.08, and the average FTI of foundations with a religious background was 39.8. In all, 73% of foundations with a religious background had a transparency index lower than the average (Qiu et al. 2019). The average CFC FTI of Protestant background foundations was 59.4, and five foundations were higher than the national average (

Table 1. Mann–Whitney U Test of the CFC FTI.

	2018			2019
Religious Background	Mean (FTI)	Mean Rank	Mann-Whitney U	Mean (FTI)	Mean Rank	Mann-Whitney U
Buddhism	38.4	35.5	Had statistically significant difference (U = 162, p = 0.031)	41.1	50.44	No statistically significant difference (U = 444.5, p = 0.077)
Protestantism	59.4	52		82.2	65.75

); the average CFC FTI of Buddhist background foundations was 38.4, and 18 foundations were higher than the national average. The Mann–Whitney U test indicated that there was a significant difference in the CFC FTI between the Protestant and the Buddhist background foundations (U = 162, p = 0.031), which was statistically significant. The mean rank of Buddhist background foundations (R = 35.5) was significantly lower than that of Protestant background foundations (R = 52), and the CFC FTI of Protestant background foundations was significantly higher than that of Buddhist background foundations. In 2019, the average FTI was 51.34 (China Foundation Center 2019). In terms of the transparency index, the difference between Buddhist and Protestant background foundations was not significant. Although the average FTI of Buddhist background foundations was lower than that of Protestant foundation foundations, the gap between the two is gradually narrowing. With the gradual development of information disclosure by the Buddhist background foundations, their information transparency and disclosure system is improving.

In terms of service business scope, after collating the public information of 112 Buddhist background foundations and 15 Protestant background foundations and coding it with NVivo software, we found that the scope of social service activities and projects covered a relatively wide range, and in the field of services, the two types of foundations had similar service areas. The first-level codes include (a) humanitarian relief in emergencies; (b) medical and health care; (c) care for the elderly and support for children; (d) education and culture; (e) construction of public welfare industries; (f) poverty alleviation; (g) assistance for the disabled; and (h) environmental protection (Figure 3). In comparison, the unique service area of Buddhist background foundations was community construction; the specific area of service for Protestant background foundations was rural development. The top four service areas of Buddhist background foundations were education and culture (sixty-one references), poverty alleviation (thirty-nine references), assistance to the disabled (seventeen references), and construction of public welfare industries (fourteen references). The top four service areas of Protestant background foundations were poverty alleviation (twelve references), education and culture (twelve references), medical and health care (five references), public welfare industry construction (four references), and humanitarian relief in emergencies (four references). “Education and culture,” “poverty alleviation,”and “construction of public welfare industries” were the top four codes in the business scope of the two types of foundations and occupied the mainstream position in the business scope of the two types of foundations.

4.2. Religious Characteristics Typology

According to the different religious characteristics, Sider and Unruh divided the organization of religious backgrounds into different types, ranked by the degree of connection with belief: faith-permeated organizations; faith-centered organizations; faith-affiliated organizations; faith-background organizations; faith-secular organizations; partnership organizations; and secular-organization organizations (Sider and Unruh 2004).

In Protestant social service organizations, there are some faith-permeated organizations, such as the Yunnan Baoshan Evangelical Voluntary Detoxification Center, Love Nursing Home of Cao County, Eider Nursing Homes of Beijing; these organizations were established by the church or the CCC/TSPM and mainly managed by the believers. Usually, church pastors and the principal heads of the CCC/TSPM are not legal persons. This type of organization does not make up a high proportion of Protestant social service organizations overall and is a secondary type of Protestant social service organizations.

Protestant social services depend mainly on the faith-background and faith-secular partnership organizations, and the relationship between service and faith is based on the Priority Model (

Table 2. Management of religious social service organizations.

Religious Background	Operation Bodies	Religious Characteristics Typology	Relationship between Service and Faith	Marketization	Service Users	Governance Structure	Representative Bodies
Protestantism	Laity	Faith-Background, Faith-Secular Partnership	Priority Model	Higher	Public	Independent legal person	China YMCA
Buddhism	Monk	Faith-permeated	Equivalence Model	Lower	Internal	Affiliate	Temple nursing home

). Despite the integration of faith and service, the dimension of religion has no mandatory and clear provision. Faith and religious elements are not seen as a crucial part of program efficiency. Service revolves around the core values of religion, while presenting a working mechanism in parallel with the religious bodies.

Comparatively speaking, the faith-permeated organization is one of the main types of Buddhist social service organizations. It is dominated by the monk group, the service venues depend on temples, and the relationship between service and faith is based on the Equivalence Model.

For example, temple pension services, which are regarded as the characteristic brand of Buddhist social services, were proposed by the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) members from religious circles in the CPPCC many times. The most influential ones are the Jixiang Temple Nursing Home, Fuding City Zhiguo Mituo Village Nursing Home, and Da Jiuhua Buddhist Lingshan Nursing Home. These pension service agencies are mainly directly run by temples, and their legal persons (or persons in charge) are usually abbots. The routine management and operations of these pension service agencies are directly overseen by monks from the temples, and there is a model by which donations from temple guardians (believers) and long-term care by volunteer guardians is implemented to provide elderly care service.

5. Service Resources

5.1. Social Resources

Protestant and Buddhist social services were mainly funded by non-governmental capital. For example, in 2019 the foundation industry received donations totaling CNY 71.29 billion, and the total social donations from religious venues amounted to CNY 2.847 billion (Song 2021). Foundations with a Buddhist or Protestant background shared the following commonalities: (a) Donations represented the main source of their annual total incomes. Foundations with a Buddhist background received donations totaling CNY 716.18 million, representing 94.6% of total incomes (CNY 757.35 million). Foundations with a Protestant background received donations totaling CNY 308.53 million, representing 89.2% of total incomes (CNY 345.98 million). (b) The Matthew effect existed in the income of foundations with a Protestant background and of those with a Buddhist background. The top two foundations with a Protestant background received a total of CNY 331.52 million, accounting for 95.8% of the total incomes of all foundations of this kind. The top 10 foundations with a Buddhist background received a total of CNY 598.58 million, accounting for 78.7% of the total incomes of all foundations of this kind. (c) There was no significant difference in total annual incomes between the two types of foundations, but income differences among the foundations with a Protestant background were greater. The Mann–Whitney U test showed no significant differences in donation incomes and total annual incomes between foundations with a Buddhist background and those with a Protestant background (P1 = 0.66, P2 = 0.64). With respect to the variable of donation income, the standard deviation of foundations with a Buddhist background was 2565.6 and for those with a Protestant background it was 7444. In terms of the variable of total annual income, the standard deviations of foundations with Buddhist and Protestant backgrounds were, respectively, 2725.3 and 8414.8. This indicated that, compared with foundations with a Buddhist background, their counterparts with a Protestant background were more discrete in total donation income and total income. The ability to raise donation resources among foundations with a Protestant background varied and intra-organizational differences were larger than those among foundations with a Buddhist background.

Protestant social services and Buddhist social services also differed from each other in terms of funding sources. In the early stage of their development, China’s Protestant social services relied on overseas resources for support and management guidance, and in the later stage resources came mainly from domestic donations. China’s Protestant Church social service inherited the development and operation mode of Europe and the United States, and its funding sources are more diversified—folk and international—and it has the characteristics of cross-sectionality. Its resource-raising depends on the market to a certain extent and has great advantages in the stability of funds and the sustainability of organizational development. Buddhist social service mainly relies upon temple economy and foundations for fund sources. Fund-raising bears internal and native characteristics with little funding coming from international sources. Compared with Protestant social services, Buddhist social services have a relatively low level of market-oriented operations, and temples adopting market models (e.g., Putuoshan temple operates enterprises, Shaolin Temple commercialize its operations) are not a common phenomenon. For example, the pension service, assistance for the handicapped, and children’s welfare services operated by Buddhist temples are largely charged at a sum voluntarily paid by service users, and the financing gap is met by temple subsidies or social donations. Many temple pension service agencies are not open to the public to avoid market risks associated with legal disputes arising from caring for the oldest old.

We ranked the total incomes of foundations with a religious background in 2019 and 2020 and then ranked the sum of ranks. We screened out the top ten foundations with a Buddhist background and the top five foundations with a Protestant background. By consulting the annual reports of these foundations over the past 3 years and sorting out the lists of their foundation business activities, we found that foundations with a Protestant background had more diversified, highly marketized income sources with investment returns accounting for a certain proportion. These foundations preserved and increased the values of their funds mainly through trust schemes and purchasing funds and other wealth management products. The 15 foundations are listed in

Table 3. Source of Income of Foundations (2019–2021).

Organization Name	Religious Background	Donation	Dues	Services	Merchan-Dise Sales	Government Subsidy	Investment	Other
Lingshan Charity Foundation (Wuxi)	Buddhism	√	×	×	×	×	√	√
Tzu Chi Foundation	Buddhism	√	×	√	×	×	×	√
Honghuashe Foundation (Suzhou)	Buddhism	√	×	×	×	√	×	√
Hainan Sanya Nanshan Beneficence Foundation	Buddhism	——	——	——	——	——	——	——
Hainan South China Sea Mercy Foundation	Buddhism	——	——	——	——	——	——	——
Shenzhen Hongfa Temple Charity Foundation	Buddhism	√	×	×	×	×	×	√
Shanghai Daci Charity Foundation	Buddhism	——	——	——	——	——	——	——
Master Hsing Yun Cultural and Educational Foundation	Buddhism	√	×	×	×	×	√	√
J Charity Foundation (anonymous)	Buddhism	√	×	×	×	×	×	√
S Foundation (anonymous)	Buddhism	——	——	——	——	——	——	——
Amity Foundation	Protestantism	√	×	×	×	√	√	√
H Foundation (anonymous)	Protestantism	√	×	×	×	×	√	√
Z Charity Foundation (anonymous)	Protestantism	√	×	×	×	×	√	√
Shanghai Hua Ai Charity Foundation	Protestantism	√	×	×	×	×	√	√
Shanghai Tian Ai Charity Foundation	Protestantism	√	×	×	×	×	√	√

Data were compiled from the CFC, the Charity in China website, and the official website of the foundations (√ represents having this income, × represents not having this income, —— represents no relevant data).

.

5.2. Government Resources

In China, Marxism and atheism enjoy a “leading position”, and religious charity requires a balance between religious elements and government support, which usually affects government attitudes, policy implementation laxity, and government resource allocation. Here we collectively refer to the support directly provided by the government as “government resources”. In many cases, these resources can bring about flexible institutional space. Wu believed that China has an institutional “Grey Zone” (the ambivalent political space located in between what is legal and what is illegal, what is sanctioned fully by the state and what is not completely censored. It is a space of action situated in relation to the state, but never entirely dictated by the state). China’s social organizations are in the early stages of growth, and relevant systems, policies, and regulations are in the process of being gradually improved. This space is related to the survival and development of religious service organizations.

At the same time, whether Buddhism or Protestantism, religious resources are usually valued by local government departments. Local governments try to embed these resources into social service networks and transform them into social capital that serves the people and the public. After the “Advice on the State Purchasing Services from Social Organizations” was promulgated in 2013, religious social service organizations were able to compete on an equal footing with secular social organizations for government financial support. In addition to the hard power of religious social service organizations, the relationship between religious social service organizations and the government largely determines whether they can get support. In China’s policy environment, the relationship between the government and religion is delicate, and the government is cautious in handling religion-related institutional relations. Religious social services often rely on the government’s “administrative assistance”, “ideological emancipation”, and “administrative efficiency” (Li 2013). For example, the Yunnan Baoshan Evangelical Drug Rehabilitation Center adheres to the principle of “no medicine, only by Jesus”, to “cure” drug addiction; the agency’s service method is purely religious and has received strong support from the local government.

From a historical point of view, Protestantism is a Western religion, and it has been associated with imperialist aggression and colonialism in modern history. Buddhism has been internalized as China’s native religion after long-term development. As a historical and cultural resource and a political and diplomatic capital, Buddhism has long been in a favorable position. Protestantism does not have the advantages of Buddhism in terms of a mass base in society and government trust.

Judging by the government’s attitude, most local governments are more inclined to support local Buddhist organizations to conduct social services. Buddhism has played a role in serving local politics, and the government has supported the growth of its services, while Protestant social services have been subject to stricter scrutiny by government officials than Buddhist social services (Wu 2015). Buddhist social service organizations are not as sensitive as Protestant organizations in removing religious symbols and public expressions. Over time, Buddhist thought has been internalized into an organic part of the Chinese traditional culture and value system. If the local government supports the construction of folk charity and does not discriminate or exclude religious organizations from joining, then Buddhist social service organizations tend to grow faster (Wang 2010). In terms of religious initiative, Protestant social services have made more secular efforts to deal with their relationship with the government, are more proactive in seeking cooperation with the government, and undertake more strategic actions in public expression and access to public funds. Buddhist social services have experienced a certain inertia in their transformation from “traditional religious charity” to “modern public welfare” and strongly depend on the government. For example, organizations such as churches, temples, and other religious bodies have directly established institutions for the adoption of abandoned babies and pension service agencies. They have historically played a role in compensating for the lack of statutory benefits and have also received the support and recognition of the local government. As the government standardizes the management of social organizations, these organizations have encountered difficulties in transformation. Issues such as organizational legitimacy, land certificates, and fire safety have gradually come to light. The social services established by these religious bodies no longer meet policy requirements. In this case, the attitude of the government is particularly important. Whether the government condones the existence of these bodies, whether the government offers the maximum ease in policy implementation, and whether the government actively provides policy support for them, these resources are irreplaceable and directly related to the survival of the organization. Most Protestant social service organizations have responded in a timely manner to changes in the social organization management system and quickly realized the legal transformation through organizational adjustments and legal person replacements, showing strong flexibility. A considerable number of Buddhist social service organizations are affiliated with temples, without the administrative permission of the civil affairs department, and their organizational status is between legal and illegal. These Buddhist social service organizations have been relying on the power of the government to open special religious zones. Some scholars have also called for the establishment of green channels to achieve the transformation, but we believe that the transformation of religious charity is the result of joint internal and external efforts, and it is neither possible nor operational to solve this problem through special religious zones.

The acquisition of government resources by religious social service organizations often requires the premise of organizational specialization. Some local governments provide informal aid to religious social service organizations. Usually, these religious service organizations have a certain professional service foundation, which is not significantly different from the level of specialization required by the system. For example, Faith Hope Love Nursing Home and Jixiang Temple Nursing Home in Shandong province have a certain professional service foundation. With the support of the local government, they have transformed from internal institutions of churches and temples into independent legal entity and organizations. The Jingsilu Church Nursing Home in Shandong operated for 20 years under the attitude of the government’s “blind-eye governance”. Due to its low service level, it was closed due to pressure from the government in 2021. Jingsilu Church Nursing Home was located in the basement of the church, with approximately 50 beds. Two 70-year-old nurses cared for 50 elderly people, and the environment and service ability were not professional. The church worked hard for many years to obtain an administrative license, and the government made several field visits to the nursing home, but it eventually failed to qualify due to substandard fire protection, safety, and service capacity. Religious social service organizations in the “Grey Zone” must improve their service capacity. On this premise, local governments often implement the maximum degree of easing and support permitted by the policy in terms of registration and supervision.

6. Summary and Discussion

Since the 1970s, the trend of “civil society” has keenly grasped the world trend of “marketization” and “democratization”, which has rapidly become popular throughout the world and has begun to rise in China (Shi and Tian 2018). The relationship between the state and society in China is transforming towards the mode of “small government, big society”. Faced with the contradiction between the insufficient supply of government welfare resources and the increasing demand for public welfare, the government encourages social organizations, including religious social organizations, to participate in welfare supply. At the same time, it implements strict policy restrictions on “the separation of service and missionary work”. The government’s vigilance with respect to religious social service organizations has greatly restricted the service function of religious social service organizations. The government must adhere to the concept of “decentralization”, giving full play to the institutionalized role of the “social” forces of religious social service organizations, and “empower” the state and society to interact with each other through adjustment and adaptation so as to effectively produce public welfare products that benefit the people.

Since 2012, China’s religious social services have occupied a relatively loose space, and China’s religious social services have begun a trend of initial development. However, compared with the developed countries in Europe and the United States, there is a big gap in the service level, service scope, and service specialization in China. China’s Protestant social services and Buddhist social services have relatively obvious macroscopic similarities, as indicated by the following: (a) both are marginalized in the welfare transmission system, and neither has yet formed a solid and institutionalized service partnership with the government; (b) in practice, the organizational structure is incomplete, the overall level of service specialization is not high, and the integration with the social welfare system is poor; (c) both experience problems with the “dispersion” of subjects, the “temporary” status of organizations, and the “randomness” of activities. At the same time, there are differences in their development histories, service programs, organization types, and relationships with external organizations.

Although the document “Opinions on encouraging and regulating religious circles to engage in charitable activities” (NRAA et al. 2012) clearly proposed to “encourage” and “support” religious circles to participate in public welfare and charity activities, the central policy is not clear and detailed enough in the policy text, nor does it make detailed classifications according to the characteristics of the “five major religions”.7 With a relatively strong ambiguity in religious policies, there are still many obstacles to implementing policies by local governments, and they have not escaped the constraints of religious sensitivity. There are also large regional differences in the intensity and effect of policy implementation. Faster-growing religious charity areas are usually those where religious bodies and local governments have established a longstanding relationship of trust. Based on these observations, this paper proposes the following policy implications.

First, the government must increase the “desensitization” awareness of religious social services (give up traditional political vigilance) and shift from ideological exclusion to cultural acceptance and social recognition (Gao 2021). The central government needs to cooperate with policy researchers to improve policy design, not only allowing local governments to implement it flexibly according to local conditions, but also ensuring sufficient and accurate information to reduce the uncertainty and risks in policy implementation.

Second, the government needs to consider the extent to which religious social services can retain their religious attributes, and whether fewer religious elements are better; this is an issue that government departments and all sectors of society must seriously consider. Essentially, religion does not exist primarily for social public undertakings, but demonstrates values and action patterns that are consistent with national welfare in public domain services. Religion can cooperate with the state in public welfare undertakings and perform unique functions outside the government and the market. Faith and service do not oppose each other. Whether the connection between service organizations and faith or the expression of religious elements in service practice and the use of spiritual technology, the best combination point can be found in the current welfare framework.

Third, religious service organizations must consider service specialization. Whether Buddhist social services or Protestant social services, efforts must be made to explore and improve organizational identity legitimacy, professional staff, professional skills, and service evaluation. Religious social service organizations must actively adapt to the current institution in terms of organizational transformation, resource acquisition, and embedding of public services. At the same time, religious social service organizations should change and innovate in the “grey zone” to promote policy renewal.