“Buddhist-Christian Style”: The Collaboration of Prip-Møller and Reichelt—From Longchang Si to Tao Fong Shan Christian Centre

Abstract

Buddhist architecture plays a crucial role in traditional Chinese architecture, representing the localized adaptation of Buddhism, a foreign religion, in China. Historically, abundant materials, including paintings, photographs, and texts, demonstrate the longstanding interest of visiting Christian missionaries in Chinese Buddhist architecture. As their understanding deepens, Buddhist architecture becomes a valuable reference for the Sinicization of Christian venues in China. Unlike the “Chinese Roof with Western walls style” or “mixed Easten and Western façade style”, Tao Fong Shan represents a “Buddhist-Christian style”, with its success rooted in the similarity of life and spatial modes between Buddhist and Christian monasteries. Using Tao Fong Shan Christian Centre as a case study, this article examines the localization construction of Christian architecture. It explores how Norwegian missionary Karl Ludvig Reichelt (1877–1952) and Danish Christian architect Johannes Prip-Møller (1889–1943) collaborated to establish a Christian center targeting Buddhists. Through an in-depth study of Prip-Møller’s field research in the 1930s, especially his analysis of Longchang Si, the article investigates how Tao Fong Shan learned from it and transformed its spatial characteristics to achieve a localized sense of space perception through site selection, layout, and spatial design. It ultimately aims to influence the beliefs of Buddhists within the local context.

1. Introduction

The exact time when Christianity was introduced in China is currently difficult to confirm (Wang 2004, p. 22). According to archaeological findings and accurate historical records, the spread of Christianity to China can be divided into four periods: the introduction of Nestorianism in the Tang Dynasty, Arkagun in Yuan Dynasty, Catholicism during the late Ming Dynasty and early Qing Dynasty, and the introduction of major Christian denominations before and after the Opium Wars (1840–1842, 1856–1860). The first three introductions of Christianity were all suppressed or declined with the fall of their respective dynasties. In the fourth period, Christianity was truly established and gradually evolved into one of the three major religions in China. Especially after the unequal treaties, such as the Treaty of Tientsin (also called Treaty of Tianjin), were signed at Haiguang Si in Tianjin between the Qing dynasty and the Russian Empire, the Second French Empire, the United Kingdom, and the United States in 1858, Christian missionary activity and Christian construction were freely allowed in China (Wang 1957, pp. 86–112). Religious freedom ensured the rapid expansion of church buildings, leaving a large number of Christian architectural heritage sites to this day.

“Church architecture stands as a testament to the modern cultural, economic, and political exchanges and integration between East and West”.

(Xue and Yin 2021, p. 251)

The process of Christianity entering China is a process of taking root, sprouting, growing, and encountering, and the manifestation of localization is a common phenomenon. Yang (2003, p. 129) pointed out that church buildings are one of the three channels through which early Western architecture influenced modern Chinese architecture. He believes that church buildings “have always developed in sync with modern Chinese architecture…They are the most influenced by social development and changes and are one of the most representative mainstream architectural types in the history of modern Chinese architecture. They are also an important carrier of the integration of Chinese and Western architectural cultures”. Unlike the adaptive strategies of the early Ming Dynasty’s “Ricci Rules”, the Opium Wars forcibly opened China’s doors with gunboats, allowing Christian architectural culture to be imposed strongly. “Churches were symbols of the presence of Christian power in China and a reflection of missionary achievements” (Ji 2015, p. 149). The construction of church buildings resembled an arms race, where “the specific styles of church architecture expressed the national and religious identities of different colonial groups” (Coomans and Cui 2016, p. 190). However, following the Boxer Rebellion (1900) and the Anti-Christian Movement (1922) (Yang 2003), Christianity had to reconsider how to acculturate to Chinese culture.

In 1919, Pope Benedict XV issued Maximum Illud, an apostolic letter, demonstrated his “Concern for training of local clergy” and “Church not alien”, with the aim that local Catholicism could thrive independently, even if missionaries were to withdraw one day (Benedict XV 1919). On the other hand, the indigenous Christian community in China also demanded autonomy following the New Cultural Movement and Anti-Christian movements. In 1922, the National Christian Council of China proposed the slogan of establishing indigenous churches, advocating for the gradual realization of “Sinicization” in form, organization, and thought of Chinese Christianity (Xiao 2014, p. 78). Besides adapting Christian rituals and deeply integrating missionaries into Chinese social life, achieving the localization and Sinicization of Christianity is an important issue. Missionaries genuinely adapted to Chinese culture; they lived like Chinese people, spoke Chinese, and wore Chinese-style clothing. Ensuring that local Christians feel as comfortable in their churches as they do at “home” (Han 2015, p. 212) is also crucial. Architecture, as a comprehensive art form, is the best tool to embody missionary ideology.

Generally speaking, the localization of Christian architecture in China can be expressed primarily in two ways:

(1)

The “Chinese roof with Western walls style (中西合璧)” featuring a combination of Chinese-style roofs and Western-style walls.

(2)

The “mixed Easten and Western façade style (装饰混杂)”, drawing inspiration from facade ornamentation details.

In recent years, there has been extensive discussion on the localization of Christian architecture in China, with a focus on incorporating both Eastern and Western elements. Peng (2011, p. 43) summarizes this as references to official architecture and references to local architecture.

1.1. “Chinese Roof with Western Walls Style”

Coomans pointed out that a new “Sino-Christian style” with “a classical plan, a functional construction with concrete structures, and an outer skin in Chinese style” is created by monk-artist Adelbert Gresnigt in 1927, which was the result of the process of indigenization implemented by archbishop Celso Costantini and met the missionary needs command by Pope Benedict XV in 1919 (Coomans and Cui 2016, p. 190). Here, the term “Sino-Christian style” refers to the combination of a “Chinese roof with Western walls style”, which is evident in the church architecture of major cities in China, with the work by Henry Killam Murphy (1877–1954) serving as a prominent example of this style. This approach further extends to symbol expression in church universities (Dong 1996). Murphy summarized the five fundamental characteristics inherent in Chinese architecture as follows: (1) orderly layout, (2) authentic construction, (3) solid masonry foundation, (4) curved roofs, and (5) elaborate colors (Cody 2021, p. 210). It is worth mentioning that he considered the palaces of the Forbidden City as “the purest modern exemplar of Chinese architecture” (Cody 2021, p. 208). As a commercial architect, Murphy was skilled in imitating and transforming details that “correct understanding and application of Chinese architectural traditions are manifested in aspects such as facade division, treatment of outer corridors, and the use of bracket sets, eaves brackets, column styles, animal motifs, railings, painted decorations under the eaves, and even color schemes” (Peng 2011, p. 49), but due to the lack of a direct correspondence between the plan and facade of his buildings, he was criticized by Tong Jun (童寯, 1900–1983), the outstanding architect and one of the pioneers in modern Chinese architectural theory research, as adding a burdensome and superfluous “pigtail” to the deceased, which is delicate but useless (Cody 2021, pp. 279–80). It did narrow the gap between different cultures, but it often involves merely juxtaposing architectural techniques in an additive manner. As he himself described it, it is “new wine in old bottles”.

1.2. “Mixed Easten and Western Façade Style”

In addition to referring to official architectural forms, the borrowing from Chinese folk decorative arts, particularly evident in facade design, is manifested in the mixed Chinese–Western style of church architecture in modern peripheral cities in China. This borrowing primarily involves referencing the decorative details of traditional Chinese architectural facades or utilizing the symbolic meanings of Chinese characters, such as using the character “悚” as a formative element in architectural plans (Yang 2003).

The essence of church architecture design, whether referencing official or local architecture, essentially draws upon the decorative elements of traditional Chinese architecture, albeit draped in the guise of Chinese-style architecture. It is worth noting that almost simultaneously, Karl Ludvig Reichelt (1877–1952, here after Reichelt) and Johannes Prip-Møller (1889–1943, here after Prip-Møller), in their collaboration, attempted to find a deeper point for Christianity to take root in China. They successfully established the Tao Fong Shan Christian Center with the perception of a Buddhist monastery. The author refers to this pattern as “Buddhist-Christian style (佛耶相通)”.

1.3. “Buddhist-Christian Style”

Under the influence of Reichelt’s religious fusion ideas, Prip-Møller was no longer confined to simply juxtaposing Chinese and Western elements. Unlike Murphy’s architectural concept, which revolves around official architecture, Prip-Møller was deeply moved by folk architecture. Monastic architecture is a hybrid of official and folk architecture. Prip-Møller delved deeper into research, reflection, and transformation from a spatial perspective. This transformation was based on the similarity in spatial correspondence patterns between Buddhist and Christian monasteries, further providing a legitimate basis for the transformation of the Buddhist architectural space by Dao Fong Shan.

This article will further explore how Reichelt’s open concept of religions and Prip-Møller’s anthropological field research are reflected in their architectural practices, “Buddhist-Christian style”.

1.4. Research Methodology

Before delving into the main analysis, it is necessary to provide a brief overview of the research methodology employed in this article.

Due to the varying abundance of historical records preserved from different periods, the selection of the corporation between Reichelt and Prip-Møller as the main research case has to be pointed out. It benefits not only from their uniqueness in the field of religious studies and practice but also from the completeness and diversity of existing materials like diaries, drawings, books and so on, which allow for in-depth studies of their abstract religious concepts and concrete architectural designs.

Regarding the selection of cases, the article is not limited to the historical narrative of materials, since the limitations and flatness of early materials make it difficult to provide a complete three-dimensional perspective, ultimately leading to the danger of thin conclusions in historical narratives. There is a Chinese proverb that says, “Even a skilled housewife cannot cook a meal without rice”. Reichelt’s ideas of religious integration and religious openness, combined with Prip-Møller’s conscious Sinicization of architectural design, make their collaboration a perfect example of the successful implementation of religious architecture abroad.

Furthermore, the article mainly unfolds its research from three aspects: image analysis, anthropological field research, and spatial comparative studies.

(1)

Image analysis based on historical material: Exploring the understanding and cognition of Christianity towards Buddhism through traces revealed in the drawings, plans, photos, etc.

(2)

Anthropological field research: In an anthropological manner, conducting in-depth discussions on ritual studies and spatial field research methodologies at Tao Fong Shan and Longchang Si.

(3)

Spatial comparative studies: Starting from site selection, layout, and architectural space design and experience, comparing the spatial imitation relationship between Tao Fong Shan and its main reference case, Longchang Si.

Before delving into how the design of Tao Fong Shan borrowed from Buddhist monastery architecture, it is necessary to briefly introduce the background of how Prip-Møller and Reichelt cooperated.

2. “Buddhist-Christian Style”: The Collaboration of Prip-Møller and Reichelt

2.1. Prip-Møller and Longchang Si

In the early 20th century, numerous researchers embarked on the study of traditional architecture in China. Among them, Chuta Ito (1867–1954), the renowned Japanese architectural historian, undertook his first journey to China in 1902 to conduct a comprehensive study of Chinese architecture, which he later documented in his seminal work History of Chinese Architecture (Chuta 2014). Almost simultaneously, Ernst Boerschmann (1873–1949), a German researcher, traveled across China in 1906, traversing from Mount Wutai in the north to Mount Hengshan in the south, and from Mount E’mei in the west to Mount Putuo in the east. He amassed a wealth of materials including photographs and drawings of monasteries, pagodas, and tombs, subsequently publishing the books Baukunst und Landschaft in China (Boerschmann 1923) and Old China in Historic Photographs (Boerschmann 1982). During the period of 1920–1928, the Japanese historian Tadashi Sekino (1868–1935) dedicated his focus to the study of Buddhist monasteries, conducting extensive and long-term research that considered both ancient architecture and its development, culminating in significant contributions to the preservation of Chinese cultural heritage. Further studies on Chinese architecture were carried out by scholars such as the Japanese scholar Daijō Tokiwa (1870–1945) among others. In Europe, scholars like Osvald Siren (1879–1966), Johannes Prip-Møller (1889–1943), Bernd Melchers (1886–1967), and Gustav Ecke (1896–1971) continued the groundwork laid by Ernst Boerschmann. Since the 1930s, Chinese historians have embarked on the study of ancient Chinese architectures spanning different dynasties, dedicating their lives to the preservation of cultural heritage.

Among the valuable contributions to research, special emphasis should be placed on those made by the Danish missionary architect, Prip-Møller, who arrived in China in 1921. His unique approach involved deeply studying and researching Buddhist monastic architecture in China, especially in the southern regions, from an anthropological perspective as an architect, and then incorporating these insights into the design and construction of the Tao Fong Shan Christian Center. This extraordinary experience was both related to his upbringing in a missionary environment, his acquaintance and deep connection with Reichelt and his research on Buddhist monasteries in China with detailed study on Longchang Si 隆昌寺 (it was called Hui Chü Ssu 慧居寺 at that time and nowadays it is called Longchang Si).

Prip-Møller was born into a wealthy family of missionary doctors. Both his uncle and brother were missionaries, and even his wife, whom he met in 1920. Influenced by such a strong missionary atmosphere and the stories of China brought back by missionaries from Manchuria, his interest in going to China for missionary work was strongly aroused. In addition, in 1920, while studying architecture at Columbia University, he met Axel Jensen, who was preaching missionary plans and ideas in New York. Perhaps influenced by Jensen or by his newlywed missionary wife, Prip-Møller found the great cause of combining architecture with missionary work and actively signed up to serve the Norwegian missionary cause in China. From 1921 to 1927, Prip-Møller supervised missionary group projects in Manchuria. He learned Chinese in Beijing and Manchuria, subsequently opening an architecture studio in Mukden (Shenyang) and designing residences for several wealthy Chinese individuals. However, his practice in Manchuria was not smooth sailing. Although he designed the Harbin Church, the actual construction was difficult to realize according to his ideas and drawings. Additionally, he realized that constructing Christian architecture in China using designs sent from Europe was not ideal. Western architectural prototypes were hard to harmonize with the surroundings, not to mention being adaptable to the lives of the local people. As a professional architect, Prip-Møller was concerned with the relationship between space and life. As early as his university days, he was already pondering how architecture reflects the spirit of the times. “Architecture must be an expression of its age. The important thing is to avoid the redundancies and reach the idea of the house, as classicism and C.F.Hansen were able to. But many of the contemporary architects only look at the concept of columns on the face of it!” (Faber 1994, p. 6) Unfortunately, in practical reality, such extraordinary and otherworldly clients are not easily found.

“My thanks further go to my personal friend, the Rev. K.L.Reichelt, of the Christian Mission to Buddhists, Hongkong. To him I owe my first acquaintance with and love for the Chinese Buddhist monastic environment, and whatever I may have grasped and have been able to embody in the way of sympathetic understanding and unbiassed approach to this secluded world and its representatives and sanctuaries is in the first place due to his inspiring example” (Prip-Møller 1937, preface). In the preface of the book Chinese Buddhist Monasteries. Their Plan and its Function as a Setting for Buddhist Monastic Life, Prip-Møller expressed heartfelt gratitude to Reichelt, who introduced him to the world of Buddhist architecture. It was due to Reichelt’s encouragement that their collaborative works later emerged. Earlier, in 1920, when Prip-Møller was studying in New York, he listened to a lecture about a new attitude to the concept of missionary given by Reichelt and was impressed by his open mind on religious. Reichelt got moved during his visit at Weishan Si and developed the idea to convert Chinese Buddhist monks to the Christian faith based on his respect for the monks’ devotion towards Buddhism (Faber 1994, p. 10). It was precisely Reichelt’s influence that planted the seed for Prip-Møller to understand Buddhist architecture. Additionally, Reichelt’s project invitation in 1930 gave Prip-Møller an opportunity to deeply contemplate how Buddhist and Christian architecture could integrate with each other.

In fact, after arriving in China, Prip-Møller was deeply moved by traditional architecture. “During a five year period of work as a consulting architect in Moukden from 1921 to 1926 I fell victim to the beauty and lore of Chinese architecture but was prevented by daily office work from the realization of my hope that some day I should have time to enter into a special study of it” (Prip-Møller 1937, preface). Then, thanks to the generous support of the two foundations “Carlsbergfondet” and “Ny Carlsbergfondet” of Copenhagen, he was enabled to travel extensively in China during 1929 to 1933, choosing the Chinese Buddhist monasteries as his investigation field and focusing on the survey of their layouts. Prip-Møller was moved by how Buddhism, a foreign religion, had taken root in China for over a thousand years and still possessed a strong spiritual force. He hoped that through his research, particularly focusing on layouts, he could demonstrate the functional characteristics of Buddhist monasteries across different eras. To further reveal the interaction between monastic space and the life within, Prip-Møller conducted extensive and intensive field research, traveling through 11 of China’s 18 provinces. His research achievements are encapsulated in the book Chinese Buddhist Monasteries. Their Plan and its Function as a Setting for Buddhist Monastic Life. The first two chapters of the book systematically introduce the fundamental knowledge of Chinese Buddhism, including its sects, the connotations of Buddhist statues, monastic layouts, and functions. Using extensively researched southern Buddhist monastic architecture as examples, the text is accompanied by rich illustrations. Chapters three and four delve into a detailed examination of the spatial layout, functions, and construction history of Longchang Si. Furthermore, chapters five and six focus on the types and processes of ordination ceremonies for monks, and provide meticulous anthropological observations and descriptions of monks’ daily life in the monasteries.

Longchang Si is located on Baohua Mountain in Jiangsu Province, China. The monastery was originally founded in the first year (A.D. 502) of the Liang Dynasty. After that, until 1931, its name was Hui Chu Ssu; now, it is called Longchang Si. It was famous for its rigorous practice and Vinaya tradition. As the most famous mountain of Vinaya school, Longchang Si is the most influential ordination site since the Ming and Qing dynasties. The ordination rituals of monasteries in various places are based on the “Ordination Standards” of Longchang Si on Baohua Mountain. In the early years of the Republic of China, it still retained a relatively complete architectural layout, self-sufficient monastic life and rigorous religious rituals, so it is not surprising that Prip-Møller was interested in Longchang Si. “The monastic architecture is testimony to the constant restorative practices” (Zhou 2022, p. 2), which is why it represents a special and unconventional layout. The flexibility of the layout can be fully adapted to the terrain environment, time changes and religious activities needed. The particular focus on Longchang Si stems from several reasons. Firstly, its circular layout, resembling a lotus flower, sets it apart from traditional Buddhist monastic layouts that typically emphasize axial symmetry. Secondly, architectural features such as the mountain gate and path, Hui-style residential horse head walls, and the secluded yet tranquil space of the ordination hall deeply impressed Prip-Møller. Thirdly, as the foremost monastery of the Vinaya tradition, Longchang Si’s comprehensive ordination ceremonies and the strict daily routines of its monks provided Prip-Møller with an opportunity for the close observation of the interaction between monastic space and life. Consequently, within the constraints of limited research time, Prip-Møller meticulously surveyed the monastery’s site selection and mountain paths, layouts, and the plans, elevations, and sections of various architectural spaces, while also capturing extensive architectural photographs and documenting detailed aspects of the monks’ daily lives therein.

It is worth mentioning that it was during this period that he conceptualized and drew the design plans for Tao Fong Shan. The reason Tao Fong Shan is highlighted is because it represents a new pinnacle in the transformation of Buddhist monastery architecture from research to practice. This is the first, and quite possibly the only, Christian monastery specifically catering to Buddhists. The unique approach to missionary work and construction methods can be traced back to the founder of the monastery, Reichelt.

2.2. Karl Ludvig Reichelt and His Buddhist Encounters

“Tao Fong Shan is still a small paradise on earth, created through the lifelong efforts of Karl Ludvig Reichelt with the brilliant assistance of architect Johannes Prip-Møller”.

(Faber 1994)

Among the numerous architectural practices of Christianity in China and the stories of individual missionaries (Sweeten 2020), the work by Norwegian missionary Reichelt cannot be ignored. Reichelt was born in 1877 into a modest rural family on the southern coast of Norway. The early death of his father and the hard labor of his mother instilled in him a strong sense of guilt. The surrounding natural environment inspired his love for contemplation and mysticism from a young age. He grew up in a devout Lutheran religious atmosphere and received a broad Christian humanist education (Xu 2014). He was sent to China by the Norwegian Missionary Society (NMS) in 1903. He initially engaged in missionary work and language studies in Hunan. In 1905, he visited Weishan Temple, the birthplace of the Weiyang School, one of the five major schools of Southern Chan Buddhism in China. He was deeply moved by the monks’ devotion and profoundly influenced by Buddhism. At the same time, he was dissatisfied with their lack of spiritual pursuit, which he perceived as mere superficial superstition, such as idol worship. Reichelt considered Buddhists to be “other sheep” outside the Christian fold, believing that monks still belonged to and loved the truth. He felt it was his duty to bring these “other sheep” into the Christian fold. He resolved to spread Christianity among Buddhists, actively studying Buddhist scriptures, engaging in exchanges with Buddhists in monasteries, and writing about Chinese Buddhism. Following the systems of Buddhist monasteries, he conducted in-depth anthropological studies on Buddhist rituals, including how to worship and recite scriptures (Reichelt 1934, p. 249). This unique missionary approach was quite uncommon, even among missionaries. Around 1920, he had to travel to Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Germany, and the United States to promote his ideas and garner support. Reichelt chose Buddhists as the target of his missionary work, incorporating elements that some European mission societies criticized as “syncretism”. However, within the seemingly Buddhist context, the religious architecture, rituals, language, and ideas were distinctly Christianized. He sought to achieve this primarily through three points of contact. (1) Architecture: Interpreting Christianity using the style of Chinese monastic architecture. (2) Rituals: Expressing Christianity through Buddhist rituals, including eleven worship ceremonies and three sacraments. (3) Language: Conveying Christian concepts using Buddhist terminology (Li 2006).

Undoubtedly, to undertake such an unconventional mission, Reichelt had to become an expert in Buddhism. “He not only affirmed the value of Chinese Buddhism from a doctrinal standpoint but also repeatedly emphasized that there are aspects of Buddhist life that are truly worthy of respect” (Li 2006). He authored the book Kinas religioner: haandbok i den kinesiske religionshistorie (Religions of China: A Handbook of Chinese Religious History) (Reichelt 1913), and in Religion in Chinese Garment (Reichelt 1951), he introduced the lives of Buddhist monks. Later, in Truth and tradition in Chinese Buddhism; a study of Chinese Mahayana Buddhism (Reichelt and Wagenen Bugge 1927), he provided a more detailed description and discussion of various aspects of Chinese Buddhism. Beyond doctrinal exploration, he delved into religious rituals, monastic architecture, sectarian traditions, pilgrimage activities, and the daily lives of monks. These observations were based on his experiences in Buddhist monasteries and included the influences of masters such as Taixu (太虚) and Yinguang (印光).

In 1922, he established the Nordic Christian Buddhist Mission, aimed at sharing the gospel with Buddhists and baptizing Chinese Buddhist monks to become Christians. In the same year, he founded “Jingfengshan” in Nanjing with the aim of attracting Buddhist and Taoist pilgrims and converting them to Christianity. Evidently, as Reichelt delved deeper into the study of Buddhism, he discovered similarities between Christianity and Buddhism and interpreted Buddhism as a preparatory stage for Christianity. However, this unique method of evangelism was not widely accepted, and its progress was not entirely smooth. “At first the Norwegian missionary society sponsored the school, but the society was clearly dissatisfied with Reichelt’s independent and unorthodox way of doing missionary work. Thus, Reichelt had occupational as well as financial difficulties” (Faber 1994, p. 44). After 1925, Reichelt began independent missionary work and formed the new organization “the Christian Mission to Buddhists”.

Reichelt’s unique insights and unwavering persistence in missionary work also reflect his multifaceted role as a missionary, scholar, and pilgrim (Sharpe et al. 2021). Missionaries in various periods in China adopted strategies of cultural adaptation to spread Christianity, which implies the need to understand and express their attitudes towards the Confucian, Buddhist, and Taoist contexts prevailing in China at that time. Naturally, their attitudes towards Buddhism also manifest in the drawings they make, the photographs they take, and the Christian architectural complexes they construct. For instance, to Matteo Ricci, Buddhists appeared as idol worshippers. Sun (2016, p. 22) points out that Ricci’s collaborating with Confucianism while excluding Buddhism and Reichelt’s integration of Buddhism and alienation of Confucianism both seek the localization or indigenization of Christianity in China and achieving widespread dissemination. Although Reichelt advocated religious dialogue and cooperation, his evaluation of Buddhism still relies on Christian standards (Sun 2010). Han (2015) interprets Reichelt’s missionary practices in China from three aspects, spatial meaning, practice meaning, and textual meaning, further discussing the theological significance and Sinicization of Christianity.

It is worth noting that Reichelt’s open attitude towards religion actively incorporates more Buddhist cultural elements, especially in the missionary process targeting Buddhists in China, and finally reaches the construction of the Tao Fong Shan Christian Centre with an exterior resembling Buddhist monastery. Reichelt believed that the similarities between Mahayana Buddhism and Christianity (Sun 2010) also make it natural for Tao Fong Shan to attract Buddhist pilgrims to embrace Christianity through its Buddhist architectural form.

Due to the unstable political situation and wars in mainland China, his work in Nanjing was destroyed, forcing him to seek new locations to fulfill his missionary endeavors.

It was not until the end of 1929 that Reichelt found the location at Tao Fong Shan in Hong Kong and invited Prip-Møller to assist him. The two basically reached a consensus on the purpose of the construction, which was to establish a place for missionary work targeting Buddhists (Madsen 2003, p. 157).

Indeed, the Sinicization of architecture was not a unique idea of Reichelt and Prip-Møller. In the context of strong demands for the localization of Christian architecture at the time, this issue was also recognized by others, including the early Danish architectural group that sponsored Prip-Møller’s work and studies in China. “What is usually built by the Missionary Society must seem strange to the Chinese. It would also be hopeless just to send drawings and take for granted that the Chinese would follow them. The only sensible approach must be sending out an architect who can familiarize himself with Chinese architecture and method of building!” (Faber 1994, p. 12).

Cheng points out that Prip-Møller “deduced the common characteristics of Chinese Buddhist monasteries from their architectural layouts” (Cheng 2016, p. 278), with the aim of “studying the interaction between the structure of Buddhist temples and their internal life” (Cheng 2019, p. 43). In fact, this objective is related to his commission from Reichelt at the time. Reichelt hoped to explore corresponding models of Buddhist spatial life to inspire the construction of the Christian monastery at Tao Fong Shan in Hong Kong.

3. The Sinicization Construction of Christian Architecture: From Longchang Si to Tao Fong Shan Christian Centre

On the state of Christian architecture in Hong Kong from the 19th to the 20th century, Fukushima (2018) had conducted in-depth and systematic research. To be precise, her research on Christian architecture covers the period from 1840 to 2015, focusing on catholic churches. Her study revealed that the majority of churches were “mission stations” or “stand-alone churches”, while with the influx of refugees from China (Fukushima 2019a), population growth, changes in land prices and policies, and complex social and political factors influence (Fukushima 2019b), many churches emerged with welfare and educational facilities around 1840s to 1960s (Fukushima 2020). Fukushima did not examine church architecture in Hong Kong from the perspective of architectural style. Instead, he focused on the functionality, land use, and ownership of the buildings, thereby exploring the social and political factors influencing the changes in church architecture. Additionally, it is worth noting that Fukushima did not focus on Tao Fong Shan.

The Tao Fong Shan Christian Center was established by its founder Reichelt, who purchased the land at the end of 1929. The construction took place between 1931 and 1938. Since its establishment, Tao Fong Shan has consistently received support from its important partner, Areopagos. Areopagos is a Christian organization based in Norway and Denmark, dedicated to Christian spirituality, interfaith and intercultural dialogue, and religious practice (Tao Fong Shan Christian Center Website n.d.). The purpose of this center was to attract Buddhist and Taoist monks for spiritual practice. From the very beginning, Reichelt and his friend, the architect Prip-Møller, aimed to replicate a Buddhist monastery as closely as possible, creating a Sinicized environment that would be familiar and easily adaptable for Chinese converts. At that time, the facilities included Yun Shui Tang for hosting monks, the missionaries’ dormitories Lian De Lou and Xiang De Lou, the Chapel as prayer hall and Lian Hua Cave, the building of the religious research institute for teaching, and a conference hall for receiving visitors. Today, Tao Fong Shan serves multiple functions, including evangelism, spiritual practice for pilgrims, interfaith dialogue, training religious talents, and providing a scenic spot for tourists. Specifically, the idea of religious integration—in other words, how the Christian Center learns from Buddhist monasteries—is reflected in the site selection, layout, and specific spatial design of Tao Fong Shan.

3.1. Site Selection

“Our architectural appearance must as closely as possible resemble the model of Chinese Buddhist temples. The purpose of this is to make visiting pilgrims feel at home and comfortable. Danish architect Johannes Prip-Møller’s plan for the Tao Fong Shan complex is also based on this principle, believing that it not only determines whether people can live comfortably inside the buildings but also signifies that the architecture aligns with the lifestyle within”.

(Zhou 2023, p. 111)

Tao Fong Shan Christian Center is situated atop Sha Tin Peak in the New Territories of Hong Kong. Before finalizing the specific location of Tao Fong Shan, Reichelt and Prip-Møller exchanged ideas regarding the ideal site for the monastery. Drawing from his extensive experience in missionary work in China and his familiarity with traditional Chinese architectural styles, Reichelt nearly presented a conventional layout of a Buddhist monastery (Figure 1). It features a central axis symmetry as its main characteristic, with the main hall placed at the center and side rooms on both sides. Prip-Møller also presented an ideal rendering (Figure 2) to aid Reichelt in promoting the monastery and seeking construction funds. It is worth noting that in the final courtyard, Prip-Møller designed an octagonal main hall with a double-eaved roof, while in Reichelt’s collage sketch, there is a Western-style bell tower. This might suggest that the octagonal main hall is a Chinese reinterpretation of the bell tower.

However, this ideal layout can be more aptly described as Reichelt’s dream, as it was still far from being realized in actual construction. On 24 April 1930, Prip-Møller received Reichelt’s telegram invitation and then arrived at Tao Fong Shan. He found the site atop Sha Tin Ridge in Hong Kong to be long and narrow, extending in three directions, making a striking impression. He began seeking inspiration at the site, “listening to the earth”, and learned to apply the principles of feng shui, traditional Chinese architectural art. The so-called feng shui, from the perspective of Prip-Møller, “This factor is almost universally taken into account although it does not form a part of the Buddhist teaching. Its recognized principles when applied in different localities will produce the most different results and therefore have their share in the irregularities of the monastery layouts”. (Prip-Møller 1937, p. 3) Prip-Møller was well-versed in feng shui, which might sound mystical but is actually a way to make site-specific decisions. By understanding the terrain, one could “secure the good and avoid the evil influences which animate his building sites or graveyards or in general surround him when he carries out the more or less important functions of everyday life”. (Prip-Møller 1937, p. 3).

He surveyed and drew contour lines, searching for suitable specific terrain locations. Adhering to a natural layout was also a practical approach to minimize interference with nature, given the tight budget and limited time constraints at that moment. After surveying the contour lines, Prip-Møller further “terraced” the mountainous terrain and placed the required buildings on them (Figure 3) (Madsen 2003, p. 161).

This site selection based on local conditions and the layout conforming to the natural terrain are the essence of construction in traditional Chinese Buddhist monasteries. As mentioned by Prip-Møller in his work Chinese Buddhist Monasteries, Their Plan and its Function as a Setting for Buddhist Monastic Life, structure and layout are the two major characteristics of traditional Chinese architecture. “On the basis of the fact that the plan design is one of the two chief characteristics of Chinese architecture as a whole, the bracket system under the eaves being the other, I singled out the Buddhist monastery plan as the object of my study, hoping so as to shed some light on its functionalistic properties in the modern as well as, although only to a certain extent, the medieval form” (Prip-Møller 1937).Prip-Møller also deeply understood that while each monastery might share similarities, they also have their own unique characteristics. Therefore, the layout does not need to be limited to any specific paradigm (Madsen 2003, pp. 161–62).

3.2. Monastic Layout

From the plans (Figure 4) and drawings of Tao Fong Shan (Figure 5 and Figure 6), it appears to be an ambitious project. Starting from the laying of the foundation stone on the 28th of July 1931, the first structures built were the Pilgrim’s Hall, followed by the residence and chapel. The schoolhouse was constructed in 1937, but the remaining buildings were not completed. “Unfortunately, the rest of the ambitiously planned buildings to the rest were never brought into being” (Faber 1994, p. 47).

Both Prip-Møller and Reichelt firmly believed, “We are to go into the spirit of Chinese architecture and vitalize it through a Christian way of life!” (Faber 1994, p. 47). This is reflected in the layout and architectural forms, such as the octagonal chapel, which embodies Reichelt’s attention to numbers, symbolizing the four Buddhist sacred mountains and four Christian sacred mountains (Madsen 2003, p. 164). “Do not copy the detail, but the effects of the detail!” (Faber 1994, p. 48). Although not mimicking the details, Prip-Møller made efforts to retain symbolic details such as the sloping roofs and Anhui-style horse head walls. The overall appearance (Figure 7) bears resemblance to Longchang Si (Figure 8), and even in the sketches, one can see Prip-Møller directly incorporating the layout of the bronze hall area of Longchang Si (Figure 9) in the upper-right corner as a reference for Tao Fong Shan.

In addition, in terms of mountain route arrangement, Prip-Møller was clearly influenced by the mountain route of Longchang Si. “The way these two houses, being in themselves of the plainest possible design, are placed in relation to the surrounding scenery is of the greatest architectural effect and speaks highly of the faculty, so innate in Chinese Buddhist builders, of making their structures blend with the landscape around them in the most perfect manner” (Prip-Møller 1937, p. 200). The simplicity of the mountain gate does not obscure the spectacular effect achieved by its integration with the natural landscape. Prip-Møller was inspired by this and applied it to the design of the mountain path and gate at Tao Fong Shan. At the same time, he also took into account the transportation needs of the 1930s, incorporating archways for both pedestrian and vehicular traffic (Figure 10), similar to the meticulously surveyed mountain gate of Longchang Si (Figure 11) drawn and taken by Prip-Møller in the 1930s.

3.3. Space Formation

The borrowing and reference from Buddhist architecture, and even traditional Chinese architecture, are primarily evident in the perception of spatial colors, scale design, and interior decoration.

In terms of spatial color perception, traditional Chinese architectural colors of white walls, black roofs, and red paint are adopted (Figure 12), a color scheme also observable in Mukden Palace (Figure 13). The Chapel with a double-eaved octagonal pointed roof architectural form and the borrowing of traditional architectural colors are actually related to Prip-Møller’s early work experience in Mukden. The Mukden Palace was the imperial palace of the Qing Dynasty before they moved their capital to Beijing, initially constructed in 1625. The Dazheng Hall, also known as the Octagonal Hall, was the place where the emperor discussed state affairs and held major ceremonies. Chinese emperors claimed to be divinely appointed, hence the title “Son of Heaven (天子)”. By adopting the architectural form of the Octagonal Hall, Tao Fong Shan subtly implies that Jesus is God (Heaven). Based on his research on Longchang Si, Prip-Møller realized that the courtyard is a worship space and is not confined solely to the halls. The axial order remains very apparent. The Chapel at Tao Fong Shan is a sacred container that defines the sanctuary, and the spacious, rectangular courtyard in front of it echoes the nave of a church while also fitting the daily worship practices of the monks. In terms of exterior design, the red columns and short transverse beams (referred to as “sparrows” in Chinese architecture, which are placed at the intersection of the crossbeams and vertical columns of the building) form a cross, implying the Christian faith through these details, despite the outward appearance resembling traditional Chinese architecture.

Regarding spatial scale design, the doors of the corridors (Figure 14) resemble the corridor space in front of the main hall of Longchang Si (Figure 15). The single-person passage through the Life Gate (Figure 16) evokes the Main Gate of Longchang Si (Figure 17). After the curving mountain route, the Main Gate of Longchang Si is the only entrance for those who wish to enter the monastery and worship Buddha. Although there is no height difference between the inside and outside of the Main Gate, a group of steps serves as a dedicated path and the narrow gate is around 1 m wide, guiding visitors to pass through the gate slowly and quietly. Due to the strict discipline of the Vinaya tradition in Longchang Si, monks are not allowed to enter or leave the monastery freely. Therefore, the narrow gate symbolizes the rigorous monastic rules. Additionally, it signifies that the journey to discover the true meaning of life is neither smooth nor broad. Similar parallels can be drawn with Tao Fong Shan. At the end of the long staircase that forms the narrow path, there is a gate called the “Gate of Life (生命门)” with the couplet “The broad road is full of people but lacks true joy, while the narrow gate has few entrants but holds eternal life (宽路行人多并无真乐, 窄门进者少内有永生)”. In both monasteries, the design of routes, gates and their relation to human scale influences the physical and mental experience of pilgrims.

In terms of interior decoration, the niches in the Meditation Room (Figure 18) resemble those in the Beamless Hall of Longchang Si (Figure 19). It is worth noting that in 1929, Prip-Møller conducted research on the Beamless Hall of Linggu Si and speculated that the hall was built during the Yuan Dynasty. Due to the rule of the Mongol Empire, cultural exchanges between the East and West increased, and the brick vault structure might have been influenced by Christian missionaries active in Nanjing at the time (Prip-Møller 1935). Regarding its construction time, Bai and Chen (2023) hold a different view. Based on newly discovered historical materials, including images of Linggu Si drawn during the Yongle period of the Ming Dynasty, records of Buddhist reforms and the erection of royal monastery by Hongwu Emperor, she inferred that the hall was built between the 14th and 15th years of the Hongwu reign in the Ming Dynasty. However, there is no relevant research on whether the Beamless Hall of Longchang Si was modeled after the Beamless Hall of Linggu Si. If Prip-Møller’s analysis is followed, the Beamless Hall of Linggu Si in Nanjing was influenced by the French Hall Church style. Then, they apply their references to the Beamless Hall of Longchang Si in Tao Fong Shan, which indeed exemplifies the multi-layered cultural fusion between the East and the West.

Inside the Chapel, commonly used Buddhist furniture like the triple gem table and decorated pillars with couplets (Figure 20) can be observed, similar to the interior space decoration in the Main Hall of Longchang Si (Figure 21). However, there are differences in specific rituals, such as the use of prayer mats for kneeling during morning and evening prayers in Buddhist monasteries, and chairs placed in churches for the congregation to listen to the pastor’s sermons.

4. Conclusions

“Every religion conveys its message through the language of art. Simultaneously, art undergoes transformation by religion in the process of fulfilling this task. Thus, religion and art always maintain an inseparable and organic connection in human culture”.

(He 2001, p. 61)

The design of Tao Fong Shan owes much to the research and hard work of Prip-Møller. It is a Christian center designed to resemble Buddhist monasteries. The erection of Tao Fong Shan marks the pinnacle of Western missionaries’ and architects’ profound understanding of Chinese Buddhist monasteries and monastic life.

When early Christianity entered China, its imitation of Buddhism was mainly manifested in decoration and symbols. Whether it was the lotus cross on stone tablets or the depiction of the Virgin Mary with Chinese facial features, these were all realized on the surface level of art perception. In modern Chinese church architecture, there are two main reference patterns: “Chinese roof with Western walls style” or “Mixed Eastern and Western façade style”. This involves either systematic or unsystematic borrowing from traditional Chinese architectural forms, primarily in terms of decorative elements. This article highlights that the collaboration between Reichelt and Prip-Møller pioneered the “Buddhist-Christian style”. Through anthropological field experiences and research, Prip-Møller not only gained insights from the spatial aspects but also delved into the ritualistic life within Buddhist monasteries. It is the similarity between the lifestyle and spatial correspondence of Buddhism and Christianity (Wang 2023) that allowed Prip-Møller to utilize Buddhist elements to propagate Christianity. This transformation is operationally viable. He transformed the familiar lifestyle and spatial correspondence of Buddhists into the Christian living space structure of Tao Fong Shan. Therefore, it is not surprising that Reichelt and Prip-Møller could get insights from the investigation of Buddhist space and successfully create Tao Fong Shan to accommodate Buddhists.