T. C. Chao’s Response to the “Anti-Christian Movement” and His Reference to Taixu’s Buddhist Reformation

Abstract

In the early 20th century, Chinese Christianity was greatly impacted by the “Anti-Christian Movement”. T. C. Chao, an influential modern Chinese Christian theologian, actively contemplated and responded to accusations such as being “the accomplice of imperialism” and “the enemy of Mr. Science”. T. C. Chao, taking into account the social context and the state of religious development at the time, and drawing inspiration from the Buddhist reforms of his contemporary, Master Taixu, proposed the ideas of the indigenization and contextualization of Christianity. This laid the theoretical foundation for the construction of “Chinese theology” and provided new perspectives and practical directions for the “de-othering” of Chinese Christianity.

1. Introduction

Christianity and its culture, according to historical inheritance, are the products of the ancient combination of “Hellenistic and Semitic civilizations” and have gradually become an important carrier of Western cultural development and evolution, manifesting as a significant component in many religious cultures worldwide. With the “Age of Discovery”, human history evolved from being partial to being holistic, with cultural exchanges and integration becoming increasingly prevalent. Christianity spread globally through “cultural appropriation” and “cultural assimilation”. As Christianity moved towards the world, it continuously adapted and absorbed characteristics of other cultures, demonstrating both localization and contextualization. By the Ming and Qing dynasties, Christianity had become directly linked with Chinese culture. In early 20th-century China, impacted by the “Anti-Christian Movement”, it was necessary to embark on a path of “de-Westernization” and “anti-imperialism” to “de-otherize”, making it more suitable for dissemination in China. T. C. Chao played a crucial role in this process. He worked to reconcile Christian culture with Chinese culture, utilizing the interaction between Christianity and Chinese culture to reconstruct and reform these two cultural systems. Among his influences, Buddhism served as a theoretical reference point for T. C. Chao’s reconstruction and reform efforts.

T. C. Chao is widely regarded as one of the most influential Christian theologians in modern China. Scholarly research on his life and theological thought has yielded several key perspectives, outlined as follows:

• Dynamic interplay between theology and societal modernization. Scholars generally agree that T. C. Chao’s theological thought was deeply intertwined with China’s modernization process. Lin (1994) first conceptualized T. C. Chao’s intellectual trajectory as “A Theology of Relevance” (相关神学) arguing that he sought to “forge a theological path for the Chinese church by constructing adaptive theories to address contemporary issues” (Lin 1994). Winfried Glüer (1981) further elaborated on this “contextuality” through the following three dimensions: Interaction with national crises: T. C. Chao advocated for church independence during the Anti-Japanese War (1937–1945). Dialogue with cultural transformation: He reconstructed Christian ethics using Confucian frameworks (e.g., reinterpreting ren 仁 as divine love) amid the New Culture Movement. Adaptation to political contexts: Post-1949, he reflected on the church’s autonomy under socialist governance (Glüer 1981). Liu (2004) categorized T. C. Chao’s thought into three phases as follows: a liberal period, a nationalist turn, and a return to orthodox theology, highlighting the tension between “cultural adaptation” and “faith reconstruction” Wang (2008).
• The “Distinctiveness” of Christian faith and theological subjectivity. T. C. Chao consistently emphasized the uniqueness of Christianity while pursuing indigenization. Xing (2003) noted that his later work Four Lectures on Theology dialectically integrated Confucian “unity of heaven and humanity” (天人合一) with the orthodox doctrine of Christ’s dual nature as “true God and true man” (Xing 2003). Xiao (2024) analyzed Chao’s ontological equation of “God as Tian” (上帝即天), which legitimized Christianity within Chinese culture while preserving divine transcendence through “immanent transcendence” (Xiao 2024). Wu (1981) critiqued the tension in Chao’s soteriology as follows: early works reduced redemption to “emulating Christ’s moral personality” (T. C. Chao [1926] 2003), whereas later writings shifted toward a “grace-centered” paradigm (T. C. Chao [1948] 2004). Liu (2004) stressed that Chao’s “Three-Self” principles (self-governance, self-support, and self-propagation) demanded not only organizational independence but also theological hermeneutic autonomy, urging the church to retain its identity as a “vehicle of divine salvation” beyond political instrumentalization.
• Practice and criticism of indigenous theology. Chao’s “indigenous theology” (本色神学) remains a paradigm for Christian Sinicization. Zhuo (2013) and H. Shi (2010) highlighted his synthesis of Confucian ethics (e.g., ren and filial piety) with Christian moral ideals, alongside artistic expressions of religious experience (e.g., classical Chinese poetry). Starr (2016), in Chinese Theology: Text and Context, systematically demonstrated the “non-Western subjectivity” of Chinese Christian literature, acknowledging Chao’s pioneering contributions while critiquing his early Christological simplifications Starr (2016). Studies by Glüer (1981), Lin (1994), and Duan (2005) further explored his Confucian Christian dialogical strategies and cross-cultural hermeneutics.

These studies provide a rich foundation for this research, and this paper will focus on the relationship between T. C. Chao’s theological thought and Chinese social change. However, previous research has mostly concentrated on the dialogue between Christianity and Confucianism, equating Chinese culture with Confucian thought, without paying enough attention to the influence of Buddhism—which has been integrated into Chinese culture—on T. C. Chao’s indigenous theology. This paper will also approach the topic from this perspective, attempting to understand the enlightening significance that Buddhism has provided in the process of “de-othering” during Christianity’s development. The following text will be divided into four parts as follows: The first part will take the “anti-Christian movement” as the anchor point, analyzing the insurmountable issue of “de-othering” in the development of modern Chinese Christianity. The second part will explore T. C. Chao’s theological characteristics, focusing on the contextual nature of T. C. Chao’s theology, briefly explaining what contextualization is and what Contextualization Theology is, and discovering the close relationship between his theological thought and Chinese social change, identifying the significant impact of the “anti-Christian movement” on T. C. Chao. The third part will trace the several ways in which Buddhism inspired T. C. Chao’s indigenous theology in dialogue with Christianity, examining both the development of Buddhism in China and the approaches taken by Buddhism at the time as discussed by Master Taixu, exploring the adaptation and adjustment issues of Christianity’s spread and development in China. The last part will take T. C. Chao and his indigenous theology as the starting point, seeking a way out and conjuring the future of Christian theology in China, that is, answering the final question of whether it should follow the path of “theology in China” or “theology of China”.

2. The Impact and Response of the “Anti-Christian Movement” on De-Othering

The “Anti-Christian Movement” had a significant impact on T. C. Chao’s thought, mainly because of his “presence” during the two “Anti-Christian Movements”. In 1922, when T. C. Chao was a professor at Soochow University, he represented himself and participated in the catalyst of the first “Anti-Christian Movement”, which was the 11th Congress of the World Christian Student Alliance in 1922. In the same year, he also represented himself at the National Christian Conference. During the second “Anti-Christian Movement” period, T. C. Chao, as a relatively active Christian insider and a distinguished Chinese Protestant theologian, wrote numerous articles and expressed various views to respond to the challenges posed by the “Anti-Christian Movement” to Christianity. It can be said that throughout the third decade of the 20th century, T. C. Chao’s theological perspectives were always directly linked to the “Anti-Christian Movement”. His primary theological propositions served his theological goals, and the issues he addressed in his theology were how to remove the label of being an imported religion from Christianity, in other words, how to achieve the “de-othering” of Christianity and integrate it into Chinese society.

In the first 20 years of the 20th century, the most prominent issue confronting Chinese society was the new cultural construction movement sparked by the Chinese people’s desire for national salvation and survival. This movement mainly manifested in the following two aspects: 1. Opposing the political, economic, and cultural aggression of imperialist powers against China. 2. Opposing religion and superstition, which were opposed to science and reason. These two aspects were represented by the preparatory events of the “Non-Christian Students Alliance” and the “Non-religious Great Alliance”. The former believed that Christianity was an accomplice to imperialist aggression in China, while the latter viewed religion as a symbol of backwardness and ignorance, contrary to freedom, science, and reason. Therefore, the two major issues Christianity faced at this time were how to reconcile the relationship between Chinese Christianity and the West and how to reconcile the relationship between religion and science. In short, it was the question of how Chinese Christianity could “de-otherize”.

According to the above, the “other” in “de-othering” has two themes as follows: 1. The other in terms of Chinese culture, that is, Western characteristics (imperialist traits). 2. The other in terms of science and rationality, that is, the unscientific aspects of Christianity. Therefore, “de-othering” is an inevitable requirement for constructing T. C. Chao’s Contextualization Theology. The following will develop from these two points:

2.1. De-Westernization

“De-Westernization” means that Christianity must aim to meet the spiritual needs of the Chinese people at the time, that is, to establish a “native church” that is most suitable for the religious needs of the Chinese people, most in harmony with Chinese life, and most capable of saving China. Therefore, what T. C. Chao needed to understand was the following: What is the essence of Christianity? What are the Western characteristics of Christianity? What are the “indigenous” requirements in the establishment of an “indigenous church”?

When Christianity first entered China, it was called a “foreign religion”. Christianity was wrapped in layers of Western church rituals, doctrines, organizational structures, and Western art, but were these external forms really Christianity? T. C. Chao’s answer is no.

“Christianity, when it spread from the West to China, brought with it many unrelated elements. It is not easy to distinguish between what constitutes the essence of Christianity and what are merely the byproducts of Western cultural heritage. Various rituals, ceremonies, forms, symbols, rules, regulations, methods of evangelism, superstitious customs, and even modernist and fundamentalist ideologies are not inherent elements of primitive Christianity and have no significant connection to its essence. Why should a Chinese bishop not wear an imposing high crown, hold a staff at the end of the bay, or wear a small silver cross? Why should there be no Santa Claus in China, who celebrates Christmas with gifts for the elderly and the poor, but no exchange of gifts or revelry? Christianity is fundamentally not a product of Europe and America; it is a product of the Near East. Having been transmitted in the West for so long, it has taken on these Western appearances. However, these appearances can be adapted or abandoned”.

(T. C. Chao [1950] 2010b, p. 144)

What is the essence of Christianity? From a theological perspective, it is “faith”. Believing that God created humanity, and we call Him Father; believing that Jesus Christ is the Savior; believing that the Kingdom of God is the goal of all our efforts. From a religious experience perspective, it is life. Apart from these two aspects, other forms of Christianity that exist in the West can be stripped away and adapted to better suit Chinese society and believers by integrating them with Chinese social and religious needs. Therefore, the first step in establishing an “indigenous church” is to strip away the Western characteristics of Christianity and then transform it in terms of rituals, architecture, missionary methods, and church personnel.

2.2. Against Anti-Scientificity

In addition to “de-Westernization”, “against Anti-Scientificity” is another necessary aspect to consider. Because the “Non-Religious Great Alliance” believes that superstition, ignorance, and backwardness represented by religion are at odds with strong values such as science, rationality, and advancement, Christianity must address the relationship between religion and science if it wishes to survive in Chinese society, which means declaring that religion and science do not conflict and can coexist. From the perspective of scientific rationality, concepts like “the Dao becoming flesh”, “virgin Mary conceiving and giving birth”, and “Moses parting the Red Sea” do not embody the spirit of science and can even be seen as going against it. God exercising His power implies opposition to widely accepted scientific knowledge. However, such statements fundamentally seek to justify religious doctrines within science, leading to a situation where science dominates, and religion becomes an object of scientific explanation. T. C. Chao criticizes this view, stating that such attacks are invalid, that explaining religion scientifically is inappropriate, and that the subjects and content of scientific and religious research are fundamentally different. Theology should not be justified through scientific methods and should not construct its own rationality based on this premise.

T. C. Chao’s epistemology reflects the obvious empiricism, and science and religion as ways of human cognition naturally reflect the characteristics of empiricism.

“Science is nothing but a part of the knowledge of life experience; philosophy is nothing but the whole conjecture, measurement and temporary speculation of life experience, and the organized theory”.

(T. C. Chao [1950] 2004, p. 62)

Science, at its core, is a human experience, that is, the response to the surrounding environment. This means that science should—within its scope of research—seek plausible explanations for the things around it. Science studies what the world presents us with and cannot explain facts and values that the world has not shown us.

“Knowledge can be divided into metaphysical and physical aspects; the closer to the physical aspect, such as physics, chemistry, biology, etc., the more significant achievements can be made; the closer to the metaphysical aspect, such as psychology, society, ethics, history, the less likely it is to achieve a unified understanding. As for philosophy, it is even harder to achieve uniformity”.

(T. C. Chao [1950] 2004, p. 64)

If science is regarded as the sole answer to all questions, such science is not genuine and will lead people astray. As transcendent knowledge beyond the empirical world, religion will become the way to understand it. Taking Christianity as an example, Christianity is the study of God, and God cannot be fully understood by human reason alone. The relationship between God and humans should be the direct perception (not empirical but mystical) of God, akin to “communication”. The understanding of God lies in God’s revelation to humans, meaning that God has initiative. The sanctity of God, the uniqueness of knowing God, and the continuity of God’s work are not within the reach of human reason; they can only be realized through pure Christian faith. Therefore, the domains of thought and modes of cognition differ between the two, yet they do not conflict. This indicates that faith in God does not mean rejecting science or reason; the two can complement each other and together form a more comprehensive understanding of the world. Therefore, T. C. Chao’s view that Christianity means “anti-science” is fundamentally flawed.

Due to the impact of the “Anti-Christian Movement”, T. C. Chao’s theology cannot merely remain at the level of localizing Christian culture and establishing a localized church; he needs to go further and attempt to construct a “contextualized theological system”, reflecting the interactive relationship between his theological thought and social reality.

3. T. C. Chao’s Theological Characteristics—Contextualization Theology

The term “Contextualization Theology” was not a term used during T. C. Chao’s active academic era. Although, as early as 1967, Bernard Lonergan had proposed “Theology in Context”, it truly became a mature theological term in the 1970s, when it appeared in the theological education report of the World Council of Churches.1 Contextualization Theology can be understood as the development of the meaning of indigeneity theory. The term “Contextualization Theology” was born with the aim of criticizing the previous practice in developing countries where Christian theological education only adopted Western models. “Contextualization” means that Christianity should not merely deal with the issues between Christianity and local culture, i.e., indigenization, but also pay attention to Christianity’s responses in various aspects such as politics, economy, society, believers’ lives, and religious experiences, developing unique theological ideas in special situations. The terms contextualization and indigenization have similar meanings but are different, representing a relationship of including and being included. In the past, the Chinese Christian community did not make clear distinctions between these two terms, sometimes leading to their misuse. It is worth noting that, regarding T. C. Chao’s theological thought, “indigenization” connotates “contextualization”. Although T. C. Chao uses the term “indigenization” in many of his works and articles, in terms of his thought, he does not merely remain at the cultural level, but he involves a broader range of political, economic, social, and other aspects. Therefore, when T. C. Chao uses the term “indigenization”, we should understand it as encompassing the connotation of “contextualization”.

Regarding the issue of contextualization, theology should not be confined to the interpretation of the Bible and ecclesiastical doctrine. If it were to remain solely at this level, it would only bring about a sense of monotony and alienation in believers, making theology a rigid “historical fossil” incapable of development. Therefore, theology has always been in the process of contextualization; it must always be situated within a specific social environment to have meaning. There has never been a true theology that is detached from specific historical events, intellectual characteristics, and contemporary (time) contexts. If Augustine had not addressed the various issues arising in the ancient Roman Empire, merely repeating the theological views of Jesus Christ, Paul, and others, how would he have achieved his theological height? How could he have discussed the development of Christian theology? Therefore, contextualization means that theologians in each era and region must interpret the meaningful “Gospel of Jesus” through the realities around them.

But not all theologians’ thoughts abide by Contextualization Theology; the term “Contextualization Theology” is based on the separation of Western theology from developing countries’ theology, or to put it another way, Contextualization Theology is a theology born out of oppressed groups and developing countries under oppressive realities.2 Therefore, Contextualization Theology is a cry for faith among nations and ethnicities with weaker geopolitical influence and peoples under oppressive environments. Due to the reality of oppression, this type of theology is more practical and purposeful. The era in which T. C. Chao lived, especially in its early stages, was a time when China exhibited characteristics of “weakness” in the global stage. His personal experiences and the social realities of the time precisely responded to the question of finding a way for Christian development under conditions of internal and external troubles, and his theological explorations fully embodied the characteristics of “Contextualization Theology”.

T. C. Chao always emphasizes that Christian faith cannot merely remain at the level of scriptures and the words of saints, which would make Christianity an unchanging religion throughout history. His historical evolution perspective also requires him to recognize that the development of Christianity in China must adapt to changes in Chinese society and innovate according to the reforms of the Chinese era. As Harnack (1902) stated, “For Christianity to continue existing, ‘primitive Christianity’ had to disappear”. In his article “Christianity and Chinese Culture”, T. C. Chao had already attempted to integrate Christian faith with Chinese culture in terms of localization, finding several points where Christian faith aligns with Chinese culture. Although T. C. Chao has theoretically responded to the current new cultural construction, the question of mitigating the impact of the “Anti-Christian Movement” on Christianity at a practical level remains unresolved. Theoretical aspects imply feasibility, but truly implementing such views requires the efforts of Christians. At that time, Buddhism was also in a similar situation to Christianity. Since the Ming and Qing dynasties, Buddhism had declined, and under the influence of factors such as the “temple property for education” 庙产兴学3 policy at the end of the Qing and beginning of the Republic of China, Buddhism continued to move towards the periphery of Chinese society. However, in the turbulent early 20th century, the number of Buddhists increased, and a new generation of Buddhist monks and laypeople, represented by Master Taixu, actively promoted the Buddhist revival movement and achieved many results. T. C. Chao keenly observed this situation and hoped to find beneficial references for the development and localization of Christianity from the Buddhist revival movement. Therefore, T. C. Chao actively engaged in dialogue between Judaism and Buddhism, hoping to gain insights from the thousand-year development of Buddhism in China.

4. The Enlightenment of Buddhism’s Engagement with the Contextual Transformation of Christianity—Adaptation and Adjustment

4.1. T. C. Chao’s Attitude Towards Buddhism

T. C. Chao’s attitude towards Buddhism is quite complex;4 he believes that Buddhism is a doctrine of renunciation and monastic life, which is in stark contrast to the traditional Chinese humanism of cultivating oneself, regulating one’s family, governing one’s state, and bringing about peace. Although Buddhism does not require ordinary believers to become monks for cultivation, the theories of precepts, concentration, wisdom, greed, hatred, delusion, the Four Noble Truths, and the Eightfold Path seemed uninteresting to intellectuals in an era dominated by scientific trends. However, Buddhism has been passed down in China for thousands of years, and part of it has become part of Chinese culture. Compared to Christianity, Buddhism had more advantages in terms of revival in its dissemination. Moreover, under the social context of his time, the Buddhist reforms made by Master Taixu led to the phased revival of Han Buddhism. His concept of “Humanistic Buddhism” promoted the contextual adaptation of Buddhism through a worldly mindset, making it acceptable to the Chinese people. T. C. Chao also recognized the various reform measures taken by Master Taixu to adapt Buddhism to contemporary Chinese society, believing that Christianity needed to integrate with Buddhism and viewing Buddhism as a successful example of the localization of foreign religions, thus learning from Buddhism’s successes.

In the article “Chinese Ethnicity and Christianity”, T. C. Chao systematically expounds on the experience of Buddhism’s integration into Chinese society, dividing it into the following six aspects: First, Buddhism used commonalities with Taoism as a thread to attract the attention of the Chinese scholar–official class. From the Wei and Jin dynasties onwards, with wars raging and turmoil as the background, Confucian teachings could not provide peace of mind and a sense of purpose, so the scholar–official class turned to Taoism, indulging in empty discussions and seeking profound mysteries. People believed that Buddhist doctrines were close to Laozi and Zhuangzi and thus used this to analyze the concept of emptiness and existence. Second, Buddhism met the urgent religious needs of the Chinese people; “Buddhism could alleviate the spiritual famine in the hearts of the Chinese” (T. C. Chao [1935] 2007, p. 633). Facing the intellectual class, Buddhism guided people with profound principles. Facing the general populace, Buddhism attracted people to convert them with easily observable methods such as the carving of scriptures and images, the doctrine of karma, and the use of ritual tools and sacred sites. Ultimately, “those seeking purity and joy found comfort, those coming from strife and killing found teachings to eliminate conflict, and those with worldly desires found satisfaction in averting disasters and prolonging life” (T. C. Chao [1935] 2007, p. 633). Third, Buddhism always had outstanding saints and great promoters. Buddhism has been resisted by Taoism and Confucianism, with representative events being the suppression of Buddhism by Cui Hao 崔浩 and Kou Qianzhi 寇谦之 during the Northern Wei dynasty, and the incident where Han Yu 韩愈 advised against welcoming the Buddha’s relics during the Tang dynasty. Against this backdrop, Buddhism became increasingly prosperous, and one of the key reasons was “Buddhism had outstanding saints and great scholars who could expand its teachings and spread its principles” (T. C. Chao [1935] 2007, p. 634). Fourth, the Chinese “sought in practice” and “sought in origins”. The representative of “sought in practice” was Huiyuan 慧远, who strictly observed the precepts and transcended the mundane world. People like Faxian 法显 and Xuanzang 玄奘 broke through great difficulties to travel to India to obtain scriptures, which was a manifestation of “sought in origins”. Fifth, the Chinese “sought in literature”. In the early days, scriptures were translated by foreigners from countries like Daxia, Parthia, and Ulan, but later, the Chinese became familiar with learning Sanskrit, understanding the environment and background of Buddhism. Possessing a deep knowledge of Chinese literature and history, they began to translate the classics themselves, resulting in Buddhist scriptures translated by Xuanzang 玄奘, Sanzang 叁藏, and others. Sixth, Buddhism relied on art for its dissemination. The culture that the Chinese entrusted their fate to was artistic, and Buddhism used artistic elements such as stone statues, mural paintings, Zen temples, mountain forests, and classical poetry to subtly influence people.

T. C. Chao clearly recognized the historical advantages of the development of Buddhism and believed that this is something that Christianity should learn from. He said, “The number of people who study and believe in Buddhism is increasing day by day. Now all religions, powerful ones, are only Christianity and Buddhism.” (T. C. Chao [1950] 2004, p. 55). In T. C. Chao’s view, the thought of Chinese Buddhism has become an integral part of Chinese culture. Chinese culture has an artistic tendency, and religion is an important source of art; “wherever there is religion, there must be rituals, buildings, music, painting, and literature to convey the richness of life”. T. C. Chao believes that Daoism and Buddhism hold significant positions in the history of Chinese art. In areas such as temple paintings, music, and other aspects, Buddhism has made many contributions. Through religious art, believers use temple construction, ceremonies, music creation, poetry writing, Buddha image making, and celestial figure creation to highlight their religious experiences. Chinese culture has a tendency towards mystery, as evidenced by monks such as Faxian 法显, Xuanzang 玄奘, Dao Pu 道普, and Zhi Meng 智猛, who traversed snowy mountains and braved poisonous mists in search of true knowledge and scriptures, as well as the followers of Zen and Esoteric Buddhism. Their existence demonstrates that the Chinese not only pursue material interests but also yearn for the profound exploration and pursuit of the spiritual world. Their mystical experiences are an indispensable part of Chinese culture and reflect the Chinese people’s unique understanding and perception of life, the universe, nature, and ethics.

In T. C. Chao’s view, Christianity and Buddhism actually have aspects that are incompatible with Chinese culture, but Christianity and Buddhism are fundamentally different, with fewer conflicts between Christianity and Chinese culture, especially because Christianity’s doctrines align well with the ideals of “the world under heaven” and “one family under heaven”. However, why could Buddhism spread in China while Christianity was excluded from China at that time? T. C. Chao believes that this is partly due to the difference in the historical context, which can be summarized as, “Buddhism seized the opportunity; Christianity had to create its own opportunities amidst countless difficulties”. (T. C. Chao [1935] 2007, p. 638). Specifically, first, when Buddhism entered China, it competed with Confucianism and Taoism, and Buddhism gained the upper hand through its internal strength. By the 1930s, Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism had all shown signs of decline, with ordinary people believing in folk religions, intellectuals surpassing any religion, and Christianity oscillating between no religion and excessive religion. Second, with scientific development, the truth system encompassing attitudes, methods, experiments, and outcomes became increasingly systematic, making the conflict between religion and science more pronounced, diminishing the appeal of religion. Third, although Christianity originated in the West, it has faced increasing criticism from Western scholars and youth. Fourth, in the West, both fascism and the Soviet Union have been direct enemies of Christianity. Meanwhile, in countries with the deepest Christian influence, such as Britain and America, Christianity has never relied on political institutions or collective actions. On the other hand, in terms of internal strength, Christianity lacks top-tier talent. Methods of evangelism, worship rituals, church structures, and hymn compositions all originate from the West, rendering the so-called “indigenization” meaningless. Although Christian textual ministries have been effective, they are not indispensable to the Chinese people.

4.2. Master Taixu’s Buddhist Reformation

At that time, Buddhism and Christianity were consistent in facing the difficulties of the Reformation. Western modern civilization, under the impetus of powerful warships and advanced weaponry, entered ancient Chinese society, which was culturally overripe and on the verge of decline. The long-standing ancient Chinese society underwent a great transformation that has not been seen in a millennium. “Democracy” and “science” became popular during the May Fourth Movement, thoroughly disrupting the feudal cultural pattern of China’s imperial centralization. Chinese society entered a period of intense historical transformation. In this process of modernization, religion also faced challenges, with both Buddhism and Christianity grappling with how to adapt to the new era. Enlightened figures in the Chinese religious community began to reflect on the innovation of modernization, exploring new paths compatible with modern China. Master Taixu was a standout figure in this era of Buddhist reform, comprehensively reflecting on doctrines, institutions, and property systems, advocating for a life-oriented Buddhism based on the Three Principles of the People, guiding national customs and human affairs through life-oriented Buddhism. In 1933, at the Hankou Buddhist Faith Association, Master Taixu delivered a speech titled “How to Build Humanistic Buddhism”: “Humanistic Buddhism does not mean teaching people to leave humanity to become gods or ghosts, or to become monks in temples and forests. Instead, it uses Buddhist principles to improve society, promote human progress, and transform the world” (T. Shi 2005, p. 354). Master Taixu linked the Buddhist teaching movement with China’s national destiny and cultural vitality, integrating them into one. “Chinese temples, which have always represented Buddhist monasteries, should eliminate the stains inherited from the imperial system environment and construct a new Buddhism that is consistent with the teachings of Shakyamuni Buddha and suitable for the current Chinese context” (T. Shi 1958, p. 68). Master Taixu’s concept of “Humanistic Buddhism” aims to establish a well-rounded personality through the spirit of Mahayana Bodhisattvas, while advocating for the theory of “Humanistic Buddhism” to promote Buddhist principles and adapt to the times. This advocates for improving society and advancing human civilization. The proposal of Humanistic Buddhism, under the social background of the time, addresses the accumulated problems of modern Buddhism by proposing a timely corrective thought. Its philosophy consistently upholds the stance of Buddhism, discussing Humanistic or Humanistic Buddhism from the perspective of Mahayana Buddhism, transforming the extensive dissemination of Buddhism into its popularity in academia, integrating Buddhist scriptures and personal cultivation with social practice, and changing the traditional Buddhist approach of withdrawal from the world into a pragmatic religion that actively engages in social development.

Master Taixu led by example, making extensive pioneering contributions to the promotion of Buddhist culture, founding numerous Buddhist journals and magazines, distributing books and periodicals, establishing Buddhist academies across various regions, and traveling to Europe and America to promote Buddhism. During his travels in Europe and America in 1928, he discussed the following characteristics of Buddhist studies: “scientific Buddhism, empirical Buddhism, life-oriented Buddhism, and world-oriented Buddhism”; 科学的佛学，实证的佛学，人生的佛学，世界的佛学 (T. Shi 2004, p. 236). Master Taixu integrated Buddhism and science with a positive and open attitude, not only eliminating the alien factors of Buddhism as an external religion but also advocating, from the perspective of Buddhist primacy, that “Buddhism does not depart from worldly phenomena, Buddhism does not destroy worldly phenomena 佛法不离世间法，佛法不坏世间法” by combining the Buddhist doctrines of “the superior truth” and “the secular truth”. In this sense, Taixu believed that atheism is the most influential ideology in the scientific era, and Buddhism should not discuss ghosts or gods but only talk about reality and the present world, thus adapting to the spirit of the times, which is the most appropriate method and can correct the social image of Buddhism as superstition (Y. Shi 2004a, p. 181). Accordingly, the Master said that Buddhism is atheism and is a friend to science, capable of supplementing the shortcomings of science; Buddhism is wisdom and faith rather than superstition; Buddhism is not a religion but an anti-theistic religion; Buddhism is philosophy yet transcends philosophy; Buddhism is not world-weary but actively saves the world (Y. Shi 2004b, p. 96). “Benefiting all beings” should start from “benefiting human life”, transforming the care for the other shore of the world into the care for this shore. Master Taixu combined this scientific perspective derived from Buddhist teachings, aligning with the prevailing scientific views advocated by the New Culture Movement at the time. He provided a timely and insightful response to the issue of the relationship between religion and science, which had been hindering religious development. This approach not only won the acceptance and attention of Chinese scholars but also breathed new life and vitality into Buddhism, which had previously been in a state of silence.

4.3. Dialogue” Between T. C. Chao and Taixu

Master Taixu, a pioneering religious reformer of the early 20th century and contemporary of T. C. Chao, proposed the “Buddhism in Human Life” during a time of grave national crisis and cultural conflict in China. This idea redirected Buddhism’s focus from otherworldly salvation to real-world social engagement, promoting its integration into modern society through charity and education. Essentially, Master Taixu stressed that Buddhism should function within society and not just be an otherworldly practice. He advocated for Buddhism to shed feudal superstitions, embrace modernity, connect with national rejuvenation, and resist Western religious influence.

Master Taixu’s reform efforts agreed with T. C. Chao’s contextual theology without prior consultation. T. C. Chao championed the “contextualized theology”, urging it to absorb Chinese cultural elements like Confucianism to become part of the national culture. In social practice, T. C. Chao believed Christianity should not only save souls but also tackle issues like poverty and injustice, thus emphasizing the practicality of Christian ethics. T. C. Chao, within the same social context and facing the same issues, conducted a profound reflection on Christianity. Starting from the purpose of establishing Chinese church theology, he advocated that Chinese Christian theologians should compare the fundamental doctrines of Christianity with those of Chinese Buddhism, integrating their commonalities. For example, the meaning of Prajñā 无知 (Prajñā 无知义) in the works of Sengzhao 僧肇 can be compared with the epistemology of Barthian theology; the meaning of the two resources (二资) by Jizang 吉藏 can be compared with the epistemology of both religion and science; and the Ālaya-vijñāna, the neither-mind-nor-matter, and the neither-self-nor-law in Cheng Weishi Lun 成唯识论 by Xuanzang 玄奘 can be suggested to be compared with Christian creationism. T. C. Chao explicitly proposed that Chinese Christians should interpret their faith and follow the path of explaining it using Chinese thought, just like Buddhism. This approach has many benefits. First, it transforms Christianity into a religion of the Chinese people. The Common Program clearly stipulates freedom of religious belief, so we can certainly believe in Christianity and be Christians. However, Christianity is introduced from Western imperialist and capitalist societies and is inevitably something that China does not welcome today. If we can preserve the essence of faith within the Chinese way of thinking and make Christianity a religion of the Chinese people, then we can at least dispel people’s doubts about us and our beliefs. Second, Christianity itself can have a richer expression. Christianity can take terms used in Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhist scriptures. For example, the word “Ji’ou 觭偶” in Zhuangzi’s “Tian Xia 天下篇” chapters can be used as a term for mutual complementarity; similarly, terms such as “submission”, “conversion”, “transformation”, “liberation”, and “self-realization” from Buddhist scriptures can be adapted for Christian discourse (T. C. Chao [1950] 2010a, p. 181).

T. C. Chao does not reject the revival of Buddhism and points out that “if Buddhism thrives, enlightened Christians will certainly join in with open arms” (T. C. Chao [1935] 2007, p. 632). In his view, the religious revival during this period does not depend on a particular religion becoming dominant in China, but rather on whether the Chinese people have a need for religion and an interest in understanding it. On this level, Buddhism is no different from Christianity; it is not about the same doctrines, purposes, or methods, but both are religions that can be needed and generate interest. Because there are people who believe in Buddhism, there must be those who believe in Christianity. Therefore, he emphasizes that enlightened individuals who believe in religion should not exclude other religions as they did in the past. He believes that Christianity and Buddhism were interdependent under the historical context of that time. T. C. Chao’s attitude toward Buddhism evolved from initial skepticism to a nuanced appreciation of its historical Sinicization process. As he maintained a broad vision and an open-minded approach, he gained a comprehensive and in-depth understanding of the development of Buddhism. Therefore, based on the entire developmental course of Buddhism in China, he realized that the rooting and growth of Buddhism in China were nurtured by Chinese culture. Initially, Buddhism was introduced to China from India as an imported cultural element. Throughout different social contexts and historical processes, Chinese Buddhist scholars of successive generations continuously developed and revised foreign Buddhist teachings, integrating Buddhist studies into Chinese culture to adapt to Chinese society, thereby achieving the localization and Sinicization of Buddhism.

“Buddhism is a religion of universal harmony and also has philosophical beliefs. Therefore, on the one hand, it has gathered many political figures of high standing, such as Duan Qirui 段祺瑞 and Ye Gongchuo 叶恭绰, as well as wealthy merchants, renowned scholars, and noble ladies, who have all turned to it. On the other hand, it also holds a certain influence among the contemporary intellectual class. Famous lay Buddhists like Ouyang Jinwu 欧阳竟无 have established the Chinan Institute in Nanjing. One purpose is to study Buddhist scriptures, and the other is for their spiritual cultivation. Many scholars go there to conduct research and practice meditation. There is also a well-known Buddhist master named Master Taixu, who is currently traveling around famous cities such as Beijing, Jilin, Nanjing, Wuchang, Suzhou, and others to give lectures on Buddhism. No matter where he goes, there is always a large crowd listening to his lectures. At the beginning of his speeches, he often conducts solemn Buddhist ceremonies to inspire reverence among Chinese people. I recently had a conversation with Master Taixu and learned that he has a desire to spread Buddhism in America. His method of proselytizing is not to teach or give lectures in famous universities, but rather, during his stay in America, to live as a Buddhist and practice Buddhist spiritual cultivation to attract their attention. He believes that Americans can only understand things that can be perceived through sight and sound or conveyed through signs and symbols; as for things that cannot be perceived by sight and sound, or expressed in words, and have no visible signs, they are not easy for them to understand. He considers himself an atheist, believing that the forces in the universe are inhuman. He thinks he has had a religious experience, which is hard to explain in words and is something he is eager to share with others. His words only add to the confusion. He said, “The profound and esoteric meaning of Buddhism is hard to explain with ordinary knowledge and language”. Then, how can he know and have unwavering belief? I am unlearned, and after listening to his words, I really cannot understand. The works and talks of this Master Taixu seem to be “self-righteous” and “autocratic”. One can see this from his books, such as “Philosophy of Life”, “The Train”, and “The Two Civilizations of the World”. On the other hand, he is an amiable person. His atheism and way of life are in line with the imagination of the Chinese people. However, the focus of his attention is not on human ethical behavior, but on the attainment of a kind of self–cultivation, which is not easy for ordinary people to understand”.

(T. C. Chao [1926] 2007b, p. 191)

From this evaluation, we can understand that, on the one hand, T. C. Chao is full of skepticism about Buddhist beliefs, thinking that the profound doctrines of Buddhism are difficult to understand, and there are elements of mystification in the practice and cultivation. On the other hand, T. C. Chao strongly affirms the character and cultivation of Master Taixu, acknowledging that he indeed has profound attainments, and greatly admires Master Taixu’s practice of spreading the teachings and spirit. Such an evaluation also reflects T. C. Chao’s attitude towards Buddhism; although he does not agree with its religious concepts, he also affirms that there are some positive aspects in its development methods.

Although the intellectual roots of the two are different, with T. C. Chao being more influenced by Christian theology and Western philosophy while Taixu attempted to reform within Buddhism, in essence, the two converged in the field of religious reform. T. C. Chao and Master Taixu’s goals for religious reform share certain similarities to some extent. They both hope that religion can adapt to modern society, strengthen national cultural identity, and respond to real-world social issues. Moreover, Master Taixu’s Buddhist reform achieved a phased revival of Chinese Buddhism. His success, viewed from the perspective of others, provided a reference model for the practice of T. C. Chao’s contextualized theological thought. T. C. Chao expressed a certain degree of affirmation for Master Taixu’s Buddhist reform, believing that Taixu tried to make Buddhism adapt to modern society and serve the society, rather than merely remaining in traditional religious forms. Although T. C. Chao’s contextualized theology did not directly draw on the experience of Taixu’s reform, the two are consistent on this level, that is, they both carried out the localization of religion under the same social background. Therefore, there is a possibility for “dialogue” between T. C. Chao and Taixu.

5. “Theology of China” or “Theology in China”—The Way out of Contextualization

As mentioned above, T. C. Chao found several ways to adapt and adjust Christianity’s development in China at that time. However, as he noted, the experience of Buddhism was not always effective. While the experience of Buddhism in China should be drawn upon, if Christians want to sustainably develop Christianity, they must pay attention to the current social and cultural context. This requires Chinese Christian theologians to keep pace with the times and adapt Christian theology to the changes in Chinese society and culture. The localization of Christianity must be based on the continuous observation of the structures of Chinese society and cultural psychology, which is an inevitable requirement for the contextualization of Chinese Christian theology. This leads to a classic issue in the study of Chinese Christianity; is it “theology of China” or “theology in China”?5

Both terms aim to express the contextualization of Christian theology in China but with different emphases. “Theology of China” emphasizes “China”, implying a theology rooted in Chinese culture and its specific social environment, reflecting China’s regional and ethnic characteristics. It is an endogenous construction of doctrine starting from Chinese issues. “Theology in China” focuses on “theology”, indicating a universal theology transplanted into China’s spatial region and country. It suggests that theology, as an imported product, spreads and develops in China’s social context. The key difference is that the former is a spontaneous, generative creation, while the latter is an adaptive adjustment. Many theologians before and during T. C. Chao’s time were still trying to accept “theology in China.” However, based on T. C. Chao’s advocacy of contextualized theology, building “theology of China” should be the way out of contextualization.

Of these two terms, the word “theology” still needs to be examined and interpreted. The term “theology” itself does not originate from Christianity, nor does it specifically refer to Christianity. From an etymological perspective, the term theology traces back to theologia in Latin, which itself comes from the Koine Greek word θεολογία, a combination of θεός and -λογία, where the former refers to God and the latter denotes the study of something or a noun root of academic knowledge. Thus, its literal meaning is “knowledge about God”. However, in the development of Western Christian theology, the dominance of God’s role in the human understanding of God remains emphasized. For example, in Augustine’s discourse, humans can approach God through reason, but the recognition of God still requires God to manifest Himself to humans. Therefore, “theology” implies both the approach of humans to God and the manifestation of God, with the latter taking precedence, and theology should be recognized as “the knowledge that God speaks to humans”. In the process of knowing God, what humans need to do is listen to God’s gospel, i.e., the teachings of the Bible manifest in their hearts, making theology effective, true, and correct. Therefore, theology means that humans listen to God’s words and understand, convey, and apply these words. However, in the process of understanding, conveying, and applying these words, they will inevitably integrate their own experiences. The specific modes of thinking, customs, and linguistic expressions within particular cultural traditions inevitably imbue theology with temporality and spatiality—that is, the locality and specificity of theology. However, due to the concept of God creating humanity, theology must still reflect its universality towards all of humanity, which requires the rational transmission of biblical revelation.

In constructing his contextualized theology, T.C Chao maintained a deliberate balance between regional particularity and universal relevance. His intellectual inquiries centered on the following fundamental questions: What constitutes authentic Chineseness? What defines essential Christianity? How do cultural and social dimensions interact with divine revelation? Where and to what extent should Christianity undergo indigenization (本色化) within the Chinese context? Chao recognized that rational human beings from divergent socio-cultural matrices, whether comparing Eastern and Western contemporaries or different historical generations within the same region—inevitably develop distinct interpretive frameworks. This epistemological reality ensures that theological knowledge rooted in shared revelatory foundations manifests differently across temporal and spatial contexts. While Chao’s approach initially appeared to follow the paradigm of “Theology in China”, aimed at reconciling doctrinal tensions through de-othering Christianity and adapting ecclesiastical structures, his mature reflections revealed deeper implications. He ultimately concluded that superficial attempts to reconcile Christianity with Chinese culture would only perpetuate unresolved tensions. In practical terms, however, T. C. Chao realized that without achieving a “Theology of China”, the contradictions between Christianity and Chinese society would persist without end, with new conflicts continually arising as soon as existing ones were resolved. True resolution, he argued, could only come through the Gospel’s concrete manifestation within China’s specific social context, that is, by interpreting, transmitting, and applying God’s word directly to Chinese societal realities. So, Chao advocated for establishing a self-defined Chinese Christian church through the following two interdependent dimensions: ecclesiological reconfiguration and the cultivation of indigenous theological talent.

In these two aspects, T. C. Chao absorbed lessons from Buddhism and expressed his views on the drawbacks of Buddhism in contextualized construction. T. C. Chao believed that Buddhism could not support the spiritual needs of the masses at that time for two reasons: first, Buddhist scriptures are mostly obscure and difficult to read, making them hard to understand and therefore difficult to spread widely; second, Buddhism contains a large number of negative life concepts, teaching people that the five aggregates are empty and the six senses are severed, equating life to emptiness. These concepts are indeed at odds with and divergent from modern culture. Even the lifestyle advocated by Buddhism is full of contradictions, T. C. Chao’s analysis being as follows:

“From the truth of Buddhism, everything we hold to be real in this world is empty, is false; according to logic, then being evil is false, being good is also false. If everything is empty, then goodness is empty, evil is empty, there are no standards, nothing has meaning. Even great compassion and saving the suffering are unnecessary; the Tathagata truly does not extinguish. Who saves whom? There is no such thing. Such religion absolutely cannot create culture or sustain life. People worship Buddha and seek scriptures, which is fundamentally contrary to the original essence of Buddhism; it’s all for nothing, like Sun Wukong flipping somersaults in the palm of the Buddha”.

(T. C. Chao [1950] 2004, p. 57)

T. C. Chao believed that Buddhism, which advocates that everything is empty and is full of contradictions, was destined to be abandoned by the Chinese. In the construction of the church, T. C. Chao was deeply pained by the phenomena of the time, such as the pursuit of Buddhist masters, the extensive construction of temples, and the creation of expensive Buddha statues. On the one hand, he believed that such phenomena were a waste of human, financial, and material resources during a time of social resource scarcity. On the other hand, he believed that the non-scientific nature and the negative orientation of Buddhism’s concepts determine its inevitable elimination by society. In T. C. Chao’s view, the spread of new ideas could powerfully impact Buddhism’s social influence; “Science is imported, and the concept of life, due to the irrigation of new thoughts and the correction of new movements, is vastly different from before. Whether Buddhism can adapt to this new situation is indeed a question”. After the May Fourth Movement, the influx of scientific and democratic thought helped liberate the minds of the Chinese people from the shackles of feudal superstition. T. C. Chao believed that, as long as people possess a scientific mindset, it would be difficult for them to return to believing in Buddhism.

T. C. Chao places greater emphasis on the geographical distribution breadth of the church and the universality of the church in missionary work, which also emphasizes the localization of the church. As T. C. Chao’s Christology underwent subtle shifts, his ecclesiology likewise abandoned anthropocentric foundations, recentering instead on Christ as the locus of God’s salvific action. He asserted the following:

“The church is the continuation of the incarnate Word, the dwelling place of salvation, and the historical vessel through which God’s transcendent work persists within the finite world. God saves humanity through the church—the fellowship of believers. Christ abides in the church, influencing the world through its witness and self-sacrificial life. The church’s mission is to permeate this world, a task rendered urgent by the socio-political realities of our time”.

(Glüer 1981, p. 264)

By declaring the church, the “dwelling place of salvation”, Chao positioned it as the historical agent of divine redemption—a view Starr (2016) identifies as marking the awakening of Chinese Christianity’s “self-consciousness”.

Since the first National Congress of Chinese Christianity in 1922, the Christian Church in China has developed into a unified national Christian Church and achieved substantial results in the practical action of building an indigenous church.

“From north to Lanzhou, south to Guangzhou, east to Wenzhou, west to Guizhou, the situation, circumstances, denominations, and organizations of the churches vary greatly, but none of the self-established churches are named after the General Church, nor is there one that is not named after the “Chinese Christian Church”.

(T. C. Chao [1926] 2007a, p. 240)

In addition to the indigenization of the church, there is still a need for talent in Chinese Christianity. “Buddhism has a monk named Taixu, who in recent years often gave long sermons. He sat on a high platform, confidently expounding on the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras, possessing both religious authority and scholarly authority! He spoke in the official language with a Shimen County, Zhejiang accent, using endless Buddhist terminology, which could attract many men and women to listen earnestly, not because they understood, but because they found comfort” (T. C. Chao [1931] 2007, p. 441). The indigenous church requires its own Chinese church leaders, who need to be indigenous clergy who can deeply understand God’s revelation, listen to God’s word, and connect with the Chinese psyche, utilizing Chinese culture and integrating it with Chinese realities to become the backbone of the indigenous church. They also need indigenous theologians who are immersed in Chinese culture, focusing on Chinese realities and being knowledgeable about Chinese history. Based on this, they should be able to explain the most essential core values of Christianity, creating Christian writings for the Chinese people, enlightening Chinese thought, and constructing “Chinese theology”. On this basis, Chinese theology will be like a living spring—sustainable. Therefore, “theology of China” is the way out of contextualization.

6. Conclusions

This article explores T. C. Chao’s early theological thoughts and his attempts at dialogue between Christianity and Buddhism, revealing the process of Christianity’s “de-othering” in China and its profound impact on the construction of contextualized theology. The thoughts of T. C. Chao, an important figure in modern Chinese Christian theology, are not only closely related to the transformation of Chinese society but also provide theoretical references and practical paths for the indigenization and contextualization of Christianity in China.

From the text, T. C. Chao’s theological characteristics first reflect a profound contextual theology. He emphasizes that the Christian faith must adapt to the changes in Chinese society, believing that theology should not be limited to interpreting the Bible and church doctrines in conjunction with Chinese culture, but it should also focus on the response of Christendom in various aspects such as politics, economy, society, the lives of believers, and religious experiences. Second, given the impact of the “Anti-Christian Movement”, the characteristics of Christian “de-othering” reflected in T. C. Chao’s theological thought aim to shake off Christianity’s reputation as an “accomplice of imperialism” and an “enemy of Mr. Science”. He advocates for the removal of the Western characteristics of Christianity, establishing an “indigenous church” that aligns with the needs of Chinese society and believers, and he emphasizes the harmonious coexistence of religion and science. Third, T. C. Chao draws wisdom from the development of Buddhism in China, especially the “Humanistic Buddhism” thought of Master Taixu, providing useful insights for the contextual transformation of Christianity. He believes that Christianity should learn from the successful experiences of Buddhism and combine with China’s cultural and social realities to achieve the adaptation and adjustment of Christianity in China. Finally, this article focuses on the way forward for the contextual development of Christianity in China, which is the issue of “theology in China” versus “theology of China”. Beyond the phrasing, the question of identifying the subject is evident. He advocates for the establishment of a Chinese Christian church and the cultivation of Chinese church leaders and theologians. This stance not only reflects respect for the universality of Christianity but also emphasizes the importance of regionalism and particularity.

In summary, T. C. Chao’s theological thought and practical attempts have provided valuable experiences and insights for the “de-othering” and contextualized development of Christianity in China. His work was not only significant at the time but also continues to act as important reference for contemporary scholars exploring the future and direction of Christianity in China. From the causes to the responses, and finally in seeking solutions, this is the theoretical contribution T. C. Chao has made to the indigenization of Christianity, and this is also a continuous challenge that the Christian religion must address in the process of contextualization in China. Only by constructing a “theology of China” can a new practical direction be provided for the development of Christianity in China.