EMQ » April–June 2019 » Volume 55 Issue 3
By Tabor Laughlin
In recent decades, many Chinese missionaries have been sent from Mainland China to countries around the world. In 2009, Todd M. Johnson estimated that there were approximately 5,600 Chinese missionaries around the world.[i] This is a praiseworthy statistic. It is staggering to consider the number of Chinese missionaries on the field in 2017 compared to the amount in 2007, or 1997, or 1987!
As is often the case, the increasing numbers of missionaries do not tell the whole story. The growing numbers do not necessarily tell us if the Chinese missions movement is growing in maturity over these years, or just growing in numbers. Many of those Chinese missionaries who have been sent out over the years have not flourished long-term. Initial mission zeal can get someone to a new country. But it is not enough to sustain them long-term. Many Chinese missionaries have either returned to China within two or three years, not seeing any fruit on the field. Or they have remained in the foreign country – maybe partly out of a fear of shame if they did return to China as “mission failures” – but they focus on Chinese living in the foreign country, rather than reaching the locals they were initially sent to reach.
An effectual missions movement is not just related to sending a large number of missionaries. An effective missions effort necessitates going to the foreign country, learning the local language, and building deep relationships, thus having some kind of spiritual impact on the locals. But Chinese missionaries who have done this have been the minority. Most Mainland Chinese missionaries sent out have not flourished long-term nor seen fruit among the locals.
This article deals with the reality of Chinese ethnocentrism and the Chinese mono-cultural background hindering Chinese missionaries on the mission field. The following seem to be factors for some of the Chinese missionaries who have struggled to do cross-cultural ministry or struggled to overcome their ethnocentric ideologies.
Brief History of Chinese Missions
The modern-day Chinese missionary-sending efforts date back to the 1920s when it was started by the Jesus Family house church network led by Jing Dianying. It was intended to move across China to reach the Muslim world.[ii] In the 1930s there was a group that broke off and founded the “Northwest Spiritual Band.” In the 1940s, the leader, Simon Zhao, led them all the way to Xinjiang Province in Western China.[iii] A similar movement was later started by Mark Ma of the Northwest Bible Institute, called the “Preach Everywhere Gospel Band.” Some Chinese connected to Mark Ma’s group travelled to other countries to preach the gospel. Outside of China, those missionaries were later termed by Helen Bailey as the “Back to Jerusalem Evangelistic Band.”[iv] This missionary vision was almost completely forgotten during the era of intense Christian persecution in China through Chairman Mao and other Communist Party leaders, particularly in the periods from 1949 to the early 1990s.
Since the early 1990s, house church leaders around China have propagated the Back to Jerusalem Movement. (Their intent is to take the gospel back the way the gospel first came to China many centuries ago – via the ancient Silk Road. The ancient Silk Road is the path right through the center of the current “10/40 Window,” through Central Asia and into the Middle East and North Africa. Some Chinese missionaries presently on the field are heavily motivated by the “Back to Jerusalem” ideals. Other Chinese missionaries are mobilized for missions through their house church network or mission organizations and are less concerned about “Back to Jerusalem” ideology.
Definitions of Ethnocentrism
Ivan Hannaford writes how, “modern race consciousness and ethnocentricity were accelerations of forces that had been there from time immortal.”[v] So race consciousness and ethnocentricity are not modern-day phenomena though the thoughts and definitions of race and ethnic differences have varied from period to period.
Similarly, Jonathan Hall writes how the concept of “ethnicity” is an ancient concept. Hall continues, “The genesis of nationalism in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries did not create ethnic consciousness but demanded that ethnic boundaries should be coterminous with political ones.”[vi] The idea of “ethnicity” is an ancient one. Both Hannaford and Hall recognize that ideas of “race” and “ethnicity” are closely related to “nationalism” and “ethnocentrism.” When there is a strong attitude of one’s own unique race, there is more likelihood that one will think oneself superior to others that are different or outsiders. These naturally come from being human.
An older definition of “ethnocentrism” came from W.G. Sumner in 1906. Sumner defines ethnocentrism as “the technical name for the view in which one’s own group is the center of everything and all others are scaled and rated with reference to it.”[vii] Sumner notes the centrality of a person’s own group and the idea of having everything else revolving around it, with one’s own group at the center.
In 1998 Carley Dodd defined “ethnocentrism” as “the cultural attitude that one’s culture or group is superior to another person’s culture or group.”[viii] This definition is slightly different than Sumner’s. Whereas Sumner’s definition was related to one’s group being at the center in comparison to outside groups, Dodd uses the language of “superiority” and “inferiority.” For example, according to Dodd’s definition, I would be acting ethnocentrically if I was in a new land and felt like my own culture and own customs were the best, and the local culture and customs were inferior to my own, if not outright wrong. Having such an ethnocentric attitude in a foreign context is very easy, even if these ethnocentric thoughts are our own private thoughts that we do not verbally express.
Duane Elmer, a Christian expert on cross-cultural communication, gives another definition of “enthnocentrism.” He defines it as “the tendency of every person to believe that their own cultural values and traditions are superior to those of other cultures.”[ix] This is similar to Dodd’s definition, in that both Elmer and Dodd focus on “ethnocentrism” as having a feeling of superiority. Elsewhere Elmer writes how the word “ethnocentrism” literally consists of the words “ethnic-centeredness or culture-centeredness.”[x] This thought would resonate more with Sumner’s definition, and in particular his thoughts on us being at the center of everything. Elmer is noting how our ethnicity is at the center, or our culture is at the center.
Related to the idea of a feeling of “superiority” noted by Dodd and Elmer, Wagatsuma and De Vos describe how the Japanese “know who they are, and especially who they are not.” Japanese believe that they are from the same bloodlines and historical ethnicity, even if that may not necessarily be the case. Japanese believe that physically they look different and distinct from other Asians. The author writes, “In the Japanese mind, only those born of Japanese parents are genetically Japanese – nobody can become Japanese.”[xi] It seems that these strong attitudes of their own distinctness would not just characterize Japanese people, but also those from some other Asian countries that are particularly nationalistic and mono-cultural in nature, including China and Korea. Certainly this same feeling of distinctiveness would also be a potential hurdle for missionaries that are sent from countries that have like ethnocentric sentiments, like Japan, Korea, and China.
Chinese Nationalism
Chinese people historically have had significant sentiments of not only ethnocentrism, but also nationalism. Scholar Lucian Pye writes how Chinese do not have a concept of nationalism that is strictly related to common principles and ideologies. Pye believes, rather, that the Chinese “are left with only a keen sense of ‘we-ness versus they-ness,’ an outlook that can only serve xenophobic passions.”[xii] So Pye believes that Chinese follow a similar pattern similar to what Wagatsuma and De Vos described about the Japanese – they have a clear understanding of who is like them, and who is not. I question Pye’s description of Chinese nationalism and how it is not related to common principles. It seems as though one of the greatest tasks of the Communist Party is to spread certain ideologies to all the people. This is certainly a way for the Chinese government to build nationalism. But Pye is accurate in how the Chinese attitude of “we-ness versus they-ness” can negatively cause them to be ethnocentric and xenophobic.
In 2004 Zhao Suis wrote about how the Communist Party, after the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre, spread propaganda far and wide throughout the country. This propaganda was spread through the education system, beginning by brainwashing children at a young age, and continuing through all stages of education. It was used to compel the Chinese people to have a greater sense of loyalty to the government. Since then the government – in order to bring the Chinese people together and give them a common sense of unity – has utilized Chinese nationalism for their own purposes. Zhao writes, “The goals of the campaign were to rejuvenate China’s national spirit, to strengthen the unity of the Chinese people of different ethnic groups, to reconstruct a sense of national esteem and dignity, and to build the broadest possible coalition under the leadership of the CCP.”[xiii] The Chinese government achieved those purposes for the most part, bringing unity and loyalty to the state, and encouraging nationalism and patriotism.
Related to China’s nationalism is a fascinating article from 2012 that analyzes results related to a 2008 China Survey that compared China’s nationalism to 35 other countries’ nationalism in a 2003 National Identity Survey.[xiv] The questions for the survey were: I would not want to be a citizen of another country; other countries need to be more like my country; my country is a better country than most other countries; and, I feel proud when my country does well in international sports. The results were that Chinese people expressed the highest score of nationalism among the 35 developed or developing countries surveyed. Their nationalism is not necessarily based simply on just those who are the majority Han people, but also was found high among those who were of other people groups, including Hui, Uyghur, and others. So, such nationalism is not necessarily based on historical roots as the Han people, but is a large result of a multi-ethnic community that has been established by the Communist Party over the past 70 years. Such high nationalism helps maintain the stability to the regime of the Communist Party.
Korean Missionaries Hindered by their Mono-Cultural Background
Often, when people come from a mono-cultural background, they tend to have more nationalistic and ethnocentric propensities. If their culture is mono-cultural, they will have very few, if any, experiences interacting with those who are different than them. People like this have little perspective of how people different from them think or what is important to them. Because of their lack of experience interacting with outsiders, those from a mono-cultural background would not only struggle in cross-cultural interaction, but they may tend to believe that their country and their culture are superior to outsiders. Often ethnocentrism and nationalism may go hand in hand, particularly in countries like Japan, Korea, and China.
A challenge for many Korean missionaries has been their mono-cultural background and ethnocentric tendencies. Timothy Park writes, “The Korean culture is mono-cultural. Thus, Korean missionaries in fields often try to impart their culture to the churches they serve. It is important to respect the host cultures and communicate the gospel in a way natives can accept. Unfortunately, some Korean missions and missionaries work without accurate information of the fields and workable strategy.” (Steve Moon echoes some of Park’s concerns. In a survey of Korean missionaries in Turkey, Moon found that over 60% of the Korean missionaries there felt like their “ethnocentric tendencies” inhibited Korean missions work in Turkey. Elsewhere, Moon writes how the largest factors against Korean missionaries contextualizing the gospel to the local context are their “mono-cultural orientation and ethnocentrism.”
When James Wong first researched the Majority World Missions movement in 1972, he wrote about how Asian missionaries in particular may have difficulty in cross-cultural ministry. At least one Korean missionary disagreed with this perspective. Samuel Kang – a long-time Korean missionary in Thailand – wrote in 1973 how the idea that Asians cannot effectively do cross-cultural ministry was erroneous. Kang actually found that the Thai were much more receptive to Asian missionaries than they were to Western missionaries.
Application to Mainland Chinese Missionaries
Thus the question: Will Mainland Chinese missionaries have a similar experience as some Korean missionaries have had? Will they similarly struggle with ethnocentric tendencies? Certainly their mono-cultural background is a reality. Though the positive in China at present is that globalization is bringing people from all countries to cities all around China. This means that more particularly, younger Chinese are having opportunities to interact with foreigners, whether they are from North America, Africa, the Middle East, or elsewhere. This means that Chinese living in larger cities will have more opportunities to build relationships with non-Chinese. This may simply mean foreigners teaching kids and teenagers and college students English, and the Chinese feeling more comfortable being around foreigners, and having a better idea of how those foreigners think. It may be Chinese could have foreigner friends that they get to know in an even deeper way, and get an even greater understanding of their home culture. Whatever the case, these opportunities for Chinese to interact more with foreigners means that those Chinese are less likely to struggle with ethnocentric ideologies. Thus, for those Chinese who do interact with foreigners their context is no longer “mono-cultural.”
This could also be a contributing factor in better preparing Chinese missionaries to be less ethnocentric on the mission field. If Chinese Christians experience being around foreigners in China and getting to know them and learn about their culture and worldview, they will be better prepared if they go to a foreign country as a missionary. Once they begin to serve in that country, hopefully they will have more respect for the local culture and customs where they are serving than their predecessors.
Elmer gives tips on ways to deal with ethnocentrism, including building deep relationships with the local people. When this happens, stereotypes and prejudices are broken down, you can learn more about the local people, and you can have positive interaction with the locals. It provides someone to be around you to share in your experiences and it helps you understand what is important to them and how they see things.[xv] All expat workers need to engage the host culture in this way. But because of their nationalistic upbringing, this poses a particular challenge for Chinese workers.
Dr. Tabor Laughlin (pseudonym) is a recent graduate of the PhD program in Intercultural Studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He has been serving in China for ten years and is president of a small mission agency in China, overseeing workers in three cities. Laughlin blogs at ChinaSource and Desiring God, and is the author of Becoming Native to Win the Natives.
[i] Johnson, Todd M., Kenneth R. Ross, and Sandra S. K. Lee. Atlas of Global Christianity 1910-2010, p. 269. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2009.
[ii] Deng, Zhaoming. “Indigenous Chinese Pentecostal Denominations.” In Asian and
Pentecostal: The Charismatic Face of Christianity in Asia, p. 452. Oxford, UK: Regnum Books Intl; APTS Pr, 2005.
[iii] Chan, Kim-kwong. “Mission Movement of the Christian Community in Mainland China: The Back to Jerusalem Movement,” p. 106 (paper, prepared for the 2010 World Missionary Conference in Edinburgh, UK, written February 28, 2009).
[iv] Ibid.
[v] Hannaford, Ivan. Race: The History of an Idea in the West, p. 161. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1996.
[vi] Hall, Jonathan M. Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity, p. 34. Cambridge University Press, 1997.
[vii] Sumner, W.G. Folkways: A Study of the Sociological Importance of Usages, Manners, Customs, Mores and Morals, p. 13. Oxford, England: Ginn, 1907.
[viii] Dodd, Carley H. Dynamics of Intercultural Communication, 5th ed., p. 276. Boston : McGraw-Hill, 1998.
[ix] Elmer, Duane. Cross-Cultural Servanthood: Serving the World in Christlike Humility, p. 68. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Books, c2006.
[x] Ibid, p. 132.
[xi] Wagatsuma, Hiroshi, and George A. De Vos. “Cultural Identity and Minority Status in Japan.” In Ethnic Identity: Problems and Prospects for the Twenty-First Century, Fourth Edition, p.123. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 2006.
[xii] Pye, Lycian W. “After the Collapse of Communism: The Challenge of Chinese Nationalism and Pragmatism,” in Eberhard Sandschneider, ed., The Study of Modern China, p. 35. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999.
[xiii] Zhao, Suisheng. A Nation-State by Construction: Dynamics of Modern Chinese Nationalism, p.9. Stanford University Press, 2004.
[xiv] Tang, Wenfang, and Benjamin Darr. “Chinese Nationalism and Its Political and Social Origins.” Journal of Contemporary China 21, no. 77 (September 2012): 811–26. doi:10.1080/10670564.2012.684965.
[xv] Elmer, Duane. Op. cit., p. 136.
