A Caged Bird in a Communist Pavilion: Chao Tzu-chen and the Remolding of Yenching University’s School of Religion, 1949–1951

• Published in: Religions (Basel, Switzerland ) Switzerland ), 2024-08, Vol.15 (8), p.898
• Main Author: Law, Peter Kwok-Fai
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Archives & records; Chao Tzu-chen; Christian colleges; Christianity; church and state relations; Communism; indigenisation of Christianity; Religion; Theology
• ISSN: 2077-1444; 2077-1444
• DOI: 10.3390/rel15080898

This article examines church–state relations in the early period of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) by scrutinising the thoughts and the administration of Chao Tzu-chen—a prominent Chinese Christian leader—at Yenching University’s School of Religion and its successor organisation. This article largely relies on the archives of the Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui, delving into Chao’s psychological conflicts and the role of the Anglican churches in Chao’s plan for the separation of the School of Religion from the university. It argues that Chao Tzu-chen’s self-contradictions in his public versus private expressions after 1949 signify his disillusionment in fostering the convergence between Christianity and Communism, as demonstrated in his dilemma regarding church–state relations. Although Chao tried to adapt to the new political order by urging Chinese churches to offer practical and concrete social services, he continued his independent, critical theological reflections on the indigenisation of Christianity, as reflected in his private portrayal of the incompatibility between Christianity and Communism, and in his close connection with foreign churches in his fund-raising campaign. Moreover, apart from highlighting the importance of the Hong Kong Anglican church in financially supporting the Yenching School of Religion, this article seeks to contribute to academic research of Chinese higher education in the 1950s through examining how the Chinese Communist Party’s remolding of the School put an end to the emerging public sphere of a civil society. It reveals that this liberal Christian institute, which lost its control over curriculum design and the right to accept foreign funds, was quickly converted into a government-funded, socialist theological college in service of two masters: the Party and the Church.