The Chinese dragon and its influence on Christianity in China - Essay Example

The Chinese dragon and its influence on Christianity in China Generally, dragons have held positive connotations in culture of the Chinese since the time of the Song dynasty, in AD 960-1279. The Chinese made prayers to the dragon for rain. In Chinese culture, the dragon has been used as a symbol of imperial power; in fact, the emperor wore a dragon robe, reigned from a dragon throne and was thought to be a dragon incarnation (Yang 28-29). After several centuries, the dragon was chosen by the then Chinese Emperor Qing, to represent the Chinese nation. The dragon is apparently, today the most favourable of zodiac animals in china; the dragons perform dances often clad in red, during the Chinese New Year (de Visser 83). This paper espouses on how the dragon has influenced Christianity in China and explores two contrasting representations of the dragon; the biblical representation of the dragon that considers the dragon as the devil-an ancient serpent meant to lead the world astray and the Chinese view of the dragon as a symbol of imperial power. Since the time that Christianity made its way into China, most Christian believers have held the view that the Biblical and the Chinese dragons are very distinct creatures and have ultimately accepted them; however, there are other shunned Chinese dragons, arguing that they are demonic, just as the biblical one. This paper shows that the dragon-Chinese dragon has become an important but yet controversial symbol in China, greatly influencing the interpretations of Christianity by Chinese people. A closer look at the dragon throughout the history of Chinese Christianity shows greater influence and a process of both enculturation and indigenization with regards to how the dragon is conceived in both traditional Chinese and Christian Chinese (Yang and An 48). The difference and or equivalence between the biblical dragon and the Chinese dragon drawn in the mid-19th century by Chinese individuals as well as by religious figure from the west that brought Christianity. The leader of the Taiping Rebellion between 1814 and 1864, Hong Xiuquan, considered himself as having being commissioned by God to slay the serpent of Revelation; the red big dragon; he also referred to the Manchu rulers as demons/serpents. This consideration of the Chinese dragon as equivalent to the biblical/Revelation’s dragon is evident in his condemnation of the popular rain dragon from the Eastern Sea, considered by the Chinese to traditionally bring rain (Michael 39).The second in command to Hong Xiuquan, Hong Ren’gan is also seen to understand the existence of the controversy concerning the dragon. He decreed that, “…all public notices and memorials had political significance and that the use of demon-like expression such as the dragon must not be used (Giddens and Giddens 78). Many scholars have argued that the negative connotations on the Chinese dragon during the reign of Hong Ren’gan were a clear indication of the influence that the advent of Christianity had on the Chinese culture. In fact, it-the dragon is not used anywhere in Liang Fa’s book, Good Words Admonish Age (Yang 101). In fact Hong argued that his attitude and vies of the dragon was largely influenced by Christianity. This condemnation however was not a universal one, but was more pragmatic and selective. Accordingly, he argued that the Taiping’s used precious dragon to adorn their utensils their imperial seal and vestments; this was apparently acceptable when compared to visions of heavenly golden dragons. In so doing, Hong certainly retained the imperial dragon that could his imperial authority; he discarded to dragon deity, which served as a source of devotion for the Chinese. The Taiping’s thus went ahead and propagated Hong’s vie of dragons being devils; this resulted in subsequent transfer of individual religious affiliations between the Taipings and Christians, which offered the opportunity of diffusion of the beliefs. It is clearly, however, that Hong’s views and teaching of the dragon being evil come largely from foreign teaching brought by the Christians from the west; it was developed by Chinese Christian actors. There is very little in literature and studies regarding the Chinese Christianity in the 20th century. In fact, it is only clear that independent movements by Protestants were the responsible of disseminating teachings on dragons, which flourished most during this period. There are also indigenous religious groups that continued to disseminate information and teachings on the dragon as in exorcism context. During the early days of peoples republic of China, Christian attitudes and consideration of the dragon became highly politicized. Between 1957 and 1958, members of a Protestant association referred to as TSPM-Three-self Patriotic Movement asserted that preachers who refused to join the dragon-a-devil movement, which encouraged the destruction of quilts, vases and teapots the bore the dragon totem (Yang and An 85). This indicated that the equation of the biblical dragon and the Chinese dragon was considered heterodox by the constituents. The equation of the biblical dragons and the Chinese dragons has in some protestant Chinese environments survived the Cultural Revolution; it also flourished among new religious movements and unregistered churches that were in the 1980s loosely related to Protestantism. According to most Protestants, the misfortunes of China are as a result of God’s anger towards the adoration of the dragon; proclaiming that Chinese nation is the descendant of the dragon is in particular, sinful. In fact, contrary to traditional Chinese beliefs and customary preferences, most young Chinese Protestants are encouraged to avoid giving birth or marrying in the year of the dragon. They are in addition encouraged to, in the event that they name contains the dragon symbol, change their names and shun the China Construction Bank issued dragon credit cards (Yang 114). Universally, however, protestant churches and organizations such as TPM –The Registered Protestant Movement, continue to condemn the apparent animosity towards the dragon. In fact theologians and pastors argue that trying to equate the biblical dragon and the biblical one is theologically erroneous. Chinese dragons have been accommodated in various works including the artwork of He Qi, a former TSPM’ professor, who claims that the endeavours to foreign conception of Chinese Christianity. His paintings have been influenced by Chines dragon mythology; in fact one of his paintings show old testament patriarchs in Chines style of high ranking officials; David a biblical king, adorns an imperial dragon gown, while Moses and Joshua wear the dragons face on their outer garments. In this case he accommodates and use traditional depiction of Chinese dragon as a representation of imperial power, as well as to signify biblical anointing of the Holy Spirit (de Visser 59). In recent days, the teachings of Eastern Lightning on the red dragon have amused and intrigued both scholars and the state. The big red dragon is in present day, more than a challenging symbol. The identification of dragons as demonic or evil since the Taiping rebels, the missionaries, popular Protestantism Hong Ren’gan m and to Eastern lightning has been woven into the tapestry of folk Protestantism; it has now become part of or a new version of the Christianity culture in China. The indigenization of the biblical dragon is considered as superstitious and heterodox by Chines political leaders, as well as some Protestants as well. The dissonance between the biblical and the Chinese dragons continues to be a challenge for Christians as well as for the greater Chinese Community Works Cited De Visser, M.W. The Dragon. in China and Japan. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Muller, 1969. Print. Giddens, Owen, and Sandra Giddens. Chinese Mythology. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group, 2005. Print. Michael. The Taiping Rebellion: History and Documents. 2nd ed. Vol. 2. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Print. Yang, C.K. Religion in Chinese Society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1967. Print. Yang, Lihui, and Deming An. Handbook of Chinese Mythology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2008. Print. Read More