There was no modern concept of ‘religion’ in China before the 20th century. In 1870s, the Western term ‘religion’ was translated for the first time into Chinese characters by Japanese translators who created the Japanese neologism shūkyō [宗教], with ‘the prototype of a belief-centred Protestant-style Christianity’ (Krämer 2013). This new Japanese term was then taken over into the Chinese language, where the same two characters are pronounced Zongjiao [宗教]. The Chinese character Zong [宗] was closely related to the traditional Chinese ancestral worship and feudal clan system. Jiao [教] mainly referred to teachings, instructions and education the subject of which was usually the emperor and sages. The combination of Zong [宗] and Jiao [教] first appeared in China’s Buddhist scriptures, referring to the ultimate truths realised by the Buddha and his teachings to later disciples. The process of considering ‘Zongjiao’ [宗教] as the equivalent of ‘religion’ was complicated and tortuous. In the initial stages, the intellectual elites in China at that time still understood the meaning of ‘religion’ within the context of traditional Confucianism. However, when they gradually learned the real meaning of ‘religion’ in Western culture, they realised that there was no single area in the traditional cultural map of China lasting more than 2000 years that could be called ‘religion’. Additionally, there was no lexical equivalent in the Chinese vocabulary that could accurately express the meaning of ‘religion’. With continuous discussion on the difference between Zongjiao [宗教] and ‘religion’, the translation had been questioned for a long time. Chen (2002) published an article carefully discussing how and why ‘religion’ has become a key word in modern Chinese cultural history, and he pointed out that at the first stage the Japanese translation was introduced into Chinese without the connotation of religion but within the traditional understanding of Jiao [教]. Zhang (2006) discussed the methodology of how to understand ‘religion’ and suggested that this convoluted process of translating religion as Zongjiao [宗教] has greatly shaped Chinese academia’s understanding of religion. This is not merely a simple issue of translation, but rather a cross-cultural and cross-civilisational process through which the Chinese scholars constantly adopt the indeterminate concept of religion and construct their own agenda. By reviewing this process, we can see that shaped by historical developments and cultural exchanges, the concept of religion remains dynamic and plural, and the academic field of religious studies should be more inclusive. The inadequate and inexact interpretation of the concept of religion may remind scholars of the necessity of interfaith dialogue and mutual understanding.

This article will first discuss the original meaning of the term ‘religion’ and Zongjiao [宗教] respectively. Then, it will describe how Zongjiao as a translation of ‘religion’ was imported tortuously into China from Japan. Subsequently, this article will clarify how such translation was related to the controversy that whether Confucianism should be considered a religion and how to understand the state–church relationship in China. Finally, a conclusion concerning the influence of this history will be provided.

Initially, the Japanese also adopted the literal meaning of shūkyō [宗教], ‘sectarian teachings’, to differentiate from ‘civic teaching’ (jikyō [治教]) that was dominated by politics (Krämer 2013). In their understanding, shūkyōp [宗教] is about one’s heart inside, and civic teaching is about that outside the heart. Therefore, civic teaching is the official ideology and unique, while sectarian teachings are diverse but exclusive to each other and inferior. In this way, Buddhism is a shūkyō [宗教]. By appropriating the concept of religion from the West, the connotation of such distinction changed, and in the 1860s, Japanese Buddhists considered shūkyō [宗教] as a part of kyō [教] (teachings) that left behind civic teaching, politics and secular morals (Krämer 2013).

To use shūkyō [宗教] as a translation for religion began in the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation between Japan and the North German Confederation signed in 1869 in Japanese, German and English. Article 4 of the treaty was to explicitly guarantee the right of the people from North German Confederation to freely practice their shūkyō [宗教], that is, Christianity. The word shūkyō [宗教] in Japanese corresponded to the term ‘religionsübung’ in German, as well as to ‘religion’ in English. (Chen 2002) However, shūkyō [宗教] is not entirely a faithful translation or a cultural analogy. By articulating the new concept of ‘religion’, ‘Japanese officials translated pressure from Western Christians into a concept of religion that carved out a private space for belief in Christianity’. ‘The invention of religion in Japan was a politically charged boundary-drawing exercise’ (Jason 2011).

The introduction of the term Zongjiao [宗教] into China from Japan can be traced back to approximately 1895, starting with the publication of Huang Zunxian’s [黄遵宪] Record of Japan [日本国志] (Chen 2002).² In this book, Huang frequently mentioned Zongjiao, such as ‘in my observation of the monks in Japan, those who advocate Zongjiao are particularly talented’ (Huang 1898:31).³ However, it is not necessary for him to understand the new connotation of Zongjiao from ‘religion’.

When Zongjiao first entered China from Japan, it was not initially considered as the equivalent for ‘religion’, nor did Chinese scholars establish a correspondence between Zongjiao and ‘religion’. Instead, it was understood within the context of traditional Confucian culture in China. For example, Song Shu [宋恕] (1895:75) included a dedicated section of religious category in his work Liuzi Kezhai Jintan [六字课斋津谈]. Although Song’s call for the restoration of Confucianism fell into the category of Zongjiao [宗教] (religion), he aimed to emphasise the pillar role of Confucius’ teachings in traditional Chinese culture and did not regard Confucianism as a religion.

It is not vague to see that some Chinese traditional intellectuals (especially Confucianists of Qing Dynasty) attempted to defend Confucianism and draw a clear boundary between Jiao [教] and religion. The diplomat of Qing Dynasty, Peng Guangyu [彭光誉], delivered a speech ‘Confucianism’ (Shuo Jiao [说教], lit., On the Teaching) when he attended the 1893 World’s Parliament of Religions and claimed that:

In his main theme, only Confucianism or its involvement of Li jiao [礼教] can be truly called Jiao [教] in China, which is superior to religions. ‘… According to these definitions, “religion” has its proper Chinese equivalent in the word “Wu” [巫] (Peng 1896)’.⁴ Wu [巫] means ‘witchery’ or ‘shaman’ who can communicate with gods by dancing and praying. Obviously, Peng found that divinity leads to the most essential distinction between Jiao [教] in Chinese and religion in English and he suggested to translate ‘religion’ according to its pronunciation. Similarly, the famous translator Yan Fu [严复] commented when translating Alexander Michie’s Missionaries in China:

Then, as an explicit example, in 1902, Liang Qichao [梁启超] consciously used Zongjiao as the equivalent of ‘religion’ from Western culture in his famous article against the idea to establish Confucianism as the national religion, where he regarded religion as belief-originated and exclusive faith that concerned the transcendental world. Liang contrasted it with Confucius’ teachings which, being inclusive, concerning the secular world, focused solely on state affairs, ethical principles and less contained superstition, gods and worship. Liang argued that the core tenets and orientation of Confucius were entirely different from those of Western religious leaders. In sum, Confucius is not a founder of religion and Confucianism is not a religion (Liang 1999:766). By observing the West, a lot of Japanese intellectuals consider religion as an essential foundation for modern civilisation (Hiroshi 2017). The experience of staying and studying in Japan for a long time helped Liang make this concept clear and make use of the religion-civilisation model for religious issues in China and thus used Zongjiao close to his Japanese contemporary. Liang’s serial articles on religious issues greatly popularised the concept and the standard translation of ‘religion’ as Zongjiao.

One of the core disputes about the compatibility between Zongjiao and religion is that Jiao [教] in Chinese refers to teachings and education encouraging the cultivation of morality and proper behaviour while religion is related to the worship of gods and supernatural which was partly misunderstood as mystery and superstition.

Scholars’ debate on whether Zongjiao should necessarily involve divinity seemed to be a clarification of conceptual meanings. However, what need to be emphasised is the questions that whether humans have a unified understanding of divinity and supernatural forces. Unlike his contemporary Peng and Yan’s opinions, Kang Youwei [康有为] believed that it was preposterous to exclude Confucianism from the family of religions just because of its silence on gods. Kang claimed that:

Kang believes that ‘zong [宗]’ comes from the Buddhism classic Chuan Deng Lu [传灯录] and refers to the cultivation of mind. ‘Jiao [教]’ includes all the teachings that encourage people to behave morally. Obviously, Kang emphasises the function and social effect of ‘jiao’ and strongly disagrees with the argument that only teachings concerning gods can be regarded as religions. Confucianism not only involves gods but has also been providing moral teachings to Chinese people for thousands of years (Kang 2007b:97–98). Therefore, Kang was the one who advocated that Confucianism should be reformed into a religion similar to Christianity. In order to receive more literati’s support, Kang regarded the historical changes from the Spring and Autumn Period to the Han Dynasty as the process when Confucius created Confucianism and preached to people. In this case, the birth of Confucius’ was considered as the appearance of Heidi ([黑帝] Black God) and Confucius has become the bishop (Kang 2007a:3).⁷ However, on the other end, Zhang Taiyan [章太炎] sharply criticised Kang for transforming Confucianism into a religion by imitating Christianity. Zhang Taiyan argued that the main reason why Confucius is great is that Confucius abandoned the beliefs in supernatural beings and began to think rationally.

Moreover, beyond the paradigm of academic research, the historical debate also leads us to the modern problem of how to understand the relationship between Confucianism and Chinese religions. Before the term Zongjiao entered China from Japan, whether Confucianism was a religion was not a question that troubled Chinese scholars. Smith (1964) stated that:

But nowadays, just as Ames (2018) pointed out:

On the surface, this may appear to be a conceptual game, but in fact it is a process of exploring the complexities and ambiguities involved in the term ‘religion’ and deepening the understanding of the novel notion of Zongjiao in China. The differences between Chinese religious phenomena and Christianity have facilitated the occurrence of new study methods and practices. For example, Yang proposed the structure–function approach, and stated that:

Another important issue related to how to understand ‘religion’ in China was the problem of ‘state–church relationship’. Within China’s traditional cultural framework, there was no equivalent concept of ‘religion’, nor was there a notion of state–church relationship. In the context of Confucianism, with a focus on the role of Confucianism played in the political and social order, the so-called ‘state–church relationship’ (zheng-jiao [政教]) actually referred to the relationship between politics and education (or more precisely ‘ritual and moral teaching’) or between the emperor and scholar-official (literati) group. Confucius said that:

From the teachings of Confucius which emphasised the role of education in governance, to the principles outlined in the Zhou Book of Change which advocated for moral governance, there was a seamless integration of politics and education in traditional Chinese culture (Lei 2002). The Confucian literati class did not have the tightly organised structure similar to religious groups, nor did they emphasise worship for gods or deities. Instead, they worked in conjunction with political power and conversely, political authorities protected the benefits of the literati class.⁸

In the process of accepting and constructing the concept of ‘religion’ in China, Chinese intellectuals at that time recognised the significant function of religion in political culture. During the early 20th century, with the overthrow of the feudal political system that had lasted for 2000 years and the establishment of a new political system, they began to re-examine the extent to which the state (government administrative power) should undertake the function of Jiao (moral teaching), as well as the extent to which public power should be isolated from the realm of people’s spiritual life; with the issue of Zongjiao becoming unavoidable, they also accordingly began to ponder how much room is left forreligions. While China’s traditional ritual culture (Confucianism) undoubtedly contained religious elements, prior to the introduction of the concept of ‘religion’, traditional Confucian intellectuals did not perceive themselves as a religious group.

Instead of seeking a precise definition of ‘religion’ or evaluating how well the translation was working, this article aims to highlight the pluralism contained within the artificial category ‘religion’ and the inclusiveness and openness within the academic field of religious studies through reviewing the complex process of accepting Zongjiao as the equivalent of ‘religion’ during the beginning of the 20th century in China. When Zongjiao was introduced into China via Japan, it became intertwined with issues such as the state–church relationship and the political institution construction. The term Zongjiao was first discussed by China’s intellectual elites before being disseminated to the general population and becoming a broadly accepted conception. Some Chinese literati argued that Confucianism should not be regarded as a religion because of its silence on supernatural beliefs. However, some literati emphasised the critical role that religion played in social solidarity and advocated making Confucianism a religion. The incompatibility between ‘religion’ and ‘Jiao’ urged Chinese literati to reflect on Chinese traditions. This is a process by which Chinese scholars understand the concept of religion and comparatively investigate religious culture.

Indeed, the concept of religion has undergone a profound transformation from its ancient roots to contemporary understandings. With the continuous exchanges and integration of world civilisations, we have to establish a more inclusive conceptual framework to realise the coexistence of multiple belief systems and encourage interfaith dialogue. It is understandable that, until today, Confucianism is still in a disputation whether it is a religion. The concept of religion in China today is still in the cross-cultural entanglement, not a pure exotic concept; thus, Zongjiao is not only a symbol for Western ‘religion’. Influenced by historical, cultural and social factors, the concept of religion is not static or singular but rather dynamic. From its etymological roots in ancient rituals to its modern interpretations, from its singular definition to pluralistic understanding, the notion of religion has been fluid and context-dependent. Reflecting on this history not only aims to understand the characteristics of Chinese religious culture, but also facilitate a more open and inclusive attitude towards understanding contemporary religious and cultural phenomena, thereby promoting cultural exchanges and mutual learning.