phenomenon in history’ (Lu 1989), ‘Religious phenomena are closely connected
with the cultural phenomena of mankind’ (Fang 1988), and ‘Civilisations in
the world can be divided into three levels: material productions, institutional
organizations, and ideological systems. The first interacts with religion, the
second interacts and overlaps with religion, and the third interacts with,
overlaps with, and centers on religion’ (He 2003: 241). But the idea was often
simplified to ‘religion is a culture’ or ‘a nation’s religion is an important
component of its culture’.
Although the idea is really not new and its simplified expression may have
been theoretically confusing and misleading, it played a very large role in the
political and social context of China in the late 1980s. It did so particularly
in broadening perspectives and opening up new regions for religious studies,
because it made for a break with the earlier stereotype of thinking of religion
only in terms of ideology and politics. As more and more people accepted the
idea of ‘religion as culture’, spurred on in part by Zhao Pu-chu (1907–2002),
President of the Buddhist Association of China, and other religious leaders,
the influence of the idea of ‘religion as opium’ gradually diminished.
Many famous scholars, as well as some religious leaders used the new idea
to stress the importance of religious studies in understanding any cultural
phenomenon. As a result, the position of this discipline was advanced in
academic circles and in the government. The idea also greatly widened the
horizons for study. Since it was realized that culture in the broad sense included
not only literature, art, music, philosophy, and science, but also morality,
politics, the economy, law, and other areas, not only immeasurably rich in
content, but also with innumerable strata (for example, in the case of art,
theories or ideas of art, the actions of artists, institutions for arts production,
and art works themselves), the study of religion as culture and the study of
the relationships between religion and culture became immensely richer.
From the late 1980s to the 1990s, there appeared a great flowing tide of
scholarly studies, translations, and popular books on various religions and their
relations to various forms of culture. Journals and anthologies such as Christian
Culture Review(edited by Liu Xiaofeng and He Guanghu), The Buddhist
Culture(edited by He Yun), and Religion and Culture (edited by Chen Cunfu)
appeared, and the old periodical published by IWR changed its title from
Information on World Religions (edited by Feng Jiafang) to The Religious
Cultures of the World(initially edited by Gao Shining, now by Huang Xianian).
Thus, many scholars would agree with Lu Da-ji’s observation:Looking back at the road that religious studies has travelled since 1949,
we can say that no other theory or idea restrained the thinking of scholars
of religion so severely as the idea of religion as ‘reactionary politics’
[derived from the idea of “religion as opium”], and no other theory or
idea played as great a liberating role as the idea of ‘religion as culture’.166
HE GUANGHU, CHUNG CHIN-HONG, AND LEE CHANG-YICK