WI: Europe More Successful in Spreading Christianity To Asia?

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

Post-1400 Europe has been striving to convert Asians to Christianity. However they decide to go for better tactics like not forcing conversions down people's throats or commit too many acts ignore violence that would turn Asians away from Christianity. Instead they make alliances with nations through conversion in return for benefiting the converted.

Whether it's supporting the Chinese and Japanese governments so that Christianity can spread without much interference to making alliances with nations and factions in South, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East Europe goes for policies that give Christianity a better reputation than OTL. They would also be more flexible to cultural customs and beliefs as long as they contribute or don't interfere with Christianity.

Could Europe be more successful spreading Christianity if they chose better policies that don't make Christianity look bad? How does this affect Asia?

 

[Blackfox5]

I don't remember Europe particularly using any of those tactics in Asia post-1400. Certainly the Jesuit missionaries in China and Japan in the 17th century weren't forcing conversions at un point. The Manchu and Daimyo/Shoguns would never have allowed them. They never had the force/power to do that and were completely dependent on the goodwill of the native elites. Furthermore, the 19th century colonialists didn't use much force or violence either. They may have given support and favors to native Christians, but really didn't use violence against non-Christians. Many of the missionaries in East Asia in the 19th and early 20th century were Americans who obviously did not have colonies in Asia at that time.

 

[Intransigent Southerner]

Didn't most of Christianity's successes in Asia come because it was the religion of the conquerors? Seems like conquest worked much better than "making Christianity look good" (e.g. see Philippines vs China).

 

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

I don't remember Europe particularly using any of those tactics in Asia post-1400. Certainly the Jesuit missionaries in China and Japan in the 17th century weren't forcing conversions at un point. The Manchu and Daimyo/Shoguns would never have allowed them. They never had the force/power to do that and were completely dependent on the goodwill of the native elites. Furthermore, the 19th century colonialists didn't use much force or violence either. They may have given support and favors to native Christians, but really didn't use violence against non-Christians. Many of the missionaries in East Asia in the 19th and early 20th century were Americans who obviously did not have colonies in Asia at that time.

Well Portugal was notorious for aggressive colonialism in Asia which gave Christianity a bad name. And European colonialism in general caused some people to associate Christianity with European oppression.

Didn't most of Christianity's successes in Asia come because it was the religion of the conquerors? Seems like conquest worked much better than "making Christianity look good" (e.g. see Philippines vs China).

Christianity spread because of the successes of European imperialism in places like the philippines. That's mostly how Christianity was able to get a good root.

 

[Intransigent Southerner]

Christianity spread because of the successes of European imperialism in places like the philippines. That's mostly how Christianity was able to get a good root

Exactly. "Forcing conversions down people's throats" is the better tactic for conversion in most cases. What exactly is the appeal of Christianity in Asia without European coercion? Frankly, there is no appeal compared to Islam or local religions.

 

[HippotheGiant]

Exactly. "Forcing conversions down people's throats" is the better tactic for conversion in most cases. What exactly is the appeal of Christianity in Asia without European coercion? Frankly, there is no appeal compared to Islam or local religions.

Tell that to modern China.

 

[Artaxerxes]

Christianity was fairly big in Asia from about 600-1500 particularly sub-sets of it like Nestorianism.

 

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

Exactly. "Forcing conversions down people's throats" is the better tactic for conversion in most cases. What exactly is the appeal of Christianity in Asia without European coercion? Frankly, there is no appeal compared to Islam or local religions.

Islam too involved shoving down people's throats as well you know.

 

[Cornelis]

The Catholic Church condemned during the 17th c. and the 18th c. the use of local (mainly chinese) rites, such as ancestor worship/honouring, by the missionaries, notably Jesuits. If Rome had sided with the missionaries on that issue, Catholicism could have been more tolerated by the Chinese Emperors in the 18th c., leading to more (peaceful) conversions.

 

[Remitonov]

Islam too involved shoving down people's throats as well you know.

Not in the case of Southeast Asia and East Asia. Islam spread peacefully via the trade networks across the maritime silk route, which won over plenty of merchants eager to tap into such trade networks. Ironically, the Portuguese conquest of Malacca forced the Muslims of the city to disperse across the region, speeding up Islamization in Southeast Asia.

In essence, while conversion by the sword can be effective, it only works if you have the place tied down enough. If you can't use force without a crippling backlash, then the opposite will happen in full force. In all, flushing out religions with an organized priesthood with state support will work against you. Having Christianity as that state religion should fulfill that criteria, if you can get past step one - avoiding an overthrow.

 

[Artaxerxes]

The Catholic Church condemned during the 17th c. and the 18th c. the use of local (mainly chinese) rites, such as ancestor worship/honouring, by the missionaries, notably Jesuits. If Rome had sided with the missionaries on that issue, Catholicism could have been more tolerated by the Chinese Emperors in the 18th c., leading to more (peaceful) conversions.

An interesting contrast to its first spread where coopting local rites was essential in winning converts.

 

[Gloss]

Christianity did spread to Japan, Vietnam, China and other places without conquest, it didn´t become majority but in the first 2 cases the modern "lack" of Chrisianity is because of the persecution in Japan and Communist take over in Vietnam, and emigration of many Christian Vietnamese.

The Catholic Church condemned during the 17th c. and the 18th c. the use of local (mainly chinese) rites, such as ancestor worship/honouring, by the missionaries, notably Jesuits. If Rome had sided with the missionaries on that issue, Catholicism could have been more tolerated by the Chinese Emperors in the 18th c., leading to more (peaceful) conversions.

How would a Taiping Christianity look?

 

[Tanc49]

Didn't most of Christianity's successes in Asia come because it was the religion of the conquerors? Seems like conquest worked much better than "making Christianity look good" (e.g. see Philippines vs China).

We had like 300k Japanese converts and less than two dozen Jesuits managed to convert 190k Vietnamese in 50 years after 1570 despite heavy persecution.

The Catholic Church condemned during the 17th c. and the 18th c. the use of local (mainly chinese) rites, such as ancestor worship/honouring, by the missionaries, notably Jesuits. If Rome had sided with the missionaries on that issue, Catholicism could have been more tolerated by the Chinese Emperors in the 18th c., leading to more (peaceful) conversions.

As far as I remember, it was a holty contested issue with the Church changing its mind a couple times. Regardless, the Jesuits did as they pleased most of the time!

 

[St. Just]

Didn't most of Christianity's successes in Asia come because it was the religion of the conquerors? Seems like conquest worked much better than "making Christianity look good" (e.g. see Philippines vs China).

Exactly. "Forcing conversions down people's throats" is the better tactic for conversion in most cases. What exactly is the appeal of Christianity in Asia without European coercion? Frankly, there is no appeal compared to Islam or local religions.

In India as well, mass conversion of castes and forced coercion worked much better -- and quickly became the main tactic -- vis-a-vis peaceful mission work. It's why we have Goans and then Catholics in Kerala. There was also the casado community -- the purposeful creation of families and communities with local women so as to give Portugal an anchor in the region (even though there were also private casado communities, called bandeis, in non-Portuguese ports as well).

In places where missionary work was successful, you eventually had the twin problems of dueling Catholic orders (Dominicans, Benedictines, Franciscans, Jesuits) and then the Catholic Church's disapproval of local customs. And it is telling that the most Catholic places in Asia either had casados or were directly conquered and forcibly converted by the Iberian powers. In terms of successful missionaries, both Japan and Vietnam saw missionaries become useful allies for local powers in times of political turmoil, thereby gaining concessions, building local ties, and creating a favorable environment for conversion. It is also telling that, due to the European dominance of the Catholic structure in Asia, that the faith quickly collapsed in Japan, and China, and really everywhere outside of Vietnam. The fact that the casados of Thailand and Cambodia were purged by Chinese and Malay traders with local encouragement (and not without justification, given Spain's aborted attempt at invading Cambodia) also hurt the church there.

As for Protestantism, they benefited from not proselytizing, and missions only went out once European rule was absolutely secure -- and still didn't gain many local converts.

 

[Faeelin]

Tell that to modern China.

No one ever talks about the huge resurgence in Buddhism or Confucianism. Wonder why.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Christians were very successful in Japan.

 

[mrmandias]

The Catholic Church condemned during the 17th c. and the 18th c. the use of local (mainly chinese) rites, such as ancestor worship/honouring, by the missionaries, notably Jesuits. If Rome had sided with the missionaries on that issue, Catholicism could have been more tolerated by the Chinese Emperors in the 18th c., leading to more (peaceful) conversions.

You beat me to it. If Rome had been less pigheaded in the Chinese rites controversy, that would have made a difference. It could have made a small difference only, or, with the right butterflies, a very big difference. Imagine a Chinese elite that already contains a number of Christians and where Christianity is accepted. Then you get an Emperor/ruling circle that is getting very concerned about the challenge of modernity, about European encroachments, and their own slipping grasp. It is not a foregone conclusion, but it is possible, that they would decide to go officially Catholic. It creates a new imperial ideology, creates a new institution of power and control, and gives them cover against the Europeans.

 

[mrmandias]

Another possibility is the Taiping. OTL, they were very interested in the West, in Western knowledge, and thought the West would accept them as Christians and give them aid. They were rebuffed as loony heretics.

So imagine a few changes to Taiping belief, or a few changes to what Europeans believe about Taiping belief, or just some different people on the ground making slightly different decisions. OTL, also, Taiping beliefs were in flux and could be malleable. So you could get a Christian/quasi-Christian China (or part China) with strong ties to various European Christians who over time might reinterpret their beliefs to bring them more in line with mainstream Christianity. So the idea that Hong was God's younger son would be reinterpreted as symbolic or honorific or as just an intensification of the conventional Christian belief that we are the children of God ("In a way, we are all God's younger sons and daughters.")

 

[mrmandias]

No one ever talks about the huge resurgence in Buddhism or Confucianism. Wonder why.

You are trying to change the subject. I wonder why.

 

[Escape Zeppelin]

You beat me to it. If Rome had been less pigheaded in the Chinese rites controversy, that would have made a difference. It could have made a small difference only, or, with the right butterflies, a very big difference. Imagine a Chinese elite that already contains a number of Christians and where Christianity is accepted. Then you get an Emperor/ruling circle that is getting very concerned about the challenge of modernity, about European encroachments, and their own slipping grasp. It is not a foregone conclusion, but it is possible, that they would decide to go officially Catholic. It creates a new imperial ideology, creates a new institution of power and control, and gives them cover against the Europeans.

Very much this. Insisting on strict doctrinal adherence has always been the biggest obstacle of Christian missionaries to China from the Catholics to later American evangelicals. On the other hand a looser interpretation of what's acceptable runs the risk of creating a new branch of Christianity which even to today a lot of people seem to consider worse than leaving them pagan.