Update: See also cxkd’s response to this post.
Evangelical Christianity has made considerable inroads into the Hong Kong consciousness over the last few years. It is no longer uncommon to see posters advertising prayer meetings presided over by pastors of international renown, or Genesis-themed recreational parks. Sadly, the advent of American-style megachurches, Christian television programming and religious organisations such as the Society for Truth and Light (明光社; “STL”) are bringing with them that other uniquely American phenomenon: the culture wars.
Hong Kong is, by nature, unusually fertile ground for militant Christian fundamentalism, for three main reasons.
The first of these is Hong Kong’s history and social infrastructure. Hong Kong’s population boasts a large number of immigrants, mostly fleeing the Chinese Civil War and the Communist regime in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Because of these demographics and the city’s previous status as a British Crown Colony, Hong Kong society has traditionally had little time for the niceties of liberal democracies. Instead one finds a tradition of so-called social “pragmatism” dominated by words like “profit” and “harmony”. This absence of a civic sphere is aided and abetted by a local education system widely regarded as placing minimal emphasis on critical thinking.
The second is the organisational nature of evangelical churches - made up of a large number of smaller cell groups. This structure combines, as John Robertson of HK Magazine noted, the accessibility and inclusiveness of the megachurch with the intimacy and peer pressure of small groups.
The third factor is the increasingly active role that business leaders are taking in not only professing but spreading their religious affiliations. The emphasis of evangelical Christianity on one’s personal responsibility for maintaining a relationship with the Almighty, as well as its disdain for the intervention of earthly Governments, lend themselves readily to economic liberalism and arguments against any form of State welfare (on which see also Kevin Phillips’ 2005 book American Theocracy). In light of the adulation accorded to captains of industry in Hong Kong, “marketplace ministry” becomes particularly compelling.
Even taking into account the confluence of factors favourable to the spread of evangelical Christianity in the territory, the depth of its influence is remarkable - and insidious. John Robertson’s article from May 2008 highlighted the extent to which the STL has exerted its influence over local regulatory bodies such as the Television and Entertainment Licensing Authority (TELA) and Obscene Articles Tribunal (OAT). While it should be noted that the STL is no longer part of TELA’s list of linked websites and that it is not part of TELA’s subsidy scheme to promote the Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance for 2009-2010, this has only occurred after considerable adverse attention - not only from Robertson’s exposé but also from the protests surrounding local lifestyle store GOD’s sale of T-shirts purportedly bearing characters associated with local triads, and from the controversy surrounding a sex survey conducted by the Chinese University Student Journal. In addition, the Broadcasting Authority’s condemnation of local public broadcaster RTHK’s airing of a documentary about two gay couples (a decision widely considered to be linked to the STL) was ultimately quashed by Mr Justice Hartmann (as he then was) in Cho Man Kit v Broadcasting Authority (HCAL 69/2007, 8 May 2008).
In Cho Man Kit the Broadcasting Authority found that the documentary was in breach of the prevailing code of practice for two reasons - that it failed to be impartial, and that it was unsuitable for broadcasting during “family viewing hours”. In respect of impartiality, Hartmann J expressed unease at being drawn into the merits of the Authority’s decision (a matter which was outside the scope of the judicial review proceedings in question), but delivered trenchant criticism of the Authority’s reasoning:
[The Broadcasting Authority’s] reasoning can only be understood in one way; namely, that, no matter what the true nature of the programme, RTHK should have found some way of inserting the views of somebody that same-sex marriages were not a thing to be desired. […]
[…] I am satisfied that the programme did not in any way promote homosexual marriage and that the Authority, in so far as it believed it did, was plainly wrong. RTHK did no more than faithfully record the fears, hopes, travails and aspirations of persons who happened to be gay. It did so faithfully, in an unprejudiced manner. In that sense, it is manifest, I think, that the presentation was ‘impartial’.
I am satisfied that the Authority came to its finding that the programme failed to be impartial and indeed ‘promoted’ a controversial issue for one reason and that is because the subject matter of the programme was homosexuality. Would a similar decision have been reached as to impartiality if the programme had focused on hunter-gatherers or a daughter caring for her invalid mother at home and had spoken of the aspiration of those people? The answer is plain enough. […]
[…] the Authority – unwittingly no doubt – was prepared to come to a finding based on the belief by some viewers that homosexuality itself was ‘offensive’; in short, as I have spoken of earlier […] it was prepared to justify a restriction on freedom of speech on a supposed consensus among certain people based on ‘prejudices, personal aversions and dubious rationalisations’.
Worse, the Christian Right has now moved beyond the morality wars to target the natural sciences. While the Noah’s Ark theme park in Ma Wan is the most prominent example, a much more dangerous move by the religious right has gone largely unnoticed. In June of 2009 the Education Bureau rejected the inclusion of Creationism and so-called “Intelligent Design” in biology curricula only after the Concern Group for Hong Kong Science Education made their objections known. The fact that local academics have gone public in defending Creationism should be cause for alarm at the state of education in Hong Kong. The furtive secrecy of certain academics in advancing “Intelligent Design” in secret sessions (matching the shadowy influence wielded by their counterparts in the morality wars) is clear indication of an ulterior fundamentalist agenda every bit as dangerous as Lysenkoism.
Ultimately, the increasing influence of Christian extremism has resulted in an effort to push back. The Concern Group for Hong Kong Religious Hegemony was set up by Alliber Chun as a specific response to the views propagated by the STL and its ilk (see this write-up of its inaugural 15 February 2009 protest march). Nonetheless, the prospect of fundamentalist dogma encroaching onto the public sphere, to the exclusion of rationalism and pluralism, has the potential to be many times more divisive than any previous political or social dispute and must be guarded against with considerable vigilance.
Beijing loyalist politicians in Hong Kong are fond of blaming the pan-Democrats for social discontent in this territory, but they are likely to find that the genuine threat to “social harmony” is commuting from the CEO’s office to give a sermon at the local megachurch. The Beijing loyalists’ current bedfellows might well be allies of convenience - but for how long?
