Chinatown as a Hybridized Socio-Religious Space for Chinese-Christian Diaspora: An Indonesian Case

In the era of globalization, transnationalism, and migration, the face of Chinese Christianity have expanded through the life of Chinese diasporic communities. As Chineseness keeps transcending geographical boundaries, the expression of the Chinese Christian identity are constantly being negotiated in a particular socio-cultural context.

In this context, carving out a distinctive Chinese Christian theology and practice from the diaspora perspective is not an easy task. For instance, contextual theology, which generally assumes that local identity and practice can be essentialized into a cultural identity, fails to address the diasporic consciousness and lack of rootedness that are commonly found in diaspora communities. Consequently, Chinese Christian diaspora often find themselves between two polars. On one hand, some fall into resinicization, a nostalgic attempt to build an enclave and preserve the purity Chinese cultural identity (e.g. Chinese language, cultural celebration) in a new socio-cultural context. Efforts are being made in the churches to make sure that the Chinese identity can be passed on to the next generation. On the other hand, some churches choose to assimilate into the wider culture. In this case, the community chooses to let go Chineseness as their cultural marker and assumes other identity.

Where can the Chinese Christian diaspora find a theological imagination that speaks to their “in-betwixt-and-between” experience? In this paper, I propose Chinatown as a hybridized socio-religious space and symbol for the Chinese Christian diaspora theological reflection. Scholars have shown how Chinatown as a socially constructed space has direct connections with colonialism, marginalization, and exclusion. Kay J. Anderson highlights that the conception of Chinatown is a projection of a “cognitive and material reality in and for the West.” The imagination of the white European colonizers is used to classify a space for a specific race. However, despite the marginalization that Chinatown embodies, scholars have also pointed out how it has become a space for survival and meaning-making. Kartik Naram observes the double meaning of Chinatown: it is imbued with the value of racial capitalism while at the same time providing a safe haven for immigrants to survive and tap into networks of support systems. Kenneth Guest’s ethnographic studies at New York’s Chinatown suggest that the harsh reality of Chinatown does not deny the agency of the Fuzhounese immigrants to cultivate social solidarity and create new meanings, including in religious communities that help them to survive.

After exploring Chinatown as a hybridized space, I will pursue a theological construction through the case study of Glodok, one of the oldest and largest Chinatown in Indonesia located in Jakarta. Often called “The Dragon Head,” Glodok has become the space that encapsulates the Chinese-Indonesian experience. This ethnic enclave was built by the Dutch colonial government following an ethnic cleansing that targeted the Chinese-Indonesian in the eighteenth century Jakarta. Since then, Chineseness became hypervisible as it was constructed and used for the benefit of the colonizer. The Chinese were given the status as vreemde Oosterlingen (foreign oriental), superior than the inlander (native/indigenous) to maintain the colonial economy as well as becoming the political scapegoat during crisis. Glodok also experienced changes during the systemic anti-Chinese policy in the mid-late twentieth century which banned every Chinese cultural expression. Furthermore, Glodok became the “victim” of the horror of the May 1998 riot which targeted the Chinese Indonesians. Over 4.500 shops were looted and destroyed. After the incident, Glodok became an ambivalent space: some buldings were abandoned and left empty, while others tried to rebuild the economic spaces. In this sense, Glodok as a Chinatown has become a space of ambivalence and hybridity.

From this case study, I draw three theological implications from the perspective of Chinese Indonesian Christians. First, Chinatowns symbolizes the ecclesiological identity of Chinese Christian diaspora as migrants. As Peter C. Phan argues, migration is a permanent reality of the church. It follows the Trinitarian movement of Deus Migrator (God the Migrant) as the ground of Christian identity. As a people on the move, Chineseness can be seen as something fluid and dynamic, allowing the Chinese-Indonesian Christians to move from the ghetto that objectifies their identity into a space of agency to perform and negotiate powers. Second, Chinatown symbolizes remembrance, survival, and resistance. Some Chinese Indonesians have protested against the government’s plan to rebuild Glodok as an economic center that ignores the massacre that happened in that space. Similarly, as a community that holds the memory of Jesus’s suffering, the Chinese-Indonesian churches also serve as a site of remembrance, to be in solidarity with the forgotten victims of the past and resist the anamnestic culture. Lastly, Chinatown resembles a call to embrace the other. Glodok has now become a hybrid space in which the Chinese opens their space for other ethnic groups, allowing them to benefit from each other. While tensions and stereotypes still persist, this marks the community’s initiative to forgive and embrace others. If Chineseness in the past was being used as the middleperson between the colonizer and the colonized, now the Chinese community, including the church, can become a mediator to create a community of belonging that goes beyond one’s cultural marker. As proposed by Kartika Diredja, a Chinese-Indonesian theologian, the Chinese-Indonesian Christians are called to follow Jesus, the “relevant strangers” who gave life to others.