Chinese Christianity Religion in Chinese Societies

Edited by Kenneth Dean, McGill University Richard Madsen, University of California, San Diego David Palmer, University of Hong Kong

Volume 4

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.nl/rics Chinese Christianity

An Interplay between Global and Local Perspectives

By Peter Tze Ming Ng

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2012 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Chinese Christianity : an interplay between global and local perspectives / by Peter Tze Ming Ng. p. cm. — (Religion in Chinese societies ; v. 4) Includes index. ISBN 978-90-04-22574-9 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Christianity—China. 2. China—Religion. I. Wu, Ziming. II. Ng, Peter Tze Ming.

BR1285.C527 2012 275.1’082—dc23 2011049458

ISSN 1877-6264 ISBN 978 90 04 22574 9 (hardback) ISBN 978 90 04 22575 6 (e-book)

Copyright 2012 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change.

This book is printed on acid-free paper. Contents

Foreword ...... vii Daniel H. Bays Foreword ...... ix Philip Yuen Sang Leung Foreword ...... xi Philip L. Wickeri

Introduction: My Personal Journey ...... 1

1. From ‘Christianity in China’ to ‘Chinese Christianity’: Changing Paradigms and Changing Perspectives ...... 19

2. Some Scenarios of the Impact of Boxer Movement on Christian Education in China ...... 43

3. The Other Side of 1910: The Development of Chinese Indigenous Movements Before and After the Edinburgh Conference ...... 67

4. Christian Higher Education in China: A Global-local View ...... 91

5. Timothy Richard: Christian Attitude Towards Other Religions & Cultures ...... 111

6. C.Y. Cheng: The Prophet of Chinese Christianity ...... 133

7. Francis C.M. Wei: Bridging National Culture and World Values ...... 143

8. T.C. Chao: Builder of Chinese Indigenous Christian Theology ...... 167

9. David Paton: Christian Mission Encounters Communism in China ...... 179 vi contents

10. Y.T. Wu: A New Understanding of ‘Three-Self’ Development in Chinese Christianity ...... 201

11. K.H. Ting and the Three-Self Movement in China: Global Christianity and Local Contexts ...... 221

12. Conclusion ...... 243

Index of Proper Names ...... 251 Foreword

I am so glad to write this brief foreword to another book by my long- time friend Peter Tze Ming Ng of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, whose hospitality and academic discussions I have enjoyed many times in Hong Kong. Although he was not originally trained as a China specialist or as a historian, Peter’s natural curiosity and entrepreneurial spirit led him early on to the growing field of modern Chi- nese history, especially the topics of modern China’s higher education and Chinese Christianity. More than twenty years ago Peter came to know and collaborate with Professor Zhang (Kaiyuan Zhang), distinguished historian and former president of Central China Normal Uni- versity (Huazhong shifan daxue), just at the time of the efforts of Professor Zhang and others to push to gain recognition of this field of church history. Peter found a productive role in exploring and disseminating historical materials, and he has been very successful in promoting the field by organizing conferences and producing conference volumes; he has also been very active in finding resources to help young scholars from China and other places receive support for graduate and research work at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Over the years he has also developed his own scholarship in this field of Chinese Christian- ity, sharing it at various conferences and invited lectures on several continents. This volume is an attempt to permit a wide spectrum of scholars to become familiar with these previously unpublished texts, which have largely been rewritten with notes added. Peter himself has provided in the introduction a synopsis of his intellectual journey during the last two decades which is fascinating. The eleven chapters include seven essays on individuals, two of whom are foreigners (Timothy Richard and David Paton), five of whom are important Chinese scholars and churchmen (C.Y. Cheng, Francis C.M. Wei, T.C. Chao, Y.T. Wu, and K.H. Ting), and four chapters on wider topics. Three of the studies are based on the Henry Martyn Lectures at Cambridge University for 2007, and one for the Mission Legacy Project of the Overseas Ministries Study Center in New Haven, Connecticut, USA. Most of the chapters deal in some fash- ion with education, as could be expected; but more than that, Peter viii foreword also is willing in some of the chapters to tackle thorny issues such as ‘globalization’ and even ‘glocalization’. Professor Peter Ng is to be congratulated on the appearance of this volume, which will be welcomed by many in the fields of comparative history of education and modern Chinese church history.

Daniel H. Bays Professor of History & Director, Asian Studies Program Calvin College, Grand Rapids, Michigan Foreword

The history of Christianity in China is a long and complex story. From the arrival of the Nestorian missionaries in Tang China in the seventh century to the Jesuit movement in the seventeenth century and to the Protestant nation-wide expansion in the last two centuries, it has gone through many twists and turns and ups and downs. Many scholars interested in Sino-Western cultural relations and in religious history of China are fascinated by the Sino-Christian encounters in the last millennium. Peter Ng is one of them with a special interest in Prot- estantism in modern China. Being trained in religious studies and in education, Peter has practical knowledge and done extensive research in these two areas, and his passion in historical studies has grown consuming most of his intellectual energy in the last two decades. This all began with a research project on Christian higher education in China—a reconstruction of the history of Christian colleges and universities in late nineteenth- and early twentieth- century China, some twenty years ago when he was a professor in the Department of Religion (now Department of Cultural and Religious Studies) at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. From then on he has engaged himself enthusiastically in several historical projects related to the history of Christianity in China. Some of the chapters in this volume are the results of these projects: the Boxer Movement, Francis Wei and Central China (Huazhong) University, Yaozhong Wu and the ‘Three Self’ Movement, to cite just a few. Peter’s intellectual journey is well described in his own words in the first chapter. It needs no repetition here. It is suffice to say that behind his elucidation of Chinese Christianity, Peter has a unique perspective of his own. The keyword he uses to describe the development of Chinese Christianity is ‘global-local’ or ‘glocalization’. He believes Chinese Christianity has both ‘universal’ and ‘particular’ aspects, and the interplay of both local and global forces helped shape the characteristics of Chinese Christianity. This forms the main theme of his book, and it explains why some of the foreign missionaries such as Timothy Richard and David Paton are included in his discussion of Chinese Christianity. Scholars today are working to explore the x foreword dialogical interplay between the Global and Localized Christianities, Peter’s attempt to work out the ‘China case’ could have wider implications for our modern scholarship.

Philip Yuen Sang Leung Chair Professor of History & Head of Chung Chi College The Chinese University of Hong Kong Foreword

Prof. Peter Tze Ming Ng’s personal journey is also an intellectual journey with Chinese Christianity and the development of Christian studies in China over the last three decades. The volume before you is an excellent overview of Christian studies in China, but it is more than that. In a series of carefully chosen essays, Prof. Ng not only surveys Christian studies and Christian higher education in China (Chapters 1 to 4); he also analyzes the life and thought of key missionaries, theologians and Christian leaders in a series of biographical studies (Chap- ters 5 to 11). In both cases, he brings both global and local (or ‘glocal’) perspectives on his study, showing the contemporary relevance of the subject at hand. This book brings together essays based on the wide-ranging scholarship of Prof. Peter Ng in two areas—the history of Christianity and the study of Christian higher education. Prof. Ng’s career as a scholar and an educator has itself been wide-ranging, as the bibliography of his writings and the volumes he has edited show. His teaching at the Chinese University of Hong Kong and his participation in (or organization of ) a variety of international academic conferences have both supplemented and enriched his scholarly work. The present volume is not only the fruit of many years of labor, but also an excellent introduction to the study of Chinese Christianity and Christian higher education in China. In broad sweep, the first four chapters deal with various aspects of Chinese (Protestant) Christianity in global and local perspectives. Chapter One is a review of the changing paradigms and perspectives in the study of Chinese Christianity, among scholars from China and the West. Here, the author shows his superb command of the relevant resources in both Chinese and English. The bibliography of this chapter is, on its own, a useful guide to further studies. Chapter Two is a focused study of the Boxer Movement in China (1898–1901). This may be regarded as a case study of the movement’s impact on Christian education and of some of the different interpretations of the history of Christianity introduced in Chapter I. Chapter Three was written for a conference held to commemorate the centennial of the 1910 Edinburgh World Missionary Conference. Prof. Ng shows how xii foreword the conference itself (the global perspective) helps us to interpret the growth of Chinese indigenous Christian movements (the local perspectives). The final survey in Chapter Four is a study of the history of Christian higher education in China based on contemporary interpretations of globalization. The seven biographical chapters deal with important figures in the history of Chinese Christianity. He approaches each individual from a particular vantage point. His interest in Timothy Richard is the Bap- tist missionary’s open-minded views of Chinese religions and culture. He develops his understanding of C.Y. Cheng’s prophetic Christianity based upon his famous speech at the 1910 Edinburgh Conference. His short analysis of T.C. Chao explores the Chinese Anglican influence on Chao’s thought. The three studies of David Paton, Y.T. Wu and K.H. Ting deal with the relationship of Christianity to Communism, and the emergence of the Three-Self idea in contemporary Chinese Christianity. In each case, he carefully explores his subject in context with a view to illuminate the wider implications involved. All of the biographical chapters make for interesting reading, but my personal favorite is “Francis C.M. Wei: Bridging National Cul- ture and World Values.” Francis Wei (Cho-min Wei, 1888–1976) was best known for his educational leadership at Central China (Hua Chung) University in Wuhan. Prof. Ng has previously done extensive research on Wei, but in this chapter, his interest is in Wei as a bridge- builder between cultures, and his Christian dialogue between China and the West. His discussion of Wei’s conception of Christianity as a world religion shows that Wei was far ahead of his time, and Prof. Ng clearly demonstrates the contemporary significance of Wei’s thought. In a sense, Wei is Prof. Ng’s alter ego. Both are educators, and they received their doctoral degrees (more than half a century apart) from the same university. Both are Chinese Anglicans interested in the relevance of Christian theological thought for contemporary cultural and social issues. Professor Ng writes: Wei suggested that if one is taking the idea of World Christianity seriously, one should be clear that without Asia or China, Christianity could in no way be a world religion. In other words, the ‘local’ (Asia or China) should be seen as an indispensable part of the ‘global’ (World Christian- ity). For Christianity to be recognized as a world religion, it must find its full expression in all cultures. Thus, when the Chinese accepted and gave expression to their Christian faith in the Chinese culture, they were foreword xiii

at the same time bringing about the realization of Christianity as a world religion. This was by no means to reject Western Christianity; rather it would become more welcomed in China in so far as it was not considered as the absolute form of Christian representation. This paragraph could aptly describe Prof. Ng’s own contribution to the study of Chinese Christianity and Christian higher education in China. It is an honor for me to write these few words to introduce this important volume of essays by my friend Peter. This book should be widely read. One can find no better volume that surveys the recent scholarship on Christianity in China and its global significance, for education and for the church as a whole.

Philip L. Wickeri Advisor to the Archbishop on Historical and Theological Studies Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui (Anglican Church)

Introduction: My Personal Journey

People often ask: when did the Three-Self movement begin in China? The common answer often refers one to the beginning of the New China since 1949. Y.T. Wu (Yaozong Wu) is honored as the founder and the first President of the Three-Self Patriotic Movement (TSPM) which was started in the early 1950s. It was strongly supported by the new Communist Government in China. It was then declared that all churches under the TSPM would be following the Three-Self principles of ‘Self-governing’, ‘Self-supporting’ and ‘Self-propagating’, hence to be separated from any control by foreign powers or Western agencies. On the other hand, some scholars would choose to seek the original ideas of ‘Three-Self’ from missionary administrators, such as Henry Venn and Rufus Anderson, who had already enunciated such ideas a century before, around the 1860s. Of course, their missionary policies must have a great impact on the development of Christian mission in China, too. As a matter of fact, ‘Three-Self’ movements had already started in China in the 1860s, parallel with the ideas of ‘Three-Self’ expounded by Henry Venn and Rufus Anderson, and with significant success, but the process was stopped or at least slowed down in the early 20th century. I shall come back to this in the following chapters. The more important thing is: how should we scholars approach the development of such Christian indigenous movements in China? One way would be to follow the official position, in the same way as people often refer to the official statistics regarding the Christian population in China. Another approach would be to follow Chinese history as recorded by the missionaries, since most of the resources scholars had available in earlier times were those recorded by the missionaries or mission societies. It was only in the past twenty years or so that scholars have been able to find more local and historical materials from Chinese soil and, subsequently, reformulate a more comprehensive picture of the development of Chinese Christianity in the past two centuries. These scholars began to explore hidden Chinese elements, such as Chinese Christians’ experiences and their viewpoints.1 In this

1 see e.g. discussions in Daniel Bays, ed. Christianity in China: From the Eighteenth Century to the Present. (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996). 2 introduction: my personal journey volume, I shall collect some papers I have written in the past fifteen years with the aim of illustrating the development of my thoughts during this period, especially regarding the concept of ‘Chinese indigenous Christianity’ and the re-discovery of ‘local Christianities’ and ‘the Chinese side of the story’. They are, of course, reflecting only a partial picture or just a tiny portion of the overall developments in China. Yet I hope that even this tiny portion will illustrate some points of what I want to elaborate—namely a new understanding of Chinese Chris- tianity from a global-local perspective, and stimulate more follow-up investigation which will result in a more comprehensive understanding of the development of Chinese Christianity in the past two centuries. I shall first review the historical contexts in which these changes of my thought took place. I shall also describe them in a more personal way, since I have become an integral part of the whole movement.

A Personal Account

I was born in Hong Kong, close to the southern border of China, in the early 1950s. As a Chinese, I had heard much about the social and political situations in China since my childhood, though I could not visit the Mainland in my early years. I first traveled to China in 1981, adventuring with friends to Shanghai and Nanjing as a tourist. During my visit, I went into several bookstores, including the Friendship Store & Zhonghua Shudian, looking for some scholarly work on Christianity but could not find any, except a couple of books on Marxist views on religion. But now, over 30 years later, we can find more than 3000 books on Christian studies or religious studies in most of the academic bookstores in China. I started my research on Chinese Christianity in the mid-1980s and discovered that scholars in the 1980s could not approach Christianity from explicitly religious nor sociological perspectives because ‘sociology’ and ‘religion’ were still very sensitive terms, if not taboo subjects, in those days. That was the reason why scholars during that era had to start from historical studies. I myself have attained a Bachelor of Arts degree in Religious Knowledge (with a minor in Sociology), plus a Master of Divinity degree and a Diploma in Education, all at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Later, I continued my studies in England, receiving a degree of Master of Arts in Religious Education and a Doctor of Philosophy in Education, both at the University of London Institute of Education. Hence, I worked in introduction: my personal journey 3 the fields of religious studies, sociology and education. Yet, I had then to join the historians’ guild in the 1980s, when I began my research on the history of Pre-1949 Christian higher education in China. The first conference I attended in China was the one held on June 1–3, 1989, at Central China (Huazhong) Normal University, Wuhan. It was ‘The International Symposium on the History of Pre-1949 Christian Universities in China’, being the first scholarly conference on Christi- anity ever organized in the Chinese Mainland since 1949. The conference papers were compiled and published in a book entitled, Christian Universities and Chinese-Western Cultures, by Hubei Educational Publish- ing House in 1991.2 This volume was regarded as the first milestone in the development of scholarly research, not only on the history of Christian higher education, but also the history of Christian missions in China, since 1949. This historians’ research group has since been joined by educators, theologians and philosophers, and in more recent years, by scholars from the fields of cultural studies, anthropology and sociology. As the first and only Hong Kong scholar who was present at the 1989 conference, I have committed myself to proceed and promote the study of the history of Christian higher education in China ever since then. The re-opening of archives in China since the late 1980s has enabled Chinese scholars to conduct more in-depth research on the history of Christian missions in China, especially regarding the history of Christian colleges in China. With support from the United Board for Christian Higher Education in Asia and the Henry Luce Foundation, Inc., I launched an International Symposium on Historical Archives of Pre-1949 Christian Higher Education in China, which was held on December 9–11, 1993, at Chung Chi College, the Chinese University of Hong Kong.3 I invited 65 scholars from the United States, Canada, China, Taiwan and Hong Kong, including 30 scholars from Mainland China, many of them attending for the first time an academic conference outside of Mainland China. They were excited to meet so many scholars from Hong Kong and overseas who were equally interested

2 see Kaiyuan Zhang and Arthur Waldron, eds. Zhongxi Wenhua yu Jiaohui Daxue (Christian Universities and Chinese-Western Cultures), (Hebei: Hebei Educational Publishing House, 1991). 3 Proceedings of the conference entitled: Zhongguo Jiaohui Daxue Lishi Wenxian Yan- taohui Lunwenji (Essays on Historical Archives of Christian Higher Education in China), ed. Peter Tze Ming Ng. (Hong Kong: the Chinese University Press, 1995). 4 introduction: my personal journey in the field. This symposium sparked much interest among scholars and researchers both in China and overseas, as they began to see the vast possibilities of using the newly released archives to exploring not only the history of Christian colleges, but also the history of Christian missions in twentieth century China. To help the scholars acquaint themselves with these archives, I initiated another publication project in 1994, with the help of Professor Philip Yuen Sang Leung at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. As a result, a total of five volumes of China Christian Colleges Archival Catalogues Series were published in 1996–98 by the Centre for the Study of Religion and Chinese Soci- ety of Chung Chi College, the Chinese University of Hong Kong.4

In Search for New Paradigms

In order to help search for a new direction in the study of Chris- tian colleges in China, I sought research funding from the University Grants Committee in Hong Kong and inaugurated another project in 1996–98, with three other scholars as co-investigators. They were: Prof. Philip Yuen Sang Leung from the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Dr. Edward Yihua Xu from Fudan University, Shanghai and Dr. Jinghua Shi from Beijing Normal University. It was the first time for such a joint research venture in this field, with two scholars from Mainland China and two from Hong Kong. Two of them received their PhD degrees in the United States, one in the United Kingdom and one in Mainland China; plus the fact that they were from varied academic disciplines, ranging from Education, History, Religious Studies and Religious Education. The research was completed with a publication entitled: Changing Paradigms of Christian Higher Education in China, 1888–1950.5 As we were desirous of finding more new paradigms in the study of Christian colleges of China, we made efforts to

4 The five volumes are: Vol. 1—An Overall Introduction of the History and Whereabout of the Christian Colleges archives; Vol. 2—Resources at the Second Historical Archives of China; Vol. 3—Resources at Huazhong Normal University Archives; Vol. 4—Resources at West China University of Medical Sciences Archives; Vol. 5—Resources at Shanghai Municipal Archives. All published in Chinese by the Centre for the Study of Religion and Chinese Society, Chung Chi College, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, 1996–98. 5 see Peter Tze Ming Ng et al., Changing Paradigms of Christian Higher Education in China, 1888–1950 (Lewiston, New York: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2002). introduction: my personal journey 5 break through the contemporary approaches on the study of Christian missions in China. For instance, John K. Fairbank had introduced the ‘Impact—Response’ paradigm for the study of modern Chinese history, in which China was seen as the one receiving a strong impact from Western civilization, including Christianity, and the response had been rather slow.6 We revised this paradigm in the belief that cultural exchanges worked in both directions and changes should have taken place on both sides. Hence, attempts were made to see the changes in Christian colleges as the Western response to the Chinese impact. Referring to another paradigm of ‘Tradition vs. Modernity’, proposed by Joseph Levenson, we reckoned the two terms as keys to understanding modern Chinese history. Yet, rather than studying the Western impact as a possible factor for the modernization of China, attention was drawn to the Chinese impact as a possible factor for the development and modernization of Christian higher education in China. We referred also to Paul Cohen’s proposal for a more ‘China- centred Approach’ in the study of modern Chinese history.7 We followed much of what Paul Cohen had said, yet were not satisfied with his ‘China-centred Approach’ which was seen from a Western perspective, and guided by a Western agenda. Hence, we attempted to move beyond Cohen’s standpoint by focusing more on the interplay between Christian higher education and Chinese society and culture, and interpreting the changes of Christian higher education in China as Western responses to the Chinese impact. We have also attempted more in-depth cross-archival and cross-cultural studies, supplementing Western perspectives with Chinese perspectives. There was indeed an urgent need to move beyond existing paradigms or one-sided perspectives and to look for the development of newer paradigms for studies about China.8

6 see for reference, John Fairbank and Teng, China’s Response to the West: A Documen- tary Survey, 1839–1923, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1954). 7 see for reference, Paul Cohen, Discovering History in China, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1984). 8 see for reference, the discussion in Nicholas Standaret, “New Trends in the His- toriography of Christianity in China”, Catholic Historical Review, vol. 83, no. 4, 1997, 573–613; and the “Preface” in Nicholas Standaret, ed., Handbook of Christianity in China, 1, (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2000), i–ix. 6 introduction: my personal journey

The Concept of Glocalization

In December 2003, the Centre for the Study of Christianity, a newly established center within the Institute of World Religions, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing, sponsored a conference on the theme of ‘Glocalization and Christianity’ at which I presented a paper on: ‘The Glocalization of College Education and Christianity’. The concept of ‘Glocalization’ was a new one which attempted a combination of ‘Globalization’ and ‘Localization’ and suggested a broader perspective which could well be applied to the study of Christian colleges in China.9 I took the case of Huazhong Daxue (Central China University) and its president, Francis Cho Min Wei, to illustrate the emergence of an interplay between the ‘global’ and ‘local’ processes, hence the ‘glocalization’ process of the Christian colleges in China in the early 20th century. The picture was especially illuminating in the case of Francis Wei, who was serving as the president of Huazhong Daxue at the time he was invited to give lectures in the United States as the Henry Luce Visiting Professor of World Christianity in 1946. While affirming the global characteristics of World Christianity, Wei also emphasized the need to take into account regional differences in Christianity, hence paying due respect to Chinese culture. Wei’s understanding of the global nature of Christianity was well rendered by the contemporary expression ‘think globally, act locally’.10 Indeed, Wei had already developed a clear conception of ‘glocalization’ which covered not only the processes of ‘globalization’ and ‘localization’, but also gave more attention to their mutual interaction, as well as maintaining harmonious relationships between ‘the global’ and ‘the local’ dynamics. Hence, I conducted further research on Wei’s work and completed three more articles between 2007 and 2010. They were, namely: ‘Globalization as a Key to the Interplay between Christianity and Asian Cultures: The Vision of Francis Wei in Early Twentieth Century China’ in 2007;11 ‘Zhuo Min Wei (Francis Wei): Bridging

9 see the chapter “The Glocalization of College Education and Christianity” (Chi- nese) in Zhuo Xinping, ed., Jiduzhongjiao yanjiu (The Study of Christianity) vol. 7, (2004), 365–385. 10 see also discussions in Peter Tze Ming Ng, Quanqiu diyuhua shijiaoxiade Zhongguo Jidujiao Daxue (Christian Higher Education in China—As Seen from the Perspective of Glocalization), (Taiwan: Cosmic Light Publication Ltd., 2006), 235–251. 11 see Peter Tze Ming Ng, “‘Globalization’ as a Key to the Interplay between Chris- tianity and Asian Cultures: The Vision of Francis Wei in Early Twentieth Century introduction: my personal journey 7

National Culture and World Values’ in 2009;12 and ‘An Enquiry into Dr. Francis Wei’s Idea of Glocalization’ in 2010.13 Throughout the 2000s, I focused my attention on exploring this concept of ‘glocalization’ and found it most helpful for the investigation of greater depth in both the Chinese and Western resource materials and in comparing the Western and Chinese perspectives. It was indeed enlightening to see the vivid interplay between the Western and Chinese viewpoints. In 2006, besides attempting a paper on T.C. Chao in examining the combination and interaction of Western and Chinese elements in the development of his indigenous Christianity, I edited a book on Christian Higher Education in China—As Seen from the Perspective of Glocalization.14 It was indeed a worthwhile attempt, to apply the concept of glocalization to the study of Chinese Christianity and Christian higher education in China, and the result was found to be both enlightening and fascinating.15 Meanwhile, I had been collaborating with some scholars from Northeast Asia, namely China, Japan and Korea, to develop research projects on historical and comparative studies of Christian movements in these three countries. When Chung Chi College was celebrating its 55th anniversary in 2006, I organized an international conference at the Chinese University of Hong Kong to explore the application of the concept of glocalization in the examination of Christian higher education in Asia. We were excited to find that the new concept had generated much discussion among scholars and greater insights in the comparative studies of Christian higher education in the three nations

China”, International Journal of Public Theology, (Leiden: Brill Publishing Co., 2007), vol. 1, 104–115. 12 see Peter Tze Ming Ng, “Wei Zhuo Min (Francis Wei): Bridging National Cul- ture and World Values”, in Carol Lee Hamrin et al. (eds.) Salt and Light: Lives of Faith that Shaped Modern China, (Eugene, Oregon USA: Pickwick Publications, 2009), vol. 1, 133–151. 13 see Peter Tze Ming Ng, Weizhuomin boshi Quanqiu diyuhua linian kao (An Enquiry into Dr. Francis Wei’s Idea of Glocalization), in Kaiyuan Zhang and Min Ma, eds. Wei Zhuomin Jinian Wenji (Essays in Honor of Dr. Francis Wei), (Wuhan: Huazhong Normal University Press, 2010), 79–101. 14 see Peter Tze Ming Ng, Quanqiu diyuhua shijiaoxiade Zhongguo Jidujiao Daxue (Chris- tian Higher Education in China—As Seen from the Perspective of Glocalization). (Taiwan: Cosmic Light Publication Ltd., 2006). It was one of the series publication in celebration of the 200th anniversary of the arrival, hence the beginning of Robert Morrison’s missionary work in China in 1807. 15 see also Peter Tze Ming Ng, “The Necessity of the Particular in the Globaliza- tion of Christianity: the case of China” in Studies in World Christianity, (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2006), vol. 12, pt. 2, 164–182. 8 introduction: my personal journey mentioned above. We published our findings in one volume in 2007, entitled: Christian Responses to Asian Challenges: A Glocalization View on Christian Higher Education in East Asia.16 Since 2001, I have worked with Prof. Feiya Tao and other scholars in a project called ‘Christianity and Local Religions in Tai’an Region of Shandong Province’. We have attempted to apply the concept of rational choice theory to our study, and made some exciting discover- ies, including the discovery of some patterns of religious traits among Chinese Christians. It was especially true that the Chinese were very practical and had adopted practical reasoning in their choice of religion, simply asking whether it worked.17 From 2006, I cooperated with Prof. Xiangping Li and Dr. Jianbo Huang in applying the new concept of glocalization to another project, entitled: ‘Between Glo- balization and Localization: Comparative Research on Christianity in Chinese Societies’. We secured substantial funding from the University Grants Committee for our intensive field research in China, focusing on the development of urban Christianities in four distinctive cities: Shanghai, Wenzhou, Tai’an and Tianshui. Throughout our study, we developed the concept of Glocalization as a working tool for investigation, to formulate a possible theoretical framework for the study of local Christianities in China. We focused on the interplay between Christianity and local Chinese cultures, including both the processes of globalization and localization, and the resultant development of local Christianities in urban societies in China. Such evaluative study of the different forms of Christian developments in Mainland China was found valuable, not only for a comprehensive understanding of the development of local Christianities in China, but also to the study of the interactive relationship between globalization and localization in modern societies, taking Chinese Christianity as a showcase. The full report was published by the People’s Press in Shanghai in 2009.18

16 see Philip Yuen Sang Leung and Peter Tze Ming Ng, eds. Christian Response to Asian Challenges: A Glocalization View on Christian Higher Education in East Asia (Hong Kong: Centre for the Study of Religion and Chinese Society, Chung Chi College, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2007). 17 see Peter Tze Ming Ng, Feiya Tao et al. Shengshan jiaoxia de shizijia (Christianity at the Foot of Mount Tai—A Study of the Interplay Between Religion and Society). (Hong Kong: Institute of Sino-Christian Studies, 2005). 18 see Peter Tze Ming Ng, Xiangping Li et al. Bianji de Gongrong (The Study of Local Christianities in Urban Society in China—As Seen from the Perspective of Glocalization). (Shanghai: The People’s Press Ltd., 2009). introduction: my personal journey 9

I was appointed as a Visiting Fellow of Wolfson College, Cambridge University, in 2005 and the Henry Martyn Lecturer in 2007. During my stay in Cambridge, I completed a paper on ‘Christian Higher Edu- cation in China: A Glocalization View’ and shared it with the professors and scholars at Cambridge University, York St. John University, Edinburgh University, and in the French School of Groupe Sociétés, Religions, Laïcités, CNRS in Paris. Thanks are due to those scholars who provided me with constructive comments and suggestions and helped me to sharpen my thoughts on the concept of glocalization. The paper was then published by Studies in World Christianity in 2006, with a slight modification of the title as ‘The Necessity of thePar- ticular in the Globalization of Christianity: the case of China’.19 In the three papers I gave for the Henry Martyn Lectures in 2007, I focused on ‘Three Prophetic Voices—the Challenges of Christianity from Modern China’, in special memory of the 200th anniversary of the arrival of Robert Morrison in China in 1807. The three papers were: ‘Timothy Richard—Christian Attitude towards Other Religions & Cultures’, ‘David Paton—Christianity Encounters Communism’, and ‘K.H. Ting: Christianity and the Three-Self Church in China’.20 I found especially in K.H. Ting a very good case for illustrating the interplay between global Christianity and local Chinese contexts. It has been well demonstrated that global Christianity has to become localized. By saying that Global Christianity has to be localized, it is in no way to downgrade Christianity, but rather to pay due respect to its representations in all localities, and to conduct research according to both global and local considerations. The process of contextualization of Christianity in China must include the interplay between global Christianity and Chinese culture, which turns out to be ‘doing Christian theology with Chinese characteristics’. Global Christianity has been ‘contextualized’ or ‘transformed’ into Chinese Christianity, which has not only survived in a Communist state, but also worked

19 see Peter Tze Ming Ng, “The Necessity of the Particular in the Globalization of Christianity: the case of China” in Studies in World Christianity, (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2006), vol. 12, pt. 2, 164–182. 20 the three papers could be found on the Henry Martyn Centre’s webpage. Two of them were also published in journals, see, for instance, Peter Tze Ming Ng, “Timo- thy Richard: Christian Attitudes towards Other Religions and Cultures” in Studies in World Christianity, (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2008), vol. 14, pt. 1, 73–92; and “Global Christianity and Local Contexts: the Case of K.H. Ting and the Three- Self Church in China” in Exchange vol. 40, Jan. 2011, 57–70. 10 introduction: my personal journey well with the Chinese Communist government. As we can see, Chi- nese Christians can both ‘love their country and love the Church’ at the same time and can contribute towards a more harmonious society in China. Hence, we can find a more vivid picture, not only ofthe Chinese local contexts, but also of the interactive process of glocalization in the development of Chinese Christianity in modern China. Likewise, the model of glocalization helps to re-discover the changing patterns in the history of Chinese Christianity. While I was in Cambridge in 2005, I also started working on my paper for the Centenary World Missionary Conference in Edin- burgh in 2010. I came across Bishop Leslie Newbigin’s book and was attracted by its title, The Other Side of 1984: Questions for the Churches.21 It was a Christian response to George Orwell’s earlier publication entitled Nineteen Eighty Four, published in 1949, a satirical novel regarding Western civilization, especially the future of oligarchical, collectivistic society.22 However, the greatness of Bishop Newbigin was not only his concern for the Church of his time, but that he could move beyond the conditions of ‘1984’ suggested by Orwell and see things differently ‘from the other side’. So I picked up on the bishop’s idea and started working on my own paper, which I finally gave the title: ‘The Other Side of 1910: the Development of Chinese Indigenous Movements Before and After the Edinburgh Conference’.23 I attempted to move beyond the foundational understanding of the missionary conference which was based on missionary archives of the West (the Western perspective). And in this case of China, ‘the other side’ was precisely ‘the Chinese side’ of the story, for which I needed to explore in greater detail the Chinese materials and the Chinese Christians’ mind of the time (the Chinese perspective), so as to reveal the inter-connected relationships between the Western and the Chinese perspectives. The Chinese Christians under study may not be conclusively representing ‘the Chinese side’, yet they demonstrated precisely the existence of ‘the other side’ that serious scholars should not overlook. Indeed, the two perspectives were found to be complementing one another and to

21 see Leslie Newbigin, The Other Side of 1984, (Geneva: WCC Publications, 1983). 22 see George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty Four, (London: Secker and Warburg, 1949). 23 the original title was, “The Development of Indigenous Christianity in China Before and After the Edinburgh Conference of 1910”, which was presented at the Yale-Edinburgh Conference held at Edinburgh University on July 1–3, 2010. introduction: my personal journey 11 result in a richer and fuller picture of both, and hence a more illuminating study of Global Christianity. In 2010, I worked on three papers together to address the issue of the development of indigenous Christianity in China. Besides the essay for the Centenary World Missionary Conference in Edinburgh, I had written another paper for the Overseas Ministries Study Center, New Haven, on ‘C.Y. Cheng (誠靜怡)—Prophet of his times’ for their mission legacy project.24 Moreover, I had also completed my third paper on ‘Y.T. Wu (Yaozong Wu) and the Three-Self Movement in China’ which was presented at a conference in memory of Y.T. Wu, held at the Chinese University of Hong Kong in June, 2010.25 These three papers are concerned with the development of indigenous Christianity and the Three-Self movement in China. I drew upon both Chinese and Western resource materials and recorded a vivid interplay between the global and the local; the Western and the Chinese standpoints. To my considerable surprise, I discovered that it would be both necessary and proper to re-discover the Chinese side of the story. Indeed, the Chinese case regarding the development of indigenous Christianity and the Three-Self movements in the past two centuries is a fascinating one. Recent scholars have already been recovering some successful cases of the development of Three-Self movements in China, which were under the careful guidance of denominational missionaries in the middle and latter part of the nineteenth century. For instance, George Hood and David Cheung had both been demonstrating that indigenous Chinese churches had already been formed at around the same time as Henry Venn and Rufus Anderson were formulating their ‘Three-Self’ principles.26 An English Presbyterian missionary, the Rev. John Campbell Gibson, was dedicated to the cause and was so proud of his work that, in 1907, he reported at the Centenary Missionary

24 see Peter Tze Ming Ng, “Cheng Jingyi: Prophet of His Time”, in International Bulletin of Missionary Research (New Haven: Overseas Ministries Study Center, January, 2012). 25 see Peter Tze Ming Ng, Wu Yaozong yu Zhongguo Sanzi yundong (Yaozong Wu and the Three-self Movement in China), in Fuk Tsang Ying et al., eds. Abiding Faith for a Nation in Crisis: Wu Yaozong and Twentieth Century Chinese Christianity (Hong Kong: Christian Study Centre on Chinese Religion and Culture, Theology Building, Chung Chi College, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2011). 26 see e.g. George A. Hood. Mission Accomplished? The English Presbyterian Mission in Lingtung, South China. (Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Peter Lang, 1986); and David Cheung (Yi Qiang Chen, 陳貽強). Christianity in Modern China: the Making of the First Native Protestant Church. (Leiden: Brill, 2004). 12 introduction: my personal journey

Conference in Shanghai, he claimed that his English Presbyterian mission in Swatow had already reached the target and 80% of the costs of supporting Chinese clergy, preachers, and teachers were being met by the Chinese congregations.27 These were successful cases found in China in the middle and late 19th century. But, one then may ask: if the development of the indigenous Christianity was so successful in the late nineteenth century in China, why was it not so in the early twentieth century? George Hood had reported that the development of Three-Self movements in China was not as smooth as we might have thought, because the conditions in China, especially during the 1920s, were not found as favorable as they had been earlier. Likely reasons include the followings: a. Some of the early missionaries (e.g. Karl Gutzlaff) had started the Chinese Union (Fu Han Hui 福漢會) in 1844 and developed the fastest method to gain Chinese converts, that is by hiring Chinese evangelists to preach the simple gospel to their own people. However, such methods were later found to be merely romantic and wishful thinking, as the Chinese evangelists they hired were not doing the work they had been employed to perform. Their travel accounts were not as reliable as the missionaries (especially Gutzlaff) had thought. The missionaries were ‘cheated’ by their Chinese helpers; this, together with the fact of the distorted interpretation of Christi- anity by the Taiping Rebellions (1850–1864), led many missionaries to question Gutzlaff’s evangelization method and lose confidence in passing on all duties to the Chinese, even their church members.28 b. Secondly, as George Hood reported, the anti-Christian and anti- missionary movements in the 1920s had made the missionaries more cautious in keeping their properties and in the transfer of power and responsibilities to the Chinese Christians, which further delayed the process of Three-Self development.29 c. thirdly, the missionaries were more concerned with the growth in numbers of Chinese converts, since they had to report periodically

27 see Gibson, J.C. Mission Problems and Mission Method in South China. (London: Young People’s Missionary Movement, 1901); and Records of the Centenary Missionary Held at Shanghai, 1907. (Shanghai, Methodist Publishing House, 1907), 18. 28 see e.g. Jessie Lutz & R.R. Lutz, op. cit., 276. 29 see discussions by George A. Hood, op. cit. introduction: my personal journey 13

to their mission societies. The number of converts was considered significant proof of success of the missionaries in those days,so much so that the missionaries could not afford much time for the training of local pastors or church leaders, even though they wanted them to take over the administration of the Church. d. Fourthly, in order to gain more support from their mission boards, the missionaries wanted to expand their work as much as they could. They had been developing their missionary enterprises to the greatest extent, with a variety of educational and social services such as schools, clinics, hospitals, orphanages, other social and charitable services, and literature presses, etc., with the result that the mission enterprise became so big that it could in no way be self-supporting by native Christians, but rather turned into another reason to justify the presence of missionary stations and to perpetuate their dependence upon foreign support.30 This was a paradoxical situation for the missionaries not only in China, but in other countries as well.

In fact, even when John C. Gibson was giving his very encouraging report at the Missionary Conference in Shanghai in 1907, it was even then toned down by other missionaries as being too optimistic to describe the whole picture of other denominational churches in China. When it was given again at the Edinburgh conference in 1910, it was not taken seriously by the Commission, simply because ‘that was not the case in India’.31 As a result, the Edinburgh Conference emphasized issues such as ‘Ecumenical Movements and Global Evangelization’ and the ‘Co-operation and Unity of Missionary Societies’.32 Conse- quently, the missionaries in China turned their attention to work for collaboration and unity within or among their different missionary societies and church denominations, and they had no time to further develop indigenous Christianity in China. The work for native

30 see e.g. the discussions by David Cheung, op. cit., and also Jessie Lutz, “Mission- ary Attitude toward Indigenization Within an Overall Context” in Peter Chi-ping Lin (ed.) Jidujiao yu Bensehua (Christianity and Indigenization in China). (Taiwan, Cosmic Light Press, 1990), 356–381; and T.C. Chao, “Christian Faith in China’s Struggle” in Chester S. Miao (ed.) Christian Voices in China. (New York: Friendship Press, 1948), 28. 31 see e.g. the discussion in Brian Stanley, The World Missionary Conference, Edinburgh 1910. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009), 141–146. 32 see also the discussion in David M. Thompson. British Missionary Policy on the Indigenous Church: The Influence of Developments in Domestic Ecclesiology and Politics (Cam- bridge: North Atlantic Missiology Project, #38, 1997). 14 introduction: my personal journey churches was put aside, to be accomplished by the Chinese Christians. And this was precisely what happened after 1910. As demonstrated in the following chapters of this volume, the development of indigenous Christianity and the Three-Self movement was an important issue and a significant part of Chinese Christianity throughout the 20th century and even in China today. C.Y. Cheng, one of the Chinese delegates, had already spelt that out explicitly at the Edinburgh conference of 1910, where he said: “The (urgent) problem in China is the independence of the Chinese Church.”33 If we look more closely into the ‘Chinese side’ of the story, we shall discover that Chinese Christians kept voicing out the problem of Western denominationalism. C.Y. Cheng made it clear in his speech at the 1910 Edinburgh conference, asserting that “denominationalism has never interested the Chinese mind. He (the Chinese) finds no delight in it, but sometimes he suffers for it.”34 In his address at the National Council of Churches conference in Shanghai in 1922, T.C. Chao (趙紫宸), made the same point clear, saying: “The (Chinese) Church is weak because she is still foreign, both in thought and form, and is divided, by Western denominationalism.”35 Chinese Christians were indeed much concerned with the development of a united Chris- tian Church freed from Western denominationalism, which was only accomplished after 1949 when Yaozong Wu attempted a drastic and complete change by political means.36 It is indeed not easy to re-tell this Chinese side of the story as it seems contradictory to Western denominationalism, yet it is of extreme relevance to the Chinese social

33 see “Report of the Commission II” in World Missionary Conference, Edinburgh 1910, (Edinburgh: Oliphant, Anderson and Ferrier, 1910), 352. It should be noted that C.Y. Cheng was in no ways speaking against any Christians or missionaries at that time. Rather, he was pleading for the missionaries’ understanding of the urgent situations in China. Cheng was indeed trying to bridge between and accommodate both China and the West. 34 see “Report of the Commission II” in World Missionary Conference, Edinburgh 1910, (Edinburgh: Oliphant, Anderson and Ferrier, 1910), vol. VIII, 196. The phrase “Your denominationalism does not interest Chinese Christians”, was often repeated and quoted. See e.g. The Editorial of Chinese Recorder, vol. 70, no. 12, (December 1939), 689. 35 see Chao, T.C. “On the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Chinese Church”, Life Monthly, vol. 3, no. 5, 1923, 1–8. 36 see Peter Tze Ming Ng, Wu Yaozong yu Zhongguo Sanzi yundong (Yaozong Wu and the Three-self Movement in China), in Fuk Tsang Ying et al., eds. Abiding Faith for a Nation in Crisis: Wu Yaozong and Twentieth Century Chinese Christianity (Hong Kong: Christian Study Centre on Chinese Religion and Culture, Theology Building, Chung Chi College, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2011). introduction: my personal journey 15 and cultural contexts, or we would not be able to comprehend fully the development of Christian movements in China. We need, furthermore, to tell it the Chinese way, paying due respect to Chinese cultural and socio-political situations and acknowledging the Chinese agenda and the Chinese Christians’ perspectives. In January 2011, I presented a keynote speech entitled “From ‘Christianity in China’ to ‘Chinese Christianity’: Changing Paradigms and Changing Perspectives” at the conference on ‘Christianity in Contemporary China: Socio-cultural Perspectives’ held at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. It was a good opportunity for me to reconstruct the historiography of Chinese Christianity from the perspective of glocalization in the rapidly changing contexts within China. In July, I was invited to attend the 20th World History Asso- ciation Annual Conference held in Beijing, to serve as a mentor and a discussant to three papers on ‘Christian Education in China: Cultural Imperialism or Indigenous Empowerment?’. There I discovered that my concept of ‘Glocalization’ could also be understood well within the framework of the current views of World History movement. World Historians are seeking to develop a new form of ‘global history’ which could move beyond the national and local histories, as well as the idea of ‘Eurocentrism’.37 Likewise, in my conception of glocalization, we need also, on the one hand, to move beyond the normative idea of Western Christianity, and on the other hand, to safeguard the study of Chinese Christianity from being merely a national or local history. Firstly, ‘Globalization’ cannot be equated to ‘Westernization’; that was why many Chinese Christians wanted to get rid of the spirit of Western denominationalism, which was found harmful to the spread of Christianity in China. Secondly, Global Christianity cannot stand on its own without the affirmation of its representations in the various regional and local cultures. European or American Christianities are but representations of localized Christianities. Chinese Christian- ity, which is also part of Global Christianity, is just another form of localized Christianity. Thirdly, in order to go beyond ‘Sino-centrism’ or ‘Euro-centrism’, the best way to move forward is to enter into a dialogue with other localized Christianities, such as Western or Asian

37 see e.g. the keynote speech by Prof. Xincheng Liu, “Global History in China”, delivered at 20th World History Association Annual Conference held on July 8, 2011 at Capital Normal University, Beijing. 16 introduction: my personal journey

Christianities, embracing both the global and local considerations. The concept of glocalization helps to recognize both the global and local perspectives without going to either extreme, and it works well on the interactive relationships which would complement one another and enrich both perspectives. Hence, it will help historians of World Chris- tianity to better the shifting of paradigms from the study of ‘Christian- ity in China’ to ‘Chinese Christianity’ without falling into the fallacy of ‘Euro-centrism’ or ‘Sino-centrism’. To illustrate this interplay between the global and local perspectives, I have collected several papers written in the past fifteen years. In chronological order, they are: (1) Some Scenarios of the Impact of Boxer Movement on Christian Higher Education in China [ Jinan, China 2000];38 (2) Christian Higher Education in China—A Global- ization View [Cambridge, 2005];39 (3) T.C. Chao—Builder of Chi- nese Indigenous Christian Theology [Hong Kong, 2006]: (4) Timothy Richard—Christian Attitude Towards Other Religions and Cultures [Cambridge, 2007];40 (5) David Paton—Christian Mission Encounters Communism in China [Cambridge, 2007]; (6) K.H. Ting and the Three-Self Church in China: Global Christianity and Local Contexts [Cambridge, 2007];41 (7) Francis C.M. Wei: Bridging National Culture and World Values [Washington, DC 2009]; (8) Yaozong Wu—A New Understanding of ‘Three Self’ Development in Chinese Christianity [Hong Kong, China 2010];42 (9) C.Y. Cheng: Prophet of His Times

38 see Peter Tze Ming Ng, “Some Scenarios of the Impact of Boxer Movement on the Work of Christian Education in China” in Angelo S. Lazzarotto et al. The Boxer Movement and Christianity in China《義和團運動與中國基督宗教》(Taiwan: Fu Jen Catholic University Press, November 2004). 201–224. 39 see Peter Tze Ming Ng, “The Necessity of the Particular in the Globalization of Christianity: the case of China” in Studies in World Christianity, (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2006), vol. 12, pt. 2, 164–182. 40 see Peter Tze Ming Ng, “Timothy Richard: Christian Attitudes towards Other Religions and Cultures” in Studies in World Christianity, (Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univer- sity Press, 2008), vol. 14, pt. 1, 73–92. 41 see Peter Tze Ming Ng, “Global Christianity and Local Contexts: the Case of K.H. Ting and the Three-self Church in China” in Exchange vol. 40, Jan. 2011, 57–70. 42 see Peter Tze Ming Ng, Wu Yaozong yu Zhongguo Sanzi yundong (Yaozong Wu and the Three-self Movement in China), in Ying Fuk Tsang et al., eds. Abiding Faith for a Nation in Crisis: Wu Yaozong and Twentieth Century Chinese Christianity (Hong Kong: Christian Study Centre on Chinese Religion and Culture, Theology Building, Chung Chi College, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2011). introduction: my personal journey 17

[2010];43 (10) The Other Side of 1910: the Development of Chinese Indigenous Movements Before and After the Edinburgh Conference [Edinburgh, 2010]; (11) From ‘Christianity in China’ to ‘Chinese Christianity’: Changing Paradigms and Changing Perspectives [Singa- pore, 2011]. Some of them have already been published in prestigious journals in the field (see notes above). Others were originally written in Chinese but are now translated into English for our English readers. Since these papers were read in various conferences over the extent of several years, some of the information contained within might have overlapped. Nevertheless, these papers are now put together in one single volume, so that scholars can see in a more comprehensive way how the concept of glocalization has been evolved and how these thoughts have been developed in their academic, social and cultural contexts. And once again, I am reminded of Paul Cohen’s great words, ‘Discovering History in China’, as this was precisely what I have found in my own intellectual journey—‘Discovering the Chinese side of the story’, ‘Discovering the interplay between global and local perspectives in China’, and also ‘Discovering Chinese Christianity as one typical model of World Christianity’.

43 see Peter Tze Ming Ng, “Cheng Jingyi: Prophet of His Time”, in International Bulletin of Missionary Research (New Haven: Overseas Ministries Study Center, Decem- ber 2011).

chapter one

From ‘Christianity in China’ to ‘Chinese Christianity’: Changing Paradigms and Changing Perspectives

Introduction—Studies of Christianity in China since the New China Era

There has indeed been a growing interest in the study of Christianity in contemporary China, among scholars both from within and outside China in the past three decades. I first visited China in 1981 over 30 years ago, and attended the first academic conference on Christian higher education in Wuhan towards the end of the 1980s. I went into several bookstores in the early 1980s (including the Friend- ship Store & Zhonghua Shudian) and wanted to find some scholarly work on Christianity, but could not find any except a couple of books on Marxist views on religion. But now, 30 years later, we can find more than 3000 books on Christian studies or religious studies in most of the academic bookstores in China. Another thing we should take note of is that scholars in the 1980s could not approach Christianity from any explicitly religious or sociological perspectives because ‘sociology’ and ‘religion’ were still very sensitive terms, if not taboo subjects, in those days. That was why scholars had to start working from historical studies. I myself was trained in the fields of religious studies, sociology and education. But still, I had to join a group of scholars as historians in China in the 1980s and started my research on the history of Pre- 1949 Christian higher education in China. We were later joined by educators, theologians and philosophers. And it was only in the last decade or so that scholars from the fields of cultural studies, anthropology and sociology joined us. I shall give a brief report of the shifting paradigms and changing approaches in the past three decades. These will shed light on our social and cultural study of Christianity in contemporary China, too. The New Era began in China when the Communist party took over the Mainland in 1949. With the coming of the new era, Chi- nese scholars gradually adopted an exclusively Marxist view of the history and study of missionary movements in China. Christianity was 20 chapter one then labeled by Marxist-Leninists in the People’s Republic of China as superstitious, unscientific, and subjectivistic, being contradictory to the progressive, materialistic and scientific doctrines of Marxism and Communism. All endeavors of the Christian missionaries, especially the Christian colleges, were seen as means of ‘Western cultural imperialism’.1 It was during the Reform Era initiated by Xiaoping Deng’s open door policy in the beginning of the 1980s that Chinese intellectuals were released and allowed to consult different schools of thought such as Western liberalism, Neo-Marxism, Post-modernism, and Christianity among other ideas and theories. The yearning for new ideas and philosophies as a supplement to orthodox Marxism reached a high point in the mid-1980s, which was then referred to in China as ‘Culture Fever’ (wenhuare). During this period of intellectual ferment when Marxism-Leninism was rapidly losing its grip on the Chinese mind, not a few Chinese turned to Christianity for intellectual enlightenment and psychological solace. Some felt that Christianity could fill the void of a post-Marxist spiritual vacuum, while others thought Christianity was the foundation of Western culture and values including the ideas of liberty, freedom, human dignity, capitalistic spirit and democratic traditions. At any rate, there was a substantial growth of interests in Christianity, not only attracting more people to the churches but also getting more young intellectuals into the new and emergent area of Christian studies that included the history of Christian missions and Christian higher education in China. In this chapter, I shall report briefly some changing paradigms and changing perspectives involved in the development in the past thirty years in China, and I shall use illustrations from the case of Christian higher education with which I have been involved throughout these years.

From Denial to Affirmation

Scholarly research on Christian missions in China began in the late 1980s. The landmark was the First International Symposium on the History of Pre-1949 Christian Universities in China, held at Huazhong Normal University in Wuhan on June 1–3, 1989, which was the first

1 see e.g. Changsheng Gu, Chuanjiaoshi yu Jindai Zhongguo (Missionaries and the Modern China), (Shanghai: The People’s Press, 1981). from ‘christianity in china’ to ‘chinese christianity’ 21 conference of its kind in the last 60 years in the Chinese mainland and ushered into a new era for the study of the history of Christianity in China. In the past, Chinese and foreign scholars have approached the history of Christian colleges in China as part of the Western missionaries’ evangelizing activities. At the 1989 conference, Professor Zhang (Kai- yuan Zhang) put it forthrightly, saying: “. . . undeniably, churches and Christian colleges were tied, at varying degrees, with Western colonialism and the religious fanaticism of the so-called ‘Conquer China for Christ’. For this reason, many Chinese people abhorred Christian colleges . . . However, from the current vantage point, this kind of harsh criticism, though not totally groundless, was too general and somewhat biased because it did not differentiate between the educational function of the Christian colleges and their gradually diminishing religious and political functions. Nor did it separate their normal educational work from Western colonialist aggression against China.” He then added: “Formerly people used to regard Christian colleges in China simply as a tool for imperialist cultural aggression. They ignored that these Christian colleges were the products of cultural interaction between China and the West. Their development and transformation could indeed be an integral part of the history of cultural exchanges between China and the West . . . (And now) we strongly believe that the study of the history of Christian colleges will advance research on the history of cultural exchanges between China and the West in modern times.”2 Hence, Professor Zhang suggested that scholars should, from then on, study Christianity in China from the perspective of cultural exchanges between China and the West. Professor Min Ma echoed by saying: “the development of research on Christian colleges is highly significant not only in the field of historical studies, but also for cultural exchanges between China and foreign countries in the new era of reform and opening as well as for educational reforms in China.”3 Professor Zhang’s proposal was very significant because it signaled that contemporary scholars could indeed re-examine the history of Christian colleges in China from a broader and more objective perspective; they would no longer neglect or simply condemn the work of

2 Kaiyuan Zhang & Arthur Waldron, Zhongxi wenhua yu jiaohui daxue (Christian Universities and Chinese-Western Cultures), (Wuhan: Hubei Educational Publishing House, 1991), 1–4. 3 Kaiyuan Zhang & Arthur Waldron, op. cit., p. 448. 22 chapter one the missionaries in China, but would now begin to re-evaluate and re- affirm the work of the missionaries, at least amongst the Christian colleges in China. Since then, Chinese scholars began to take their own colleges as case studies in exploring the history of cultural exchanges between China and the West.

From ‘Christianity in China’ to ‘Chinese Christianity’

The study of Protestant missionary movements was largely neglected by scholars in America until the 1970s. As the historian Prof. John K. Fairbank once said, the missionaries were indeed ‘the invisible men in the American history’.4 Since the 1970s, Western scholars basically applied the ‘Impact-Response’ theory developed by Professor Fair- bank, who argued that the arrival of Western missionaries caused an impact on China and that subsequent changes in China were China’s response.5 From the 1980s on, Prof. Paul Cohen, one of Fairbank’s students, proposed a more ‘China-centered’ approach to the study of modern Chinese history. His views are found in the book Discovering History in China.6 According to his understanding, Fairbank’s ‘Impact- Response’ paradigm paralleled the ‘Tradition-Modernity’ paradigm of Joseph Levenson,7 which focused on the study of Western impact as one possible factor in the modernization of China. Yet both theses

4 See John K. Fairbank, “Assignment for the 70s” American Historical Review (Febru- ary, 1969), 877. 5 Fairbank & Teng, China’s Response to the West: A Documentary Survey, 1839–1923. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1954). In fact, this research paradigm of “Impact-Response” can be a two-way interaction, but very few scholars in the past took this approach. We can indeed regard Christian education in China as an attempt by missionaries to bring Western Christian education to China, but Christian education in China was also subjected to severe impacts from the Chinese culture and related social movements. In order to respond to these challenges, missionaries and the Chinese educators assisting them continuously made significant revisions to reform and adjust their educational objectives and the content of the curriculum. Therefore, the transformation of Christian education in China can be viewed as responses of Christian education to the impacts of Chinese society. See for instance Peter Tze Ming Ng et al., Changing Paradigms of Christian Higher Education in China (1888–1950) (Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2002). 6 see Paul Cohen, Discovering History in China: American Historical Writing on the Recent Chinese Past. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1984). 7 Joseph R. Levenson. Confucian China and Its Modern Fate (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1964). from ‘christianity in china’ to ‘chinese christianity’ 23 viewed China as being changed by and reacting to a dominant West. Cohen therefore suggested that contemporary scholars should re-discover Chinese history by making the issues within Chinese society the point of departure. Cohen’s move was significant but not far enough; his China-centred approach was still seen from a Western perspective (or covered with a Western agenda). There still needed to be some attempts to move beyond the normative nature of Western perspectives, especially in encountering Chinese culture, which was distinc- tively non-Western. Prof. Jessie Lutz has reported in her doctoral dissertation, saying that missionary educators had encountered ‘the other-ness of Chinese culture and people’ and were shocked to admit that ‘in China Western norms did not apply’.8 In the middle of the 1990s, scholars like Daniel H. Bays and Jessie G. Lutz began serious work searching for the Chinese ingredients. Bays, in his edited volume Christianity in China: From the Eighteenth Century to the Present, wrote that the ‘study of Chinese Christians’ should be a new direction for research on the history of Christianity in China. He further pointed out that this approach would be conducive to the rewriting of a history of an authentic Chinese Christian Church with significantly Chinese elements.9 He exemplified the new approach by gathering in part IV of his volume six monographs working on the rise and development of an indigenous Chinese Christian Church.10 Bays argued that the success of the Jesus family and the True Jesus Church was due not only to having Christian characteristics but also to possess- ing ‘Chinese characteristics’. For example, by integrating elements of Chinese traditional folk religion, those churches made Christian beliefs more acceptable to the Chinese. Hence, he proceeded to suggest the use of a new term, ‘Chinese Christianity’.11 Later, at the conference held by the University of San Francisco in 1999, Prof. Jessie Lutz proposed a new framework to re-allocate the history of Christianity in

8 See Jessie Lutz, China and the Christian College, 1850–1950. (Ithaca: Cornell Univer- sity Press, 1971), 4–10. Similar discussion on cultural conflicts can be found in Jacques Gernet, China and the Christian Impact: A Conflict of Cultures. Translated by Janet Lloyd. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985). 9 Daniel Bays (ed.) Christianity in China: From the Eighteenth Century to the Present (Stan- ford: Stanford University Press, 1996). 10 Ibid. Part IV ‘The Rise of an Indigenous Chinese Christianity’, 263–368. Ibid., 307–310. 11 See also Daniel Bays, “Indigenous Protestant Churches in China, 1900–1937: A Pentecostal Case Study”, in Steven Kaplan, ed., Indigenous Responses to Western Chris- tianity (New York: New York University Press, 1994), 124–143. 24 chapter one

China based on the participation of Chinese Christians.12 Lutz divided the history of Protestant Christianity in China into six periods, namely: 1. Pioneering and Preparation, 1807–1860; 2. Foundation Building and Expansion, 1860–1900; 3. Good Times: Popularity and Growth, 1900–1925; 4. Hard Times: An Era of National and Social Challenges, 1925–1949; 5. Facing political challenges (1949–1980) and 6. Revival of Chinese Christianity (1980–).13 This was merely a proposal, but it represented a new attempt by Western scholars to follow through with a paradigm shift in research, which pointed to a new avenue for studying the history of Protestant Christianity in China. Although having emphasized on being ‘China-centered’, Cohen and other scholars relied mostly on source materials from the West, and they drew out research topics from Western perspectives and hence, were unable to free themselves from a ‘Western-centered’ agenda.14 Whereas Bays, Lutz, and other Chinese scholars were attempting research using ‘Chinese source materials’; they were bringing about an authentic ‘China-centered’ approach. Only in this way could they set for themselves a ‘Chinese agenda’ and search for ‘the Chinese perspectives (including those of Chinese Christians)’.

New Materials Found

The re-opening of archives in China since the late 1980s has enabled Chinese scholars to conduct more in-depth research on the history of Christian missions in China, esp. regarding the history of Chris- tian colleges in China. An International Symposium on Histori- cal Archives of Pre-1949 Christian Higher Education in China was held on December 9–11, 1993, at Chung Chi College, the Chinese

12 Jessie Lutz, “China and Protestantism: Historical Perspectives”, in Wu Xiaoxin & Stephen Uhalley (eds.) Christianity and China: Burdened Past, Hopeful Future (New York: M.E. Sharpe, 2001). See also Peter Tze Ming Ng, “Paradigm Shift and the State of the Field in the Study of Christian Higher Education in China” in Cahiers d’Extrême- Asie 12 (2001), 127–140. 13 Lutz, op. cit., 179–193. The last two periods were later dropped in the conference proceedings. 14 For other scholars, consult Jean-Paul Wiest, Maryknoll in China: A History 1918– 1955 (New York: Orbis Books, 1988); David Mungello, ed., The Chinese Rites Contro- versy: Its History and Meaning (Sankt Augustin, Germany: Institut Monumenta Serica, 1994); and Nicolas Standaert, ed., Handbook of Christianity in China. Vol. 1 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2000). from ‘christianity in china’ to ‘chinese christianity’ 25

University of Hong Kong.15 It sparked much interest among scholars and researchers both in China and overseas. Scholars began to urge the use of the newly released archives in exploring not only the history of Christian colleges, but also the history of Christian missions in China. In order to help scholars more acquainted with these archives, a publication project was begun in 1994 under the editorship of Peter Tze Ming Ng and Philip Yuen Sang Leung at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. As a result, a series of five guidebooks on the archives of Christian colleges in the Mainland were published in 1996–98 under the auspices of the Centre for the Study of Religion and Chinese Soci- ety of Chung Chi College, the Chinese University of Hong Kong.16 A Centre for Historical Research on China Christian Colleges, under the directorship of Prof. Kaiyuan Zhang was set up at Huazhong Normal University in Wuhan in 1994. The two centers served as means to link up concerned scholars and to encourage more in-depth research on Christian colleges, with an emphasis on cultivating more extensive use of archival materials available in China. As Chinese scholars had greater access to the vast resources of archival materials in China that had not been used before, there was a great desire to study these archival materials and to re-tell the Chinese side of the story, i.e. re-telling the histories of individual Christian colleges alongside with the history of the higher institutions to which they now belong. Examples are found in seeing the history of Ginling College (Jinling Nuzi Daxue) as part of the history of Nanjing Normal University; the University of Nanking (Jinling Daxue) as part of the history of Uni- versity of Nanjing; the history of Central China University as part of the history of Huazhong Normal University; and even Fu Jen Catholic University was portrayed as an integral part of the history of Beijing

15 The symposium was organized by Chung Chi College, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, with the support from the United Board for Christian Higher Education in Asia and the Henry Luce Foundation, Inc. Proceedings of the conference entitled: Zhongguo Jiaohui Daxue Lishi Wenxian Yantaohui Lunwenji (Essays on Historical Archives of Christian Higher Education in China), edited by Peter Tze Ming Ng. (Hong Kong: the Chinese University Press, 1995). 16 The five volumes are: Vol. 1—An Overall Introduction of the History and Whereabout of the Christian Colleges archives; Vol. 2—Resources at the Second Historical Archives of China; Vol. 3—Resources at Huazhong Normal University Archives; Vol. 4—Resources at West China University of Medical Sciences Archives; Vol. 5—Resources at Shanghai Municipal Archives. (Hong Kong: the Centre for the Study of Religion and Chinese Society, Chung Chi College, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, 1996–98). 26 chapter one

Normal University.17 Besides, there were also attempts to compare the Chinese archival materials with those found in the missionary archives in the West. Philip Yuen Sang Leung, for instance, attempted cross- cultural and cross-archival research on the lives of Young J. Allen, the founder-teacher, and Chiho Yun, a student-alumnus of the Anglo- Chinese College in Shanghai.18 Another example was the joint venture of Peter Tze Ming Ng and Feiya Tao on Chinese Studies Programs of Christian Colleges in China, using both the United Board archives in the United States and the colleges archives recently released in China.19 These are some examples of multi-archival and cross-cultural research attempted by Chinese scholars since the re-opening of the Christian Colleges archives in China.

Changing Paradigms

At the Wuhan conference in 1989, Prof. Zhang had suggested a new direction for the study of Christian colleges in China. In the 1990s, Chinese scholars became increasingly interested in the nature and history of Christian colleges in China and a number of conferences were held thereafter.20 These intellectuals approached Christian education in China from a more affirmative standpoint and attempted to put

17 see e.g. Nanjing Shifan Daxue Dashiji (Nanjing Normal University Chronicle of Events, 1902–1990), (Nanjing: Nanjing Normal University Press, 1992); Nanjing Dax- ueshi (The History of Nanjing University, 1902–1992), (Nanjing: University of Nanjing Press, 1992); Huazhong Shifan Daxueshi (The History of Huazhong Normal University), (Wuchang: Huazhong Normal University Press, 1993); and Beijing Shifan Daxueshi (The History of Beijing Normal University, 1902–1982), (Beijing: Beijing Normal Univer- sity Press, 1984). 18 See Philip Yuen-sang Leung, Zhongxi shuyuan lishide zhuixun: yige kuawenhua kuadan- gan de jingyan (In Search of the Anglo-Chinese College: A Cross-cultural and Multi- archival Endeavor), in Peter Tze Ming Ng (ed.) Zhongguo Jiaohui Daxue Lishi Wenxian Yantaohui Lunwenji (Essays on Historical Archives of Christian Higher Education in China), pp. 555–570. 19 See Feiya Tao & Peter Tze Ming Ng, Jidujiao Daxue yu Guoxue Yanjiu (Chinese Studies Research and Programs in Christian Colleges in China), (Fuzhou: Fujian Edu- cational Press, 1998). 20 The Second International Symposium on the History of Pre-1949 Christian Uni- versities in China was held in June 1991 at Nanjing Normal University in Nanjing. Subsequent conferences took place in December 1993 at The Chinese University in Hong Kong and in May 1995 at Sichuan University in Chengdu. For publication of the essays, see Peter Tze Ming Ng, ed., Zhongguo jiaohui daxue lishi wenxian yantaohui lunwenji (Essays on Historical Archives of Christian Higher Education) (Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, 1995) and Xuejia Gu et al., eds., Zhongguo jiaohui daxueshi from ‘christianity in china’ to ‘chinese christianity’ 27 the history of Christian education back into the context of modern Chinese history or modern history of Chinese education. Some examples are Shiliang Gao’s A History of Church Schools in China,21 Xinxian Huang’s Christian Education and Social Changes in Chinese Society,22 and Qisheng Wang’s Traces of History Left by Chinese Students Studying Abroad, 1872–1949.23 Other scholars approached the topic from the perspective of modernization and cultural exchanges between China and the West. Such works include: The Educational Activities of Calvin Mateer and John Leighton Stuart in China by Jinghuan Shi;24 Church Schools and the Modernization of Chinese Education by Xiaoxia He and Jinghuan Shi;25 American Missionar- ies and Modernization in late Qing China by Lixin Wang;26 American Cultural Influence and Modern Chinese Education: A History of Hujiang University by Licheng Wang;27 Christian Colleges and Theological Education in China by Yihua Xu;28 and Christianity and Modern Higher Education for Women: Comparative Study of Jinling Women’s University and Huanan Women’s Uni- versity by Feng Zhu.29 Although these Chinese scholars still focused on educational activities by the missionaries, they clearly began shifting to the genuinely luncong (Essays on Christian Higher Education in China) (Chengdu: The University of Science & Technology Press, 1994). 21 shiliang Gao and al., Zhongguo jiaohui xuexiaoshi (A History of Church Schools in China), (Hunan: Hunan Educational Press, 1994). 22 Xinxian Huang, Jidujiao jiaoyu yu Zhongguo shehui bianqian (Christian Education and Social Changes in Chinese Society), (Fuzhou: Fujian Educational Press, 1996). 23 Qisheng Wang, Zhongguo liuxueshengdi lishi guiji (Traces of History Left by Chinese Students Studying Abroad, 1872–1949), (Hubei: Hubei Educational Press, 1992). 24 Jinghuan Shi, Di Kaowen yu Situ Ledeng zai Hua jiaoyu huodong (The Educational Activities of Calvin Mateer and John Leighton Stuart in China), (Taiwan: Wen Jin Publishing House, 1991). 25 Xiaoxa He & Shi Jinghuan, Jiaohui xuexiao yu Zhongguo jiaoyu jindaihua (Church Schools and the Modernization of Chinese Education), (Guangzhou: Guangdong Educational Press, 1996). 26 Lixin Wang, Meiguo chuanjiaoshi yu wanQing Zhongguo xiandaihua (American Mission- aries and Modernization in late Qing China), (Tianjin: Tianjin People’s Publishing House, 1997). 27 Licheng Wang, Meiguo wenhua shentou yu jindai Zhongguo jiaoyu: Hujiang daxuede lishi (American Cultural Influence and Modern Chinese Education: A History of Hujiang University), (Shanghai: Fudan University Press, 2001). 28 Yihua (Edward) Xu, Jiaohui daxue yu shenxue jiaoyu (Christian Colleges and Theo- logical Education) (Fuzhou: Fujian Educational Press, 1999). 29 Feng Zhu, Jidujiao yu jindai Zhongguo nuzi gaodeng jiaoyu, Jinling nu daxue yu Huanan nuda bijiao yanjiu (Christianity and Modern Higher Education for Women: Compara- tive Study of Jinling Women’s University and Huanan Women’s University), (Fuzhou: Fujian Educational Press, 2002). 28 chapter one

‘China-centered’ paradigm. They began to make extensive use of Chi- nese archival resources, and most important of all, they conducted their research from local, Chinese perspectives. For example, the Christian educational activities were investigated in the course of China’s modernization, especially to re-discover their contributions to the process of modernization in Chinese society and to discuss any cultural issues likely to be emerged in the process. However, if looking from the perspective of China-Western cultural exchanges, these scholars have not gone far enough. They were still confined by the concern with the uni-directional flow of ‘the West influencing the East’, focusing only on how the Western missionaries had influenced educational modernization in China. They had overlooked the possible Chinese impact exerted on Western Christian education during the course of cultural exchanges. In fact, missionary activities not only introduced Chris- tian culture into China but they also produced cultural exchanges in another direction—that is ‘the East influencing the West’. Professor Xianlin Li, while editing the volume The East Influencing the West, pointed out that unless cultural exchanges include both the ‘receiving’ and the ‘giving’ ends, there could be no bi-directional ‘cultural exchanges’.30 Only by studying cultural exchanges from this bi-directional perspective can one get a truly comprehensive and in-depth understanding of the results of the China-Western cultural exchanges. Since the mid-1990s, Chinese scholars began to attempt enqui- ries from this perspective. For example, Qi Han, a researcher at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, wrote in his book The Impact of Chinese Science and Technology in the West, saying: “Jesuit missionaries brought Western religion and science to China; at the same time they sent to Europe voluminous reports about China, which enabled the West to understand Chinese science and civilization.”31 This illustrated the bi-directional impact of cultural exchanges between China and the West. Indeed, many missionaries had stayed in China long enough to understand Chinese culture and society, and after coming into closer contact with the Chinese people, they changed their minds about China. Xi Lian wrote his doctoral dissertation, entitled: The Transformation

30 Xianlin Li’s preface to Dongxue Xijian (The East Influencing the West), quoted by Qi Han, in Zhongguo kexue jishu de xichuan ji qi yingxiang (The Impact of Chinese science and Technology in the West) (Hebei: People’s Publishing House, 1999), 1–3. 31 Ibid. from ‘christianity in china’ to ‘chinese christianity’ 29 of Missionaries: Liberalism of American Protestant Missions in China.32 In his thesis, he explicitly described how several missionaries’ understanding of why they came to evangelize China was gradually transformed through their close contacts with Chinese religion and culture. The missionaries wanted to change China, but it turned out to be the other way round, and eventually they were changed by China.33 If anyone uses Fairbank’s ‘Impact-Response’ research paradigm, it would be without doubt that Western Christian education had an impact on modern China, and it would be bound to elicit a response from the Chinese society and people. But this ‘Impact and Response’ perspective can also be looked at in the reverse direction. In other words, Chinese culture and social conditions could have a similar impact on Western Christian education, thereby inviting Western missionaries to respond to this Chinese impact. For example, Protestant missionaries’ establishment of colleges can be seen as an attempt at introducing Western education to China. But at the same time these missionaries were confronted by Chinese social and cultural challenges. And in responding to the Chinese impact, they had to revise constantly the educational objectives and orientations of their schools. Therefore, the evolution of Chinese Christian colleges can be seen as missionary responses of some kind to the Chinese impact.34 In 1996, Professors Peter Tze Ming Ng and Philip Yuen Sang Leung of The Chinese University of Hong Kong secured some external funding and they invited Dr. Yihua Xu of Fudan University and Dr. Jinghuan Shi of Beijing Normal University to participate in a joint project in investigating four areas in the history of Chinese Christian colleges: (1) theological education; (2) religious education; (3) Chinese studies and education; (4) patriotic education. This research did not follow exclusively the ‘China-centered’ paradigm, it was broadened by an interdisciplinary approach (by integrating concepts from the disciplines of history, religion, education and sociology). It was also a multi-archival and cross-regional study (pertaining to researches on Christian education conducted mainly in China, Europe and the

32 Xi Lian, The Conversion of the Missionaries—Liberalism in American Protestant Missions in China, 1907–1932 (Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1997). 33 Xi Lian studied changes that occurred in three missionaries: Edward H. Hume, Frank J. Rawlinson and Pearl S. Buck. 34 See for instance Peter Tze Ming Ng et al., Changing Paradigms of Christian Higher Education in China, 1888–1950. (Lewiston, New York: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2002). 30 chapter one

United States). The objective was to find a research framework for mutual impacts and responses in the field of China-Western cultural exchanges. As a result, the research verified that while using the ‘Impact- Response’ approach, researchers could adopt also the perspective of bi-directional exchanges of impact and responses and could discover new significance from social and cultural perspectives.35 Looking at the interplay between Western Christian education and the Chinese social contexts, it was obvious that missionary educators could realize that the social and cultural contexts in China were totally different from those in their home countries. Though Jacques Ger- net was talking about the missionaries in seventeenth century China, the situation remained the same in nineteenth and twentieth century China when Gernet remarked that, “in China, the place and functions of religion are different (from those in the West)”.36 For instance, Chinese people considered religion as ‘respect for ritual (li)’, which was an expression of the natural, social and political order. Religion should be inclusive and non-aggressive. But the ‘Christianity’ brought by the missionaries was “a religion that changed customs, called into question accepted ideas and, above all, threatened to undermine existing situations”.37 Hence, Western Christianity turned out to be a most exclusive religion that demanded from her followers total commitment and the abandonment of their former religious beliefs and customs as proof of their conversion. This was what the Chinese people were not ready to accept. More still, as Erik Zurcher had rightly remarked, Confucianism had long been representing the orthodoxy (‘zheng jiao’) in China. It followed that Christianity which came from the West should be regarded as a heretical religion (‘xie jiao’), hence to be rejected by Chinese intellectuals.38 It was also found that Christianity as a social institution existed only at the periphery of Chinese society, and would never be reckoned as playing any significant role in the social life of China except as part of ‘anti-government’ or ‘revolutionary’ movements. Religious education, in similar ways, could never be placed as

35 see ibid. 36 See Jacques Gernet, China and the Christian Impact: A Conflict of Cultures. Translated by Janet Lloyd. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985, p. 3. 37 see ibid., p. 1. 38 See e.g. Erik Zurcher, “Confucian and Christian Religiosity in Late Ming China”, in The Catholic Historical Review. Vol. 83, no. 4, October 1997, 614–653. Again, Zurcher was referring to the seventeenth century China but his thesis applies to the 19th and early 20th century China too. from ‘christianity in china’ to ‘chinese christianity’ 31 significantly as it was at the core of school curriculum or required subjects in mission schools. That was why missionary educators found that Chinese officials and intellectuals were definitely not in favor ofany form of religious education in schools, nor were the Chinese people interested in religious courses offered in missionary schools.39 Hence, the sociological and cultural perspectives were significant in the study of history of Christian higher education in China too.

Changing Perspectives

At the turn of the 21st century, Dana Robert from Boston University published an article “The First Globalization: The Internationalization of the Protestant Missionary Movement Between the World Wars.”40 She applied the concept of ‘globalization’ to the study of Protestant missionary movements and reckoned it as the ‘First Globalization’.41 She reminded us that early Christian missions were already vested with a universal, globalized view, which also drove Western missionaries to preach the gospel to all corners of the world. Contemporary Western scholars have therefore begun to investigate the mission history of the Christian Church from the new perspective of ‘globalization’. But their approach like that of Dana Robert is still in a one-way directional movement and somewhat ‘imperialistic’, affirming Western culture and powers as dominant factors for the globalizing movement of Christianity and overlooking the consequences of the interplay between globalization and localization. There was a conference on ‘Glocalization and Christianity’ held in Beijing in December 2003 by the Center for the Study of Christianity of the Research Institute of World Religions, the Chinese Academy of

39 See e.g. the discussion in Peter Tze Ming Ng, Changing Paradigms of Christian Higher Education in China, 1888–1950. Lewiston, New York: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2002, ch. 2. 40 Dana Robert, “The First Globalization: The Internationalization of the Protes- tant Missionary Movement Between the World Wars”, International Bulletin of Missionary Research, 26, 2 (2002), 50–67. 41 Today a growing number of Western scholars discover that the study of Chris- tianity cannot be limited to “Western Christianity and should instead be the history of the “World Christian Movement.” See Andrew F. Walls, The Cross-cultural Process in Christian History (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2002); Dale Irvin and Scott Sunquist, History of the World Christian Movement. Vol. I: Earliest Christianity to 1453 (Maryknoll, News York: Orbis Books, 2001). 32 chapter one

Social Sciences, Beijing, where this new term ‘Glocalization’ was used to generate a more creative perspective on Christian movements by exploring the interplay between globalization and localization which could be applied to the study of the history of Christian missions in China. At the conference, the present author presented a paper on ‘The Glocalization of Chinese Higher Education and Christianity’.42 He took the case of Huazhong University and Professor Francis Cho Min Wei (Zhuo Min Wei) to illustrate the emergence of an interplay between globalization and localization, hence ‘glocalization’, in the study of a Christian college of China in the early 20th century. Profes- sor Wei had been invited to give lectures in the United States in the year 1945–1946 as the first Henry Luce Visiting Professor of World Christianity. While explaining to the American audience what he thought ‘World Christianity’ was like, Wei affirmed that World Chris- tianity should uphold its universal nature in essence but should by no means destroy totally the local cultures where it was preached. In other words, Christianity should pay due respect to the local cultures including the essence of Chinese traditional culture. Wei’s understanding of World Christianity can well be rendered by the contemporary expression ‘think globally, act locally’;43 hence, it becomes a perfect case for this new perspective. What is ‘glocalization’? How does it differ from the concept of ‘globalization’? ‘Globalization’ tends to view the process from a one-way direction and may turn out to be normative or imperialistic, whereas ‘glocalization’ is a concept that emphasizes mutually interactive relations. ‘Glocalization’ covers not only ‘globalization’ but also ‘localization’, embracing both global and local considerations, and giving more attention to the inter-connectedness between the global and the local views and searching for their mutual, interactive and harmonious relationships.44 In the past, the study of Christianity in China has

42 See Peter Tze Ming Ng, Chuanqiudiyuhua yu Jiduzhongjiao (The Glocalization of College Education and Christianity) in Xinping Zhuo, ed., Jiduzhongjiao yanjui 7 (The Study of Christianity, vol. 7). (Beijing: Religious Culture Press, 2004), 365–385. 43 See also Peter Tze Ming Ng, Weizhuomin boshi Quanqiu diyuhua linian kao (An Enquiry into Dr. Francis Wei’s Idea of Glocalization), in Kaiyuan Zhang and Min Ma, eds. Wei Zhuomin Jinian Wenji (Essays in Honor of Dr. Francis Wei), (Wuhan: Huazhong Normal University Press, 2010), 79–101. 44 see Roland Robertson, Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture (London: Sage Publications, 1992); Francisco Entrena, ed., Local Reactions to Globalization Processes (New York: Nova Science Publishers Inc., 2003); and Ninan Koshy: ‘The Present Phase of Globalization’, in Quest, 2, no. 2 (11/2203), 75–84. from ‘christianity in china’ to ‘chinese christianity’ 33 greatly relied on source materials deposited by Western missionaries or mission societies in their archives. Such study would inevitably be vested with or sometimes biased by the perspectives of Western missionaries.45 In order that scholars can work on global history without being restricted by the missionary perspectives, and on the other hand safeguarding themselves from doing merely local and national histories, they need to engage themselves in a more dialectical and dialogical approach, hence the attempt of ‘glocalization’ and the interplay between ‘the global’ and ‘the local’ perspectives. The re-opening of Chinese archives and the re-discovery of Chinese source materials can help scholars to break away from the ‘Eurocentrism’ or the ‘Western- centered’ research paradigms and add to them ‘the local—i.e. the Chi- nese side of the story’. And in adopting the ‘glocalization’ paradigm, scholars can take into account both the Chinese and Western source materials and in comparing the Western and Chinese perspectives, they will be enlightened in seeing a more vivid, inter-connected relationship between the Western and Chinese perspectives. I may cite one example from my own research in recent years. I have been attempting research on the development of indigenous Christianity in China and have completed three papers in 2010. I have written a paper in the summer of 2010 for the Overseas Ministries Study Center, New Haven, USA, on ‘C.Y. Cheng—Prophet of his times’ for their mission legacy project; and in June of the same year, I presented a paper at the Chinese University of Hong Kong for a conference in memory of Yaozong Wu on ‘Y.T. Wu (Yaozong Wu) and the Three-Self Movement in China’.46 I wrote the third paper for the Yale-Edinburgh Conference held at Edinburgh University in the month of July. It was in celebration of the centenary of the World Mis- sionary Conference held in Edinburgh in 1910. My paper was entitled: “The Development of Indigenous Christianity in China before and after the Edinburgh Conference in 1910”. All these three papers have a vested concern with the development of indigenous Christianity and the Three-Self movements in China. I was trying to use both Chinese

45 See Peter Tze Ming Ng, Changing Paradigms of Christian Higher Education in China (1888–1950). Lewister: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2002. 46 See Peter Tze Ming Ng, Wu Yaozong yu Zhongguo Sanzi yundong (Yaozong Wu and the Three-Self Movement in China), in Fuk Tsang Ying et al., eds. Abiding Faith for a Nation in Crisis: Wu Yaozong and Twentieth Century Chinese Christianity (Hong Kong: Christian Study Centre on Chinese Religion and Culture, Theology Building, Chung Chi College, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2011). 34 chapter one and Western source materials and recover the Western and Chinese perspectives. More than that, I discovered that rather than imposing any Western perspectives or agendas upon China, it is not only an essential task, but also an exciting job to re-discover the Chinese side of the story. Concerning the concept of ‘Three-Self’, many scholars would like to go back to the time of Henry Venn (1796–1873), who propagated the principle of ‘Three-Self’, saying: “The native church . . . should potentially be a church of the country, a church that could become self-governing, self-supporting, and self-extending.”47 However, it was at the Missionary Conference of the Anglican Communion in London in June 1894 that there was a consensus affirming that the time was not ripe for a native episcopate. And the decision was made at the Anglican Communion by resolution 18 of the Lambeth Conference of 1897, which, while encouraging the establishment and development of native churches, stated that “the power of independent action, which is closely connected with the establishment of a native episcopate, ought not as a rule to be confided to Native Churches until they are also financially independent”.48 What is more noticeable was the shift of concern to the issue of finance, i.e. the issue of self-support rather than self-government or self-propagation. And it is interesting to know that at the World Missionary Conference of 1910 held in Edinburgh, that even though the Commission II was devoted to ‘The Church in the Mission Field’ and the issues of self-government, self- support and self-propagation were discussed, the whole matter was put into discussion within the context of different church polities. The report of the commission had moved from issues of self-support, self- government and self-propagation to issues on church polity, and the whole discussion was held back by a new issue of political independence. There was a new pattern perhaps intensified by the Faith and Order issues that sprang from the Edinburgh Conference which have been dominated by the attempt for church union and the ecumenical movement discussions.49

47 See Max Warren, To apply the Gospel: Selections from the Writings of Henry Venn. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1971), 26 & 64ff. 48 see The Six Lambeth Conferences, 1867–1920, (London 1920), 202. 49 See also the discussion in David M. Thompson. British Missionary Policy on the Indigenous Church: The Influence of Developments in Domestic Ecclesiology and Politics (Cam- bridge: North Atlantic Missiology Project, #38, 1997). from ‘christianity in china’ to ‘chinese christianity’ 35

Nevertheless, the Chinese side of the story was quite different. The development of indigenous Christianity remained a heated issue in China since the mid-19th century and throughout the 20th century. Indigenous Chinese churches had already been formed before the 1860s. According to David Cheung, by the early spring of 1856, the adult church membership at Sinkoe Chapel (The First Amoy Church) in Xiamen had reached 101, so the missionaries started in April the first election of Chinese Christians as church elders and deacons.50 George Hood also reported that the English Presbyterian Mission in Swatow had founded its self-governing presbytery in 1881 and ordained its first Chinese pastor in 1882. The church had even reached a self- supporting status in 1907.51 Their missionary leader, Rev. John Camp- bell Gibson was so proud of his mission that in 1907, while serving as the British Chair at the Centenary Missionary Conference in Shang- hai, he reported to the participants that the mission in Swatow and the Chinese congregation had already achieved the target of providing 80% of the budget. He even challenged the rest of the churches in the mission field in China to strive for the completion of self-support and self-government within the next few years.52 In my paper at the Edinburgh conference in July 2010, I gave a report of the development of indigenous movements in China especially after the Boxer incidents at the turn of the century. I quoted from Daniel Bays’ comments which reported: “the number of Protes- tant Christian church members grew rapidly, from 37,000 in 1889 to 178,000 in 1906”. Bays then remarked: “Yet, in retrospect, the most important feature of this period was the growth of the spirit of independence in Chinese Protestant churches. This had hardly begun in the nineteenth century, but it was a prominent theme after 1900.”53 I

50 See David Cheung, Christianity in Modern China: the making of the First Native Protestant Church. (Leiden: Brill, 2004). 51 see Goerge Hood. Mission Accomplished? The English Presbyterian Mission in Lingtung, South China. (Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Peter Lang, 1986). 52 See Gibson, J.C. Mission Problems and Mission Method in South China. London: 1901; and Records of the Centenary Missionary Conference Held at Shanghai, 1907. Shanghai: Meth- odist Publishing House, 1907, p. 18. Unfortunately, Gibson’s report was not supported and was toned down by the conference participants as too optimistic. When it was reported at the Edinburgh conference in 1910, it was also not taken seriously by the commission, simply because “that was not the case in India”. See the discussion in Brian Stanley, The World Missionary Conference, Edinburgh 1910. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: M.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009), 141–146. 53 See Bays, Daniel. ed. Christianity in China—The Eighteenth Century to the Present (Stan- ford: Stanford University Press, 1996), 308. 36 chapter one then gave a report on the development of indigenous Christianity in China between 1900 and the 1940s, including the rise and growth of the ‘Chinese Christian Union’ (中華基督徒會 Zhonghua jidutuhui), ‘Chi- nese Christian Independent Churches’ (both 中華耶穌教自立會 Zhon- ghua Yesujiao zilihui and 中國基督教自立會 Zhongguo Jidujiao zilihui), the ‘True Jesus Church Movement’ (真耶穌教會 Zhen Yesu jiaohui), ‘The Christian Tabernacle’ (基督徒會堂 Jidutu huitang), the ‘Jesus Family’ (耶穌家庭 Yesu jiating) and the ‘Assembly Hall’ (聚會處/聚會所 Juhui- chu or Juhuisuo) or ‘Little Flock’ (小群 Xiaoqun).54 It was with this situation in mind that C.Y. Cheng made his appeal at the Edinburgh Conference in 1910, saying: “The (urgent) problem in China is the independence of the Chinese Church.”55 Cheng continued to say: “The controlling power of the Christian Church in China has largely been in the hands of foreign missionaries and there is no doubt that it should have been so in the days gone by, but the time has come when every Chinese Christian should realize and undertake this responsibility, when they should know what it means to be a Christian and his relation to the Church.”56 Hence, he appealed for support towards the development of indigenous Churches in China, saying: “I hope with all sincerity that this Conference will recommend and take measures towards helping the Chinese Church movement.”57 Though C.Y. Cheng’s address was judged as ‘without question the best speech’ made at the Edinburgh Conference, his words and his

54 there are plenty of source materials found in China, such as at Shanghai Munic- ipal Archives and Shanghai Library. For references, see also See Peter Tze Ming Ng, Wu Yaozong yu Zhongguo Sanzi yundong (Yaozong Wu and the Three-self Movement in China), in Fuk Tsang Ying et al., eds. op. cit. 55 See “Report of the Commission II” in World Missionary Conference, Edinburgh 1910, (Edinburgh: Oliphant, Anderson and Ferrier, 1910), p. 352. 56 Ibid., 353. 57 John C. Gibson, who was an active leader in both the Shanghai (1907) and the Edinburgh (1910) conferences, had also the following remarks: “The time is well within the memory of working missionaries when we had to labour with the Home Church and persuade it to believe that there was such a thing as the Chinese Church in existence . . . It was now beyond doubt that the Chinese Church was an important adjunct to the Christian Missions in China.” He also recalled: “When the Centenary Conference of 1907 met, the minds of missionaries were fully prepared for this recognition. The organizers of the conference touched the core of the matter when in drawing up the program, they set down as the first topic: “The Chinese Church”, and appointed a representative Committee to deal with it and allotted to it the whole of the first day of the Conference work . . . It was impossible that the Chinese Church should any longer fail to be recognized as holding the foremost place among the forces which are now creating a Christian China.” See J.C. Gibson, (1912), 347–349. from ‘christianity in china’ to ‘chinese christianity’ 37 appeal were not taken with much seriousness.58 The Commission on ‘The Church in the Mission Field’ began its discussion on the Church in the mission field which was regarded as transitional and not permanent, but ended up by laying more emphasis on the questions of ‘organization, church membership, discipline, and edification, the training and employment of workers, the development of new life within the Church, in character and spiritual fruitfulness, and its deepening and strengthening by means of an adequate Christian literature in all its departments’.59 There was a consensus among the missionaries that the churches in the mission fields still needed the ‘correction, suggestion, illumination and guidance’ of the foreign missionaries. Hence, the development of indigenous Christian churches in China would still have a long, long way to go. Nonetheless, Cheng was not frustrated with the result of the Edinburgh Conference. After the Conference, he returned to China and continued to work for the development of a united Chinese Christian church as he had envisioned. He successfully founded the Chinese National Christian Council (中國基督教協會 Zhongguo Jidujiao xiehui) in 1922 and made possible the formation of the Church of Christ in China (中華基督教會 Zhonghua Jidujiao hui) in 1927.60 The Church of Christ in China soon became the largest Protestant Church in China, representing close to a quarter of China’s Protestants churches, including members from both the denominational and independent churches. Cheng had successfully worked, not only for the promotion of co-operation and unity among denominational churches which was assigned by the Edinburgh Conference’s Continuation Committee, but also for the realization of his own vision regarding the accomplishment of the ‘Three-Self’ principle and the indigenous Christian churches in China. Hence, in my paper, I attempted to re-tell the ‘Chinese side’ of the story. Of course, this was not the end of it. The indigenous movement in China was not as successful. In his address at the National Council of Churches conference in Shanghai in 1922, T.C. Chao (趙紫宸), a famous Chinese theologian said: “The (Chinese) Church is weak

58 see e.g. Missionary Herald (Boston), (1910), 354; and Brian Stanley, The World Missionary Conference, Edinburgh 1910. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans Pub- lishing Co., 2009), 108. 59 See “Report of the Commission II” in World Missionary Conference, Edinburgh 1910, (Edinburgh: Oliphant, Anderson and Ferrier, 1910), 3. 60 See e.g. C.Y. Cheng, “The Development of an Indigenous Church in China”, International Review of Missions, 12, (London: Edinburgh House, 1923), 368–388. 38 chapter one because she is still foreign, both in thought and form, and is divided, by Western denominationalism.”61 He mentioned two significant factors hindering the development of an indigenous Christian movement in China. Firstly, Christianity was still seen as a ‘foreign’ religion. It still turned out to be ‘Western Christianity’, or merely ‘Christianity in China’, and definitely not ‘Chinese Christianity’. For Chinese Chris- tians, to be ‘Three-Self’ and ‘truly Chinese’ were more important than ‘ecumenism’. The second factor is ‘Western denominationalism’. Again, for Chinese Christians, how could Chinese churches be truly united if they were split by the spirit of Western denominationalism? Another Chinese theologian and educator, Francis C.M. Wei, the first Henry W. Luce Visiting Professor of World Christianity, 62 who, in the opening lecture at Union Theological Seminary in New York in 1945, echoed the same in saying that ‘Western Christianity’ was only one form of expression of World Christianity and its non-global aspect was ‘the spirit of denominationalism’. Indeed, both theologians were just repeating what C.Y. Cheng had asserted at the Edinburgh Con- ference, confirming that “denominationalism has never interested the Chinese mind. He (the Chinese) finds no delight in it, but sometimes he suffers for it”.63 Cheng told the missionaries that Chinese Chris- tians were more concerned with the development of a united Chris- tian Church freed from Western denominationalism, and they hoped to put aside the Western spirit of denominationalism. Unfortunately, this was not heard by the participants at the Edinburgh Conference in 1910. The development of indigenous Chinese Christianity could not be accomplished until after 1949 when Yaozong Wu attempted a drastic and complete change by political means.64 It was indeed with

61 See Chao, T.C. “On the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Chinese Church” (Chinese), Life Monthly, vol. 3, no. 5, 1923, 1–8. 62 see Francis C.M. Wei, The Spirit of Chinese Culture, (New York: Scribner Press, 1947). 63 See “Report of the Commission II” in World Missionary Conference, Edinburgh 1910, Edinburgh: Oliphant, Anderson and Ferrier, 1910, vol. VIII, p. 196. The phrase “Your denominationalism does not interest Chinese Christians”, was often repeated and quoted. See e.g. The Editorial of Chinese Recorder, vol. 70, no. 12, (December 1939), 689. 64 See Peter Tze Ming Ng, Wu Yaozong yu Zhongguo Sanzi yundong (Yaozong Wu and the Three-self Movement in China), in Fuk Tsang Ying et al., eds. Abiding Faith for a Nation in Crisis: Wu Yaozong and Twentieth Century Chinese Christianity (Hong Kong: Christian Study Centre on Chinese Religion and Culture, Theology Building, Chung Chi College, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2011). from ‘christianity in china’ to ‘chinese christianity’ 39 much sadness, yet great courage, that David Paton could respond to the situations in China in the early 1950s, claiming that ‘the end of the missionary era was the judgment and the will of God’.65 Scholars today are working hard to break through the Western Christianity-centred paradigm, and in order to become truly the study of ‘World Christian- ity’, we still need to re-discover the non-Western side of Christianity, which is, in this context, Chinese Christianity; and further to realize the interplay between the ‘global’ (global Christian movements) and the ‘local’ (Chinese culture and society) factors. And it is by embracing both the Western and Chinese perspectives that genuine World Christianity could be found. In the annual conference of the American Academy of Religion held in Washington, DC in 2006, there was a special theme on ‘World Christianity in Local Contexts’. In one presentation there, I suggested that the term ‘local contexts’ should be reckoned as a qualifier of global Christianity.66 ‘World Christianity’ is precisely ‘Christianity embracing the whole world’. Whether it is ‘Chinese Christianity’, ‘Asian Chris- tianity’, ‘American Christianity’, ‘European Christianity’ or ‘Western Christianity’, they are but simply ‘Localized Christianities’ or partial representations of ‘World Christianity’. And, besides working on the Chinese side of the story, we may attempt, also, comparative studies, in order to have a better and fuller picture of ‘World Christian- ity’. In the past decade, scholars from Northeast Asia, namely China, Japan and Korea, have been working to develop research projects on historical and comparative studies of Christianities in the three countries. For this, I shall simply report three other books which came out as a result of our collaborative studies. The first work came in 2007, entitled: Christian Response to Asian Challenges: A Glocalization View on Christian Higher Education in East Asia.67 When Chung Chi College

65 See Paton, David. Christian Mission and the Judgement of God. (Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1953) & Second Edition in 1996. As a matter of fact, most of the churches in the other mission fields in Asia and Africa turned to become “independent churches” when their countries became independent in the latter part of the 20th century and hence developed their indigenous Christianities. 66 See “The Necessity of the Particular in the Globalization of Christianity: the case of Christian Higher Education in China”, paper presented at the American Academy of Religion Annual Conference 2006, Washington, DC on November 18–21, 2006. 67 See, Philip Yuen Sang Leung & Peter Tze Ming Ng (eds.) Christian Response to Asian Challenges: A Glocalization View on Christian Higher Education in East Asia (Hong Kong: Centre for the Study of Religion and Chinese Society, Chung Chi College, the Chi- nese University of Hong Kong, 2007). 40 chapter one was celebrating its 55th anniversary in 2006, she ventured to organize an international conference on Christian higher education in Asia. At that conference, we deliberately invited scholars from China, Japan and Korea and suggested they attempt research papers on comparative studies of Christian higher education in the three countries, from a ‘glocalization’ perspective, i.e. to focus on the interplay between ‘globalization’ and ‘localization’ in the three countries. It was enlightening to see that though the issues of imperialism, nationalism, secularization, and modernization were similarly found in the three countries, yet the development of Christian higher education were very different due to their different social, cultural and political contexts. And it was fascinating to find that Christian presence in different countries could be analyzed not only from intra-national, but also from international perspectives. Hence, historical and comparative studies were found very enriching and new perspectives would be emerged in comparative studies. The second volume was a result of a conference of the North East Asia Council of Studies in History of Christianity (NEACSHC) held in Korea in 2007. As the chairman of this North East Asia Council of Studies in History of Christianity in 2007–2009, the present author ventured to publish the conference proceedings in Europe, through Peter Lang GmbH in Germany. The book was entitled Christian Mis- sion and Education in Modern China, Japan, and Korea: Historical Studies.68 It was extremely encouraging to see this volume sold out within one year of its publication and we have now completed the third volume entitled Christian Movements in North-East Asia: Historical and Comparative Studies, which came out in January 2011.69 It was also interesting to note that there were various models found in various responses in different countries. Hence, new perspectives are evolving as we are attempting research not only on the interplay between the global and the local within a country, but also on comparative studies of Christian movements in different countries.

68 See Jan A.B. Jongeneel, Peter Tze Ming Ng et al. (eds.) Christian Mission and Education in Modern China, Japan, and Korea: Historical Studies. (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang GmbH, 2009). 69 See Jan A.B. Jongeneel, Peter Tze Ming Ng et al. (eds.) Christian Movements in North-East Asia: Historical and Comparative Studies. (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang GmbH, 2011). from ‘christianity in china’ to ‘chinese christianity’ 41

Concluding Remarks

A scholar in Japan, Prof. Mark Mullins, once wrote a book entitled: Christianity Made in Japan.70 The name sounds somewhat strange. Yet, the author had given us a perfect example of how World Christianity could become localized in Japan, as it had become localized ‘Western Christianity’ in Europe and in America. Now as we are turning to ‘Christianity in contemporary China’, what we should be looking for is not ‘what Western missionaries have done in China’, nor is it simply taking ‘Christianity in China as an unfinished Western project’, it is rather the ‘Christianity Made in China’, and indeed, it would turn out to be a new kind of Christianity found in China with Chinese Chris- tians as the proper subject of our study. We would probably be astonished to find that this ‘Christianity Made in China’, or typically, the ‘China Model’ will turn out to be a new kind of Christianity, which is yet another local representation of ‘World Christianity’. There has been a revival of interests in the study of Christianity in China among scholars both from within and outside China in the past three decades. We may be thinking that Christianity could become a transforming social force in China, which would help in modernizing China or move it towards a Westernized civil society; but then, we are surprised to find that Chinese Christianity is not moving towards the same kind of civil society in the Western sense. We may also be thinking that house churches were merely demonstrating their resistance to the control of the Chinese government, but then, we are surprised to find that there are more to be seen and these house churches have turned out to be a new kind of indigenous Christianity in China. We will be amazed to find that this ‘Christianity Made in China’ isbut a totally new kind of Christianity. Eventually, we are compelled to ask and to clarify our conventional conceptions, and to re-define our terms or even to create new words for them. As I have reported in this chapter, the shifting paradigms began in the re-discovery of Chinese archival materials and turned out to be the efforts to recover the Chi- nese perspectives and ‘the Chinese side of the story’ as possible steps towards the reconstruction of a new picture of Chinese Christianity. We could but keep asking how does religion/Christianity function in

70 Mark Mullins, Christianity Made in Japan. (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1998). 42 chapter one

China and how do Chinese people see religion/Christianity in their life in China? These would shed more light to our study of Christianity in contemporary China too. Besides, there has also been a growing interest among scholars in working out the conception of World Christianity in recent years. The study of World Christianity indeed reminds us that Christianity is a global movement. Yet, it must be realized in local contexts too. I would rather suggest that the term ‘local contexts’ should be reckoned as the qualifier of World Christianity. Nowadays, we are talking about Christianity in the East and West, North and South, and no matter whether we agree that World Christianity has been moving from West to East, or North to South, we are still affirming some particular localities where Christianity is situated. We do encounter Christians from all over the world and we are struck by the fact that the Christianity they are representing are, indeed, ‘localized Christianities’. Hence, there are American Christians, African Christians, Indian Christians, Japa- nese Christians, Korean Christians, Singaporean Christians as well as Chinese Christians. Interestingly, there would never be any ‘global Christians’ as such, for we all know that we are all but representations of localized Christianities. Today, we are talking about Chinese Chris- tianity. We all know that the socio-political situations in our countries are so different that we would not expect the same form of Christianity to be found in China as in other different countries, simply because China is different from Singapore, from Japan, from Korea or from America. All are but ‘World Christianity in various local contexts’. The Chinese people understand this so well that they have long been qualifying the Christianity they received as ‘Western Christianity’— i.e. ‘Christianity came from the West’. It had to be qualified by its locality.71 To repeat Prof. Mullins’ formula, what we are now looking for is: ‘Christianity Made in China’. And as I have reported and suggested in this chapter, it would be worthwhile and enlightening if we can attempt comparative studies with other localized Christianities, such as those in Japan and Korea.

71 See the discussion in Peter Tze Ming Ng, “The Necessity of the Particular in the Globalization of Christianity, the Case of China” in Studies in World Christianity, vol. 12, part 2, Summer 2006, 164–182. chapter two

Some Scenarios of the Impact of Boxer Movement On Christian Education in China

The Boxer Movement, which broke out in 1900, was an enormous event in the recent history of China. David Buck, an American scholar, once said, “The Boxer Movement is not only a turning point in this century, it is also a divide, splitting two different responses from traditional China and modern China toward foreign imperialism.”1 There has been much research and numerous discussions about the Boxer Movement throughout the past century. However, very few scholars, especially those from the Chinese Mainland, were concerned about the perspectives from the ‘victims’ side’—the Western missionaries and Chinese Christians (including Roman Catholics and Protestants) who had suffered from the tragedy—and few would examine the relationship between Christian education and the Boxer movement.2 Hence, by focusing on the development of Christian education in China, this chapter attempts to investigate the ‘victims’ side’ of the story, reviewing the changes of Christian education before and after the Boxer Movement, and to explore the possible relationship they may have had with the Boxer Movement. Regarding Catholic education in China, a Chinese Catholic, Xiang Bo Ma, (馬相伯) started the Aurora Academy (Zhendan Xueyuan 震旦學院) in 1903 in Shanghai, just a few years after the Boxer Move- ment. Ma used his family inheritance as a kind of endowment for the academy and invited the Jesuits to help running it by introducing the teaching of French language and Western education. Whether there was any direct connection between the Boxer Movement and

1 david Buck, “Editor’s Introduction” in Recent Studies of the Boxer Movement. (Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe, 1987), 6. 2 See e.g. the discussion in Philip Yuen Sang Leung, Cong Canju dao Shenji: Yihetuan shixue yu Shandong Jidujiao (From ‘Tragedy’ to ‘Miracle’—Historiography of Boxer Movement and Christianity in Shandong), in Weizhi Su and Tianlu Liu, eds. Yihetuan Yundong yi bai zhounian guoji xueshu taolunhui lunwenji (Proceedings of the Symposium Commemorating the Centenary of the Boxer Movement), vol. 1., ( Jinan: Shandong University Press, 2001), 533–553. 44 chapter two the establishment of this Catholic academy in Shanghai, we cannot tell. Ma was definitely aware of the situation in China and had full knowledge of this significant movement brought about by the Boxers when he started this new academy in 1903, and it would be interesting to know that the Chinese name ‘Zhendan’ (震旦) carried a profound meaning as ‘the rising sun in the East’, which refers to specifically the nation, China. Thus, Ma did have a dream of awakening China through the introduction of Western education at the turn of the century and immediately after the Boxer incidents.3 Unfortunately, the Aurora Academy only lasted for a couple of years. In 1905, the students did not want to study French, which was required by the academy, so in order to keep the students studying at the academy, Ma opened another English academy for them, which was known as Fudan Academy (復旦學院). The Chinese name ‘Fu’ means ‘recovering’, hence, re-starting a new academy for China. Later, Ma worked with Lianzhi Ying (英歛之) in 1913 and they together wrote to the Holy See in Rome, making appeals to the Pope for the planning of a Catho- lic University in the capital city of Peking (Beijing). The petition was stopped by the outbreak of the First World War in 1914–15, and the dream of establishing a formal, Catholic University of China was postponed, until finally being realized in 1929, coming to be known as ‘The Catholic University of Peking (Beijing)’.4 The university was later known as Fu Jen Catholic University in China, which was the predecessor of Taiwan’s Fu Jen Catholic University. What could be the impact of the Boxer on the development of Christian (Catholic) Education and why did Xiang Bo Ma start the academy in 1903? What roles did Christian Education play in Chinese modern history after 1900? These fascinating questions remain worthy of being studied seriously. While it is hoped that there could be another paper on Catholic education in China, this present chapter will focus on the work of Protestant education before and after the Boxer Movement. Zhixin Wang (王治心), a Protestant historian, had commented on the significance of the Boxer Movement, saying, “Protestant Christian- ity changed very much after 1900. The Chinese abhorred Christianity

3 The association was confirmed by the remark of The Cardinal Paul Shan, S.J. (單國璽樞機主教) at the conference in Taiwan on June 10–11, 2004. 4 for a brief history, see Peter Tze Ming Ng et al., eds. Zhongguo jiaohui daxue wenxian mulu, (China Christian Colleges Archives Catalogue Series), vol. 1. (Hong Kong: The Chinese University of Hong Kong, 1998), 15–30. some scenarios of the impact of boxer movement 45 greatly because they thought those foreign missionaries had come to China for political purposes . . . Yet, immediately after the Boxers, the missionaries in Shanxi proposed to use the indemnity fund to establish a University there . . . Many followed the same way of re-investing their money in China, hence removing much of the hostility of the Chinese people. Besides, the Chinese government was more eager to reform. Many schools were built, and the curricula were re-modeled along the lines of the Christian colleges...... ”5 Obviously, Wang believed there was a strong link between the Boxer Movement and Protestant education in China after 1900. One caution should be noted on the study of Christian education in China. In the past sixty years of the communist rule, Chinese scholars in the Mainland had generally adopted an exclusively Marxist view on Christian activities in China. Christian colleges had been associated with Western imperialism and were overshadowed by the religious fervor expressed in terms such as ‘the Christian occupation of China’.6 It was only since the 1980s that scholars have begun to break through these ideological constraints and accept the fact that such a view is too partial and too negative to be fair to the missionary enterprise in China. Professor Kai Yuan Zhang (章開沅), the former president of Huazhong Normal University, made a remark at the Wuhan Confer- ence of 1989, saying: “Today, we should be able to eliminate our ethnic emotions and historical prejudices, and be capable of looking at the history of Chinese higher education in a more objective and scientific way. We should be able to study its development in Chinese society from broader perspectives.”7 Hence, without being biased by any ethnic emotions or historical prejudices, I shall attempt to review the development of Christian education in China before and after the Boxer events of 1900 and examine any possible relationship between the Boxer Movement and the development of Christian education in China in the early 20th century.

5 Zhixin Wang, Zhongguo Jidujiao Shigang (An Outline of the History of Christianity in China). (Hong Kong: Chinese Christian Literature Council, 1979), 242. 6 peter Tze Ming Ng et al., Changing Paradigms of Christian Higher Education in China. (New York: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2002). ‘Introduction’, 1–40. 7 Kaiyuan Zhang, “Preface”, in Zhongxi Wenhua yu Jiaohui Daxue (Christian Uni- versities and Chinese-Western Cultures), Kaiyuan Zhang and Arthur Waldron, eds. (Wuhan: Hubei Educational Publishing House, 1991), 3. 46 chapter two

Protestant Education in the 19th Century China

Early Christian Schools Christian education in China was a by-product of the Protestant missionary movement in the early 19th century. It was also the result of cultural exchange between the East and the West. Western missionaries had been accused of imposing Western education on China by means of unequal treaties. Yet, as a matter of fact, the first missionary school was set up in 1818, even before the signing of any of the unequal treaties. The ‘Anglo-Chinese College’, started in Malacca in South East Asia, was begun by Robert Morrison, a missionary of the London Missionary Society. Having ‘failed’ in his attempts to preach in China from 1807–1817, Morrison started this school in the hope of waiting for the opening of China. It should be noted that the name of the school, ‘Anglo-Chinese College’, tells clearly the intention of the school. The college was meant to teach both Chinese and Western languages and literatures and to encourage ‘the reciprocal cultivation of Chinese and European Literatures, and the diffusion of Christian- ity—in that order’.8 Thus, the college had the following aim: “on the one hand, the Chinese language and literature will be made accessible to the Europeans; and on the other hand, the English language with European literature and science will be made accessible to the Ultra- Ganges nations who read Chinese”.9 Hence, it was hoped that this kind of education could have “a favorable influence on the peaceful diffusion of Christian principles, and the general civilization of the eastern hemisphere”.10 When the treaty of Nanking was signed in 1842, five Chinese ports, namely: Guangzhou (廣州), Fuzhou (福州), Xiamen (廈門), Ningbo (寧波) and Shanghai (上海) were made to open for trade to foreigners. More still, Hong Kong Island was ceded to Britain. This was traditionally reckoned as an ‘Unequal Treaty’, because China was forced to open the country to the Western powers. On the other hand, the signing of the treaty provided Western missionaries favorable conditions for their launching of Christian education work inside China.

8 Brian Harrison, Waiting for China—The Anglo-Chinese College at Malacca, 1818–1843 (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1979), 41. 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid. some scenarios of the impact of boxer movement 47

For example: the British Educational Society for Eastern Women established a girls school in 1844, the London Missionary Society set up Ying Wah Boys’ School in Xiamen in 1844, the American Pres- byterian Mission founded Ningbo Boys’ Academy in Ningbo in 1845, the American Methodist Mission established a boys’ school in Fuzhou in 1848, the Anglican Church of England initiated St. Paul’s College in Hong Kong in 1848, and the American North Presbyterian set up True Light College in Guangzhou in 1851. There were 350 Protestant schools in China by 1875 with 6000 students, which included both day students and lodgers. These early educational institutions were mostly at primary school level, only a few could meet secondary school level. Nevertheless, they were the foundation upon which Protestant missionaries launched their work for tertiary education in China.

Problems Facing the Protestant Education in China Nevertheless, the missionary education in China did not experience significant development during the 19th century. At the early stage, the missionaries were so occupied with their direct evangelistic work that they could not afford the time and energy to do educational work. For instance, in the nine years of publication of the Chinese Recorder《教務雜誌》, 1868–1877, only two articles concerning education appeared in the journal. By then, except for the training of missionary helpers, missionary societies had not any ‘well-established educational policy’.11 The two general conferences of the Protestant missionaries of China, held in Shanghai in 1877 and 1890 respectively, reflected clearly these attitudes of the missionaries. Calvin W. Mateer, an American North- ern Presbyterian missionary who worked in Shandong Province, made a strong appeal for a positive role for education in Christian missions.12 He was only a minority speaker at the first conference. By the time of the second conference in 1890, however, the general consensus among the missionary participants was in support of education in China. For example, W.T.A. Barber of the English Wesleyan mission offered

11 alice H. Gregg, China and Educational Autonomy. (New York: Syracuse University Press, 1946). 16. 12 Records of the General Conference of the Protestant Missionaries of China held at Shanghai, May 10–23, 1877. (Shanghai: American Presbyterian Mission Press, 1878). 48 chapter two thanks to God for the simple fact that ‘the days of lack of sympathy with educational work in the mission field are past’.13 There was another difficulty facing Protestant education in the late 19th century. Missionary schools were started by Protestant missionaries who came from various denominations and from various countries. These missionaries also represented different mission boards and missionary societies. Moreover, the Protestant schools were unevenly scattered in different cities, towns and villages all over China. There had not been any unified systems or organizations to co-ordinate Christian educational work in China. According to the Chinese Recorder, there had been a cry from some missionaries in 1879, urging Protestant missionaries to work together for a ‘unified system of educational work in China’.14 Unfortunately this could not be realized and nothing was achieved till the beginning of the 20th century. Throughout the 19th century, the Protestant missionaries had found great difficulty in working together, simply because they had encountered great differences in their educational ideals, their theological standpoints and their distinctive denominational interests and concerns of their own mission boards. For instance, Canton Christian College (‘格致書院’, which was later renamed Lingnan University, Canton, ‘嶺南大學’) in Guangzhou had once considered combining with another Christian school in Canton, which was called ‘Pui Ying School’ (培英書院). The two schools were combined in 1893 but separated again in 1898. The integration was not successful simply because Pui Ying School belonged to Ameri- can Northern Presbyterians which emphasized more on theological training and evangelistic work in education, whereas Canton Christian College was an inter-denominational college which was more open and more concerned with science and secular education.15 Another typical example was found in Beijing in the 1890s, where the Meth- odist Peking University (匯文大學) was trying to combine with North China College (潞河書院), which was sponsored by the American Board of Commission for Foreign Mission (ABCFM) and was more

13 Records of the General Conference of the Protestant Missionaries of China held at Shanghai, May 7–20, 1890. (Shanghai: American Presbyterian Mission Press, 1890). 499. 14 See Chinese Recorder, vol. 10, November 1879, 465–467. 15 See e.g. the discussion in Jessie Lutz, China and Christian College 1850–1950. (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1971), 35f and Charles H. Corbett, Lingnan University (New York: Trustees of Lingnan University, 1963). 21–28. some scenarios of the impact of boxer movement 49 evangelistically orientated.16 Hence, Christian education in China was growing rather slowly throughout the 19th century, as the Protestant missionary societies had not yet arrived at any ‘well-established educational policy’.17

Protestant Education in China since the Beginning of the 20th Century

Like the Catholic case, the Boxer Movement was by all means a great tragedy for Protestant missionary work in China when more than 200 foreign missionaries and 30,000 Chinese Christians were killed. Besides, lots of church buildings and schools were ruined or demol- ished. However, the Boxer Movement may have turned out to be a blessing to the missionary work in China. Zhixin Wang in his book, An Outline of the History of Christianity in China, made the following remark, “Those who read the history about this (the Boxer Movement) would feel deep sorrow. For Protestant Christianity, however, it could be calculated as having more gains than losses. Being under fire, the faith of the believers was tested, the faithful became more firm to their faith, the bad guys were eliminated and the church grew even more numerous than before (the Boxers).”18 According to Earl Cressy, it was reported that the number of Protestant missionaries in China had almost doubled in 15 years after the Boxer Movement, from 3,833 missionaries in 1905 to 6,204 in 1920 while the number of Christian believers had increased almost threefold, from 178,251 to 446,631. There was also a tenfold growth in the numbers of Christian colleges and students therein. The Christian colleges were very few in 1900 but reached a record of 16 colleges by the year of 1920. There was a total 199 college students in 1900 but the number reached as high as 1,700 in 1920.19

16 See e.g. the discussion in Jessie Lutz, China and Christian College 1850–1950. (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1971), 19 & 30f. 17 alice H. Gregg, China and Educational Autonomy. (New York: Syracuse University Press, 1946). 16. 18 Zhixin Wang, Zhongguo Jidujiao Shi-gang (An Outline of the History of Christianity in China), (Hong Kong: Chinese Christian Literature Council, 1979), 236. 19 Jessie Lutz, China and Christian Colleges 1850–1950 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1971), 102. 50 chapter two

Such statistics clearly shows that the Boxer Movement had not threatened the Protestant missionaries. The missionaries had not lost their faith in bringing the Good News to China, they were even more eager to offer their lives for the Chinese people. After the Boxer movement, the missionaries were more convinced that education in China was badly needed. So they started opening more schools and colleges in China. Such responses from the missionaries had in turn gained more respect and trust from the Chinese people. Indeed, love could conquer and take away the hostility of the people. On the other hand, the failure of reform movements towards the end of the 19th century and the humiliation brought by the Boxer events in 1900, resulted in a deep desire for change among the Chinese people. They were found more open to the West and were more ready to attempt ways towards modernization, whether it be all-Westernized or ‘Zhong Ti Xi Yong’ (中體西用). In this regard, Christian schools and colleges became the most easily accessible source of information about Western culture and philosophy, especially about the Christian heritage, which brought forth Western modernization in the past centuries. Hence, the Christian schools were much more welcome by the Chinese than they were previously. Indeed, the first two decades of the 20th century has turned out to be ‘Christianity’s golden age in China’.20 In the following paragraphs, I shall proceed to illustrate three scenarios as typical cases in Protestant education in the early 20th century, which could be witness to the significant impact the Boxer Movement has had on the development of Christian education in China.

The Boxer Indemnity and Shanxi University The first scenario is the establishment of Shanxi University. Since some nations like the United States of America and some Protestant missionary boards had returned the Boxer indemnities to the Chi- nese government, there was a proposal to use the indemnity funds to develop modern education in China. For instance, in the province of Shanxi, Chunxuan Cen (岑春瑄), the newly appointed governor, sought help from Timothy Richard (李提摩太), a Protestant missionary

20 See Jessie Lutz, “China and Protestantism: Historical Perspectives, 1807–1949” in Stephen Uhalley and Xiaoxin Wu, eds. Burdened Past, Hopeful Future. (Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe, 2001), 179–193. some scenarios of the impact of boxer movement 51 who had helped twice in the famine relief of Shandong and Shanxi Provinces and had gained much respect from the local officials and gentry.21 Timothy Richard drafted eight articles of ‘Regulations Gov- erning the Handling of the Protestant Case in Shanxi’.22 One of his proposals was to use the indemnity to establish a university in Shanxi, for the education of modern knowledge to help enlighten the people of Shanxi. It was stated in the third article that a total sum of half a million taels should be paid by the Shanxi government, by yearly install- ments of fifty thousand taels, to be paid over the coming ten years. The money was neither given to the Westerners nor the Christians, but it should be devoted to the establishment of a new university on Western lines, which would help ‘remove the ignorance and superstition that had been the main cause of the massacre of the foreigners’.23 One Chinese and one Westerner should be appointed to look after the matter.24 Hongzhang Li (李鴻章) and Chunxuan Cen adopted the proposal. It was agreed that Timothy Richard should take care of all the appointments of the professors, the arranging of the curriculum, and the administration of the university funds for a period of ten years, then the management would be handed over to the Shanxi Govern- ment. Richard appointed Moir Duncan, another Protestant missionary educator, to be the first president of Shanxi University and to conduct the duties.25 In the spring of 1902, when Richard brought back some employed teachers to Taiyuanfu (太原府), they found that

21 Timothy Richard was the first missionary of English Baptist Mission Society. He came to China in 1869 when he was 24 years old. In 1876, when there was a famine in Shandong, Richard was active in joining the famine relief service. In 1878, when the famine in Shanxi was very serious, Richard joined the Famine Relief Committee in Shanghai and raised funds everywhere for the famine relief. For more details, see William E. Soothill, Timothy Richard of China: Seer, Statesman, Missionary & the Most Disin- terested Adviser the Chinese Ever Had, (London: Seeley, Service & Co. Limited, 1926). 22 timothy Richard, Banli Shanxi Yesujiaoan Zhangcheng (Regulations Governing the Handling of the Protestant Case in Shanxi), in Wangou Gongbao, vol. 32 (1901), 202– 204. 23 timothy Richard, Forty-Five Years in China: Reminiscences by Timothy Richard, (Lon- don: T. Fisher Unwin Ltd., 1916), 299. 24 timothy Richard, Banli Shanxi Yesujiaoan Zhangcheng (Regulations Governing the Handling of the Protestant Case in Shanxi), in Wangou Gongbao, vol. 32 (1901), 202– 204. 25 moir Duncan studied at Glasgow University and Oxford University in United Kingdom. He learned Chinese classics from Prof. James Legge and obtained his master’s degree. His performance in education in Shanxi University was outstanding, and he obtained a doctor’s degree from Glasgow University in 1905. Unfortunately, he died the following year when he was 45 years old. 52 chapter two a rival university had already been formed by some local, anti-foreign officials and gentry, who wanted to override what Richard had been empowered to establish. After prolonged deliberations and discussions, an agreement was made that the two institutions should be merged to form one university which consisted of two departments, one for Chinese studies and the other one for Western subjects. Such agreement was supported by Chunxuan Cen, the governor of the Shanxi province.26 In the beginning years, student enrollments in the Western department were not satisfactory. The students did not have any foundational training in mathematics, physics, chemistry, nor even in English. On the other hand, the newly employed teachers did not understand Chinese. So, to solve the problems, Richard employed some specially trained scholars from Shanghai and Tianjin to help as translators. He also set aside ten thousand taels from the indemnity funds each year to set up a translation department for Shanxi University and employ scholars from America, Japan and China to help translate textbooks. The translated textbooks were found popular and were widely used as classical texts. Among them were: ‘The Chronicle of Chinese History’ 《中國編年史表》( ), ‘History of Commerce in Europe’ 《歐洲商業 ( 史》), ‘Mathematics’ 《算術》 ( ), ‘Algebra’ 《代數》 ( ), ‘Botany’ 《植 ( 物學》), ‘Mineralogy’ 《礦物學》 ( ), ‘Physiology’ 《生理學》 ( ), ‘Physics’ 《物理學》( ), ‘Pedagogy and Educational Studies’ 《教育學》 ( ), ‘The Story of the World’ 《世界故事》 ( ), ‘Elementary Geography with Photos and Maps’ 《插圖最初地文志》 ( ), etc. Due to limited funding availability, the translation department lasted for only six years, yet it had performed valuable services in the development of modern education in China.27 Besides, Richard also proposed a further study plan for the students. For those outstanding graduates to continue their study in universities in England, they could plan their further studies in the fields of railway development, mining, metallurgy or engineering, etc. For those students who would stay in China after completion,

26 See Herbert Edwards, Fire and Sword in Shangshi (Shanxi). Ch. 3. Section on “Shanxi University”; Timothy Richard, Forty-Five Years in China: Reminiscences by Timothy Richard, (London: T. Fisher Unwin Ltd., 1916), 229–300; William E. Soothill, Timothy Richard of China: Seer, Statesman, Missionary & the Most Disinterested Adviser the Chinese Ever Had, (London: Seeley, Service & Co. Limited, 1926), 256. 27 timothy Richard, Forty-Five Years in China: Reminiscences by Timothy Richard. (Lon- don: T. Fisher Unwin Ltd., 1916), 303. some scenarios of the impact of boxer movement 53 they could still seek the attainment of a degree granted by the Chi- nese Government, either for the title of Juren (舉人) or Jinshi (進士), as appropriately recognized by the government. Therefore, a smooth linkage was established between modern and traditional education in China.28 Since Timothy Richard did not use Shanxi University as a direct tool for evangelization, some missionaries had expressed their dis- content. There were some who accused Richard of losing the great opportunity of founding an explicitly Christian university. Their justification was that it was both right and logical to use theBoxer indemnity to realize the ends for which the martyred missionaries had come to China.29 Richard and Duncan, however, had their own viewpoints. They would by all means affirm that Christian theology could be taught in the university, but they could by no means impose them upon the students, neither could the university be used as a tool for evangelistic work. Since the university was established as a model for modern education in China, it was proper that it should uphold religious freedom for the students. This was precisely the standpoint of Timothy Richard.30 William E. Soothill,31 the president who succeeded Duncan, added, “. . . to compel an entire body of non-Christian students to submit to Christian propaganda in a university established by non-Christian provincial funds would have been immoral, and have defeated its own ends.”32 On the other hand, Richard had to face equally great oppositions from some Chinese officials and gentry who were anti-Christian. The gentry pushed ways to forbid the teaching of Christianity in any

28 xin-xian Huang, Jidujiao Jiaoyu yu Zhongguo Shehui Bian Qian (Christian Educa- tion and the Social Change in China), (Fuzhou: Fujian Educational Press, 1996), 125–126. 29 william E. Soothill, Timothy Richard of China: Seer, Statesman, Missionary & the Most Disinterested Adviser the Chinese Ever Had, (London: Seeley, Service & Co. Ltd., 1926), 256f. 30 Ibid. 31 william E. Soothill was a student of James Legge and graduated from Oxford University. He was proficient in Chinese Classics. In the spring of 1911, he went back to England and became a Sinological professor at Oxford University. His writings included Timothy Richard of China: Seer, Statesman, Missionary & the Most Disinterested Adviser the Chinese Ever Had; and The Three Religions of China etc. 32 william E. Soothill, Timothy Richard of China: Seer, Statesman, Missionary & the Most Disinterested Adviser the Chinese Ever Had, (London: Seeley, Service & Co. Ltd., 1926), 257. 54 chapter two form in the university. To their attempt Timothy Richard vigorously refused to abide. Although it was not his purpose to use the university as an evangelistic tool, Richard insisted that any kinds of forbiddance and limitation (to teach Christian theology) would by no means be allowed.33 What does this mean? The truth was simply that Richard insisted on the rights for both ‘academic freedom’ and ‘religious freedom’. By academic freedom, it was meant that both teachers and students should have the full liberty of discussing and debating religious issues; teachers could teach Christian theology in classes, though they would not impose their faith upon the students. Timothy Richard had discussed this with a Chinese official for quite a long time. Chunxuan Cen had sent a clever man of Daotai’s (道台) rank to debate with Rich- ard, and by his skillful and convincing arguments that made Richard physically tired and mentally irritated. Being afraid that he might say anything he would afterwards regret, Richard asked to retire into a side room to pray to God for guidance. Finally, he said undoubtedly to the Daotai, “question of religious liberty had already been agreed upon by China in several treaties with foreign nations. If the Governor had now received special authority to supersede all these treaties and abrogate them, we might then discuss such a regulation to forbid the teaching of Christianity. If he had not been given any power to override all these treaties, then there was no need to waste further time, as it was beyond the Governor’s and his own powers to change them.”34 The subject was dropped and never raised again. Richard’s opinion was explicitly clear in this case, that is: “by all means students should have their rights to adopt or reject Christianity, but we (professors) also have full liberty of teaching, leading discussion and giving reply to any questions on our faith.”35 Surely, his idea could be tolerated by the government, because there were no more objections raised against him again. Soothill later added, “(Although) Christian theology was never formally taught in the university, but Dr. Duncan was fully satisfied with the opportunity he had in his lectures on civilization of showing the beneficial results of Christianity. I too was equally satisfied with

33 Ibid. 34 william E. Soothill, op. cit., 257–258. 35 timothy Richard’s idea was radical if compared with his contemporary missionary educators. For more recent discussions, see Peter Tze Ming Ng, Zongjiao Jiaoyu di Shisuhua yu Xiandaihua (The Secularization and Modernization of Religious Education), in Fudan Xuebao, vol. 3 (2002), 103–111. some scenarios of the impact of boxer movement 55 the opportunity of presenting the various religions in a fair light during my lectures on history, and of explaining Christianity in conversations with students, with local leaders and with high officials. When -mis sionaries such as Sherwood Eddy came, I could invite him to deliver lectures on Christian issues.” It was further remarked: “if the university had done nothing but break down ill feeling and produce goodwill amongst officials, gentry and scholars it would have been worth all the service that was rendered. But it did far more than that.”36 In 1910 Richard re-visited Shanxi University. During his visit, he was given a warm and home-like reception by the Governor, officials and gentry. He was also convinced that he had already successfully set up a good model of modern education in the province; so, as he had promised, Richard at once resigned and handed over the university to the Chinese government. Richard’s experience in Shanxi Univer- sity had nicely demonstrated his sincere missionary zeal to promote modern education for the Chinese. Modern education in Shanxi was developed rather late when compared with the development in other provinces, but the opening of the Shanxi University turned out to be a great milestone for modern education in the province of Shanxi.37

The Establishment of the Yale-China Association The second scenario for illustration is the establishment of the Yale- China Association (雅禮中國協會). The Boxer Movement had drawn attention from the worldwide community. Seemingly, the Westerners had reacted with a deep sense of hatred towards the Chinese because of the massacre during the Boxer Movement. However, their reactions

36 william E. Soothill, Timothy Richard of China: Seer, Statesman, Missionary & the Most Disinterested Adviser the Chinese Ever Had, p. 258. 37 the college of Oberlin-in-China ‘山西銘賢學校’ (Shanxi Mingxian Xuexiao) is another valuable example in the educational history of Shanxi province. The college with primary and secondary level was established in 1907 by Oberlin College in America for the memory of the martyrs in the Boxer events. The college named ‘Mingxian Xuexiao’, which means ‘In memory (Mingji 銘記) of the Chinese and West- ern martyrs (Xianxian 先賢) in the year of Gengzi 庚子 (1900)’. For more details, see Mingxian Ershi Zhou Nian Ji Nian Ce (The 20th Anniversary Magazine of Oberlin-in- China) in Zhongguo Jindai Xue Zhi Shi Liao (The Historical Resources of Modern Chi- nese Educational System), edited by Shi-liang Gao, (Shanghai: East China Normal University Press, 1993), 351–354. There is still a stele in the Oberlin College, USA with the wordings, ‘In memory of the martyrs in the event of Boxer Rebellion in China’ carved on it. 56 chapter two and responses turned out to be the contrary. As a matter of fact, the Boxer events had not decreased the missionary zeal of the foreigners, especially the Protestant missionaries. Rather, there was a bigger wave of missionary movement throughout the university campuses in America, especially the one known as ‘Student Volunteer Band for Foreign Missions’ which was started towards the end of 19th century. One of these movements was the establishment of the Yale-China Association. By the 1890s, the ‘Student Volunteer Movement for Foreign Mis- sions’ had surged across America. Dwight Moody, a pioneer of the movement, graduated from Cornell University in 1888, the year when the ‘Student Volunteer Band for Foreign Missions’ was established in his university with the slogan of ‘evangelization of the world in this generation’. Horace Tracy Pitkin, a graduate of Yale University and Union Theological Seminary, was one of the founders of Student Vol- unteer Band for Foreign Mission at Yale University. He was born of a rich family. His older sister was married to the son of the President of Harvard University.38 Pitkin was a devout Christian. He studied engineering at Yale University where he joined the Student Volunteer Movement and became the leader of the Student Volunteer Band for Foreign Missions at Yale. Upon his graduation in 1892, Pitkin decided to become a missionary and he joined American Board of Commis- sions for Foreign Missions. In 1897, he was sent to China and worked as a missionary in Baoding Fu (保定府), which was the capital of Shanxi Province.39 In 1900, he was killed by the Boxers in one of the massacres of Shanxi. It was his death which aroused such strong reactions from people in the American Board Commissioners for Foreign Mis- sions and at Yale University. Yale-in-China was established in 1901 by several Yale students and alumni who were committed to the Student Volunteer Movement. In the conference of 1900, a proposal was made to establish the Yale Foreign Missionary Society to create an interest in missions among

38 changsheng Gu (顧長聲) once argued that most American graduates came to China because they wanted to evade the problems of unemployment in America. This was not true at least in the case of Pitkin. For reference, see Changsheng Gu, Chuanjiaoshi yu Jindai Zhongguo (Missionaries and Modern China) (Shanghai: Shanghai Ren Men Chu Ban She, 1995), 256. 39 nat Brandt, Massacre in Shansi (Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 1994), 169–171. some scenarios of the impact of boxer movement 57 college students.40 In finding locations for the mission to target, China was proposed only as a second choice to India. According to a report by Reuben Holden, Warren B. Seabury and Arthur C. Williams were the two most active student leaders of the Yale Foreign Missionary Society. Williams recalled Seabury’s memory, saying: “Seabury and I had firmly talked over going out together if possible. In attending the Ecumenical Conference in the spring of 1900—the Boxer outbreak with Pitkin’s martyrdom and the unusually strong missionary emphasis at Northfield, Massachusetts in 1900 made me determined to seeif possible that Pitkin’s sacrifice was atoned for somehow by us as Yale men.”41 They then worked together in promoting mission work for China. Later, due to further support from Prof. Harlan Page Beach, the society finally decided to choose China as the first choice for the Yale Foreign Mission.42 On 25th of June 1901, Yale Mission in China was finally established. Prof. Harlan Page Beach was elected asthe first Chairman and Lawrence Thurston was elected as the first secretary of the society. The society became known as ‘Yale-in-China’ (雅禮學會) or ‘Yale-China Association’ (雅禮中國協會).43

40 Jessie Lutz, China and Christian Colleges 1850–1950 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1971), 125. 41 reuben Holden, Yale in China: The Mainland 1901–1951 (New Haven: The Yale in China Association, Inc., 1964), 11. 42 Beach, Harlan Page (1854–1933) had been a missionary of American Board Commissioners for Foreign Missions. He came to China in 1883 and preached in Tongzhou. In 1890, he returned to America as a professor of Hartford Seminary. He was an author of Dawn on the Hills of T’ang, or Missions in China. In the early period of Yale Foreign Missionary Society, he insisted on choosing China as the first mission choice of the society. He also quoted the Boxer events and the martyrdom of Pitkin to support his opinion. For details, see Jindai Laihua Waiguoren Ming Ci Dian (The Diction- ary of the names of foreigners come to China in Modern History) (Beijing: Zhong- guo Shehui Chubanshe, 1978), 68; and Reuben Holden, Yale in China: The Mainland 1901–1951 (New Haven: The Yale in China Association, Inc., 1964), 77–79. 43 the original name of the society was ‘Yale Foreign Missionary Society in China’ or ‘Yale Mission in China’. But then the society became more and more concerned about education and medical services, and there was a decision in 1914 to take away the word ‘mission’ in its name, hence ‘Yale-in-China’ was used to replace ‘Yale Mis- sion in China’. Later, as the relationship between Yale and China was brought closer, the name became ‘Yale-China’ and the middle word ‘in’ was dropped. This was an interesting development to be noted. It should also be noted that the Chinese name for Yale was ‘雅禮’, which was a very proper and nice name chosen to show the respect from the Chinese people. For more details, see Reuben Holden, Yale in China: The Mainland 1901–1951 (New Haven: The Yale in China Association, Inc., 1964), 77–79. 58 chapter two

Why did ‘Yale-in-China’ carry out their work in Central China? The decision was made after several investigations. Before 1900, the American Board of Commissions for Foreign Missions sent their missionaries to Shanxi. However, most of them were killed by the Boxers during the massacres at Shanxi. Then, the Yale Foreign Missionary Society believed it was important to reconsider where they should go and what they could do in the mission field. Hence, they sent Law- rence Thurston, the secretary of the Yale Foreign Missionary Society to China for a field investigation.44 Thurston’s report was that the anti-foreign feelings among the Chinese in Shanxi was still very strong, thus, it was not a good time to carry out missionary work there. On the other hand, he suggested that the society should try out some educational and medical services as a long-term project, which could be more welcomed by the Chinese people. The investigation lasted for two years, and in the conference held on 20th of June 1903, Thur- ston’s opinion was adopted by vote of 25 to 1, Yale mission work was then begun in Changsha (長沙), a city in Hunan province.45 In the beginning, the educational work held by the Yale Foreign Mission- ary Society in Changsha was developed slowly. Seabury spent more than a year just to find a location for the Yale Union Middle- (Sec ondary) School (雅禮學校).46 The initial intake was 24 students when the school was opened in September 1906. The main concern of the school was made explicit: “While Yale-in-China is frankly Christian, it does not propose to impose Christian doctrines upon its students.” The catalogue also stated that the aim of the school was “to broaden the learning of its students, build up character, and train in loyalty to the Emperor and patriotism to the nation.”47 In 1914, the school took the name ‘College of Yale-in-China’ (雅禮大學). In 1926,

44 Lawrence Thurston’s wife also came to China with her husband and became the first president of Ginling College (南京金陵女子大學). 45 reuben Holden, Yale in China: The Mainland 1901–1951 (New Haven: The Yale in China Association, Inc., 1964), 25–33. 46 Seabury originally wanted to buy land for establishing a school. He then found out that the Chinese would not sell any land to foreigners. From the help of a Chi- nese (Mr. Gao), Seabury finally bought a house and reconstructed it into a school. Unfortunately, he was drowned near Kuling on July of 1907. For more details, see Reuben Holden, Yale in China: The Mainland 1901–1951 (New Haven: The Yale in China Association, Inc., 1964), 47–48, 54. 47 reuben Holden, Yale in China: The Mainland 1901–1951 (New Haven: The Yale in China Association, Inc., 1964), 49. some scenarios of the impact of boxer movement 59 it merged with Central China University (華中大學). One of the missionary members of Yale-in-China, Dr. Edward Hume, also established a Yali Court of Medicine in 1907 (it was later re-named ‘Yali Hospital’ (雅禮醫院)). In 1908, the institution founded a nurs- ing school. When the Qing government was overthrown, Dr. Hume immediately consulted with the new government on the issue of promoting medical education in China. In 1914, he signed the ‘Hsiang Ya Agreement’ (湘雅合作協議) with Ji Shi Zhang (章繼詩), a member of the gentry in Hunan who founded Hunan Yuqun xuehui (湖南育群學會). They agreed to establish the Hsiang Ya School of Medicine (湘雅醫科大學) in collaboration and together they would provide medical services, educational and research programs in the university.48 In 1927, the school took the name ‘Hsiang Ya Medical College’ (湘雅醫學院) and in 1929, the medical school became a substantial part of Central China University.49 The Yale-China Association has had its China office in Hong Kong since 1949. Up to now, the Yale-China Association (雅禮中國協會) and the Yale-China Chinese Language Centre (中國語文研習所) are still actively working in the Chinese University of Hong Kong. They are still working diligently for the promotion of cultural exchange between the Chinese and the American academics. By now, the Yale- China Association has already exceeded its 100 years of history.50

The Christian Union Universities in China The third scenario is the Christian Union Universities. As we know, Christian schools in China were established by missionaries who

48 ‘Hsiang’ means the Hunan province; ‘Ya’ represented of Yale, which is the name in its contracted form of the Chinese translation of the mission. The agreement was also an equal agreement. See William Reeves, Jr. “Sino-American Co-operation in Medicine: The Origins of Hsiang-Ya (1902–1914),” in American Missionaries in China: Papers from Harvard Seminars, edited by Kwang-Ching Liu. (Cambridge, Mass.: East Asian Research Center, Harvard University), 1966, 129–182. 49 reuben Holden, Yale in China: The Mainland 1901–1951 (New Haven: The Yale in China Association, Inc., 1964), 103–143; William Reeves, Jr. “Sino-American Co- operation in Medicine: The Origins of Hsiang-Ya (1902–1914),” in American Mission- aries in China: Papers from Harvard Seminars, Kwang-Ching Liu, ed. (Cambridge, Mass.: East Asian Research Center, Harvard University, 1966), 129–182. 50 Year 2001 was a hundred year’s commemoration of the founding of Yale-in- China. For details, see Nancy E. Chapman, The Yale-China Association: A Centennial History. (Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 2001). 60 chapter two belonged to different denominations, missionary boards or various mission societies. They were widely scattered throughout the country. The idea of amalgamation of schools firstly appeared on the Chinese Recorder in 1879, in which some missionaries suggested that Christian schools in Beijing should combine together for economic reasons and for the advancement of academic standards and higher competitiveness amongst Christian schools.51 However, due to the fact that Christian schools were established by different missionary boards and societies, who had their own mission policies, this could not be easily achieved. Hence, the union school projects would not be carried out successfully and there still could not be any ‘unified system of Christian educational work in China’ by the end of the 19th century. After the Boxer Movement, however, most missionaries believed that Chinese anti- foreign attitudes were caused by their misunderstandings and their ignorance of Christianity. They were convinced that such anti-foreign attitudes could be most effectively eradicated by Christian education in China, so they now hastened to find more efficient ways to expand Christian schools. The best way was, of course, to joint hands with schools of other denominations or mission societies.52 Indeed, Chris- tian education in China had been developing rapidly in the first two decades of 20th century. Missionary boards and societies also started to work together in various aspects for merging different Christian colleges into a Union University.53 And, believe it or not, the possibilities of merging Christian schools and colleges together were made viable because of the Boxer Movement of 1900. The first illustration was the merging of the Methodist Peking Uni- versity (匯文大學) and North China College (潞河書院) in Beijing. As it was reported earlier, the two colleges could not join hands in the 1890s because of their different mission policies and varied theological orientations. The two colleges had differing traditions: Methodist Peking University offered instruction in the English language and was

51 Chinese Recorder, vol. 1. 10, November 1879, 456–457. 52 Jessie Lutz, China and Christian Colleges 1850–1950 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1971), 104–105. 53 examples were the establishment of Wuchang Wenhua Daxue (武昌文華大學) and West China Union University (華西協合大學) in 1910, the Ginling University (金陵大學) in 1911, the Shandong Cheeloo University (山東齊魯大學) in 1915 and the Yenching University (燕京大學) in 1919. some scenarios of the impact of boxer movement 61 open to admit non-Christians,54 whereas North China College had not yet introduced English courses and gave greater emphasis to religious goals,55 hence, the proposal for union was rejected. However, during the Boxer Uprising, both the Methodist Peking University and North China College were severely destroyed and entailed considerable rebuilding after. They both received the Boxer indemnity funds for their reconstruction work. Then it was the perfect time for the two colleges to consider the merger plan again. Their mission boards decided to take up the consultation again and also negotiations with other mission societies, which had schools in the region. The negotiations of 1903 to 1904 had led to the cooperation between the American Congregation- alists, the English Congregationalists, and the American Presbyterians forming the North China Educational Union. These three missions agreed to merge Memorial Theological College, Lockhart Medical College and North China College together. It became North China Union College (華北協和書院). In the meantime, Peking University also agreed to negotiate with Lockhart Medical College on the issue of cooperation. Therefore, the North China Educational Union slowly acquired prestige and authority, and hence set up an early example of educational cooperation among several denominations.56 Yenching University was eventually formed by the amalgamation of Methodist Peking University, North China Union College and the North China Union College for Women in 1919. Indeed, there had been many long conferences, consultations and negotiations made between 1901 and 1919 and its first president, John Leighton- Stu art had been giving much of his effort and wisdom in lobbying the various missionary boards and societies. The most difficult underlying issues included: what kind of cooperation was viable and how the different parties could work together; what about the naming of the new university and how to select the first president? These were

54 the origin of Peking University was Methodist Boy’s School (美以美會男塾), Peking, which was established in 1870. It had been developed into Peking University in 1890. The University offered a broad educational program for both Christians and non-Christians and aimed at helping the Chinese youth to obtain a literary, scientific, and professional education. For details, see Jessie Lutz, op. cit., 19. 55 the origin of North China College was Tungchow Boy’s School (通州潞河男塾), which was established by American Board in 1876. In the early period, only Christian could enroll in the school. It took the name of North China College in 1889 and bore strong religious emphasis. For details, see Jessie Lutz, op. cit., 30–31. 56 Jessie Lutz, op. cit., 108. 62 chapter two the most important questions under discussions.57 All these showed that the amalgamation of different denominational universities was indeed a very difficult job, and without what had happened during the Boxer Movement, it might have been even more difficult for these issues to be overcome or settled. Another example was the amalgamation of the Shandong colleges. In Shandong province, American Presbyterian Mission and English Baptist Mission Society were among the earliest Protestant denominations which started Christian educational work in the region. Ameri- can Presbyterian Mission had established the Tengchow Boy’s High School (登州文會館) in Tengchow, and founded another Medical College in Tsinan; whereas English Baptist Mission Society established Tsingchow Theological Institute (培真書院, it was later re-named Gotch-Robinson Theological College 葛羅神學院) and Tsingchow Boy’s Boarding School (廣德書院) in Tsingchow (青州). Even before 1900, there had been some suggestions of merging Christian colleges. For instance, there was a suggestion by Henry W. Luce (then a missionary at Tengchow Boy’s High School) that the Tengchow School should be merged with the Medical College which was located in a more central position in Tsinan (濟南).58 Although suggestion was made, there was no further action taken afterward. It was only due to the strong impetus of the Boxer Movement that a new momentum for the amalgamation movement began. As one missionary later recalled: “Up till the Boxer year, though the friendliest relations always obtained between the missionaries of the B.M.S. (English Baptist Mission Society) and those of neighboring missions, each had its own distinct field and carried on its own evangelistic and educational work. But God . . . over- ruled the Boxer outbreak to bring the workers of the various societies

57 in the choosing of the school name, the students of Peking University insisted on using ‘Peking University’ as the school name during the amalgamation between North China Union College and Peking University. No agreement could be reached. Finally, the problem was solved under the wise direction of John Leighton Stuart. He adopted Cai Yuanpei’s suggestion of taking the name of Yenching University. For details, see John Leighton Stuart, Zai Zhongguo Wushi Nian (Fifty years in China), translated by Ren-jun Yan (閻人俊) (Hong Kong: Qiu Jing Chu Ban Shi, 1955), 45–50; Yun Ming Tam (譚潤明), “Yenching Daxue Cheng Li Qian Hou Banxue Mudi di Zhuanbian” (The Changing Aims before and after the establishment of Yenching Uni- versity), unpublished M.Phil. Dissertation. (Hong Kong: The Chinese University of Hong Kong, 1994), 5–37. 58 charles H. Corbett, Shantung Christian (CHEELOO) University, (New York: United Board for Christian Colleges in China, 1955), 61. some scenarios of the impact of boxer movement 63 closer together and gave them the chance to plan new enterprises in cooperation . . . They were thus thrown into more intimate fellowship than had been possible before, and the enforced pause in their usual activities led them to review the whole situation and plan unitedly for the future.”59 On 13th of June, 1902, representatives of Ameri- can Presbyterian Mission and English Baptist Mission Society met in Tsingchow and drafted an document known as the ‘Basis of Union in Educational Work’ (聯合教育工作基礎), which agreed to merge the Arts College at Weixian (濰縣) of American Presbyterian Mission, Tsingchow Theological Institute and Medical College of English Bap- tist Mission Society into one institute under the principle of sharing the current expenses equally. The document began with the following preamble: “With grateful acknowledgement of God’s goodness and mercy extended to us in the past, and with prayer for His continued blessing on our work, we the members of the American Presbyte- rian Mission and of the English Baptist Mission Society in Shantung (Shandong) agree to unite in organizing three colleges, namely an Arts College at Weihsien (Weixian), a Theological College at Chingchoufu (Tsingchow) and a Medical College at Chinanfu (Tsinan), with the following provisions. . . .”60 The institute first took the new name as Shan- tung Protestant University (合會學府) in 1904.61 The new university consisted of three colleges, each located in a different place. They were Shantung Union College (廣文學堂) in Weixian,62 Union Theologi- cal College (神道學堂) in Tsingchow63 and Union Medical College (醫道學堂) in Tsinan. In 1909, the institute was re-named Shantung Christian University, but carried with it the Chinese name which read

59 Ibid., p. 63. 60 Ibid., p. 64. 61 the meaning of ‘He Hui Xue Fu’ (合會學府) was ‘the cluster of united colleges’. The English name of Shantung Protestant University conveyed the idea that the colleges were from different Protestant denominations. 62 ‘Tsingchow Boy’s Boarding School’ (青州廣德書院) and ‘Tengchow Boy’s Boarding School’ (登州文會館) were merged into Shantung Union College (廣) 德 (文) 會 (學堂). Hence, the new Chinese name also suggested the union of two colleges in a Chinese way. 63 ‘Gotch-Robinson Theological College’ (Tsingchow Theological Institute) was owned by English Baptist Mission Society and ‘Yintai Jiao Shi Guan’ (煙台教士館) was owned by American Presbyterian Mission. The two were merged and took the name of Gotch-Robinson Union Theological College. For details, see Charles H. Corbett, Shantung Christian (CHEELOO) University, (New York: United Board for Christian Col- leges in China, 1955), 69–70. 64 chapter two as: Shandong Jidujiao Gonghe Daxue (山東基督教共和大學).64 It is worth noting that either in English or in Chinese, the word ‘Union’ or ‘Gonghe’ (共和) reveals the meaning of working together, which was one of the outstanding features of Shantung Christian University. In 1915, the university adopted a new name Cheeloo University (齊魯大學), which made clear that it is a university in the region of Cheeloo.65 The whole university was finally moved to Tsinan in 1917. The issue of ‘Amalgamation’ was one of the questions discussed in the China Centenary Missionary Conference held at Shanghai in 1907. The chairman of the conference’s Education Committee, Dr. F.L. Hawks Pott, (卜舫濟), reported that China had opened up a great opportunity for Christian education. He then suggested that different denominations and mission societies should cooperate in establishing one ‘Inter-denominational Union Christian University’.66 His suggestion aroused many responses from missionaries who represented of different areas and different societies. For instance, the representative of English Baptist Mission Society Samuel Couling (庫壽齡) and the representative of American Presbyterian Mission, C.W. Mateer (狄考文) opposed the idea. Couling and Mateer were the earliest missionaries establishing Christian colleges in Shandong province. Couling said, “I think that union is neither good nor bad: it depends entirely upon the parties, and upon the circumstances. In cases where missions are large enough to carry on their own mission work, I am perfectly convinced that union is more likely to be a source of weakness than strength. I have been stationed in Shantung, and I can say from experience how much friction there is there beyond a certain point. I consider that freedom is more important than union...... Oxford and Cambridge would save many hundreds of thousands of dollars by uniting, but who would dare suggest such a thing? I am convinced that the more variety we have, the better. Our differences in the North, have not at any time been of a theological or religious nature, but simply as to working arrangements, and I would say that we have loved each other perhaps with a little more difficulty since the union, and though we are one body we are all working together for

64 Jessie Lutz, op. cit., 108–109; Charles H. Corbett, op. cit., 66. 65 charles H. Corbett, op. cit., 130. 66 See e.g. Centenary Conference Committee: China Centenary Missionary Conference (Shanghai: Centenary Conference Committee, 1907), 70–75. some scenarios of the impact of boxer movement 65 the same end.” Mateer further added, “It is very difficult when you get two or three hundred students together, to make personal influence felt.”67 Yet, despite their strong objection, the amalgamation movement in Shandong was still successful. This illustrated precisely that the amalgamation movement was an irresistible trend at the time. The strongest argument supporting the idea of ‘amalgamation’ was that it could lighten economic pressures and could further advance the academic level of the Christian colleges. These were the two main concerns of the missionary boards and societies. D.Z. Sheffield (謝衛樓), the president of North China Union College, shared his experience of the Boxer events in Beijing, saying: “I do not think we have found it any more difficult to love. The Boxer year swept every- thing clean.”68 Other supporters included Dr. T. Cochrane (科幹爾) of London Missionary Society and Bishop J.W. Bashford (柏錫福) of Methodist Peking University. Since there were still varied opinions expressed and discussed in the conference, there could not be any unifying system of educational policy resolved at the conference.69 Nevertheless, the fact remained that a number of Christian colleges were merged together in the first two decades of the early 20th century. They were North China Union College (華北協和大學) in 1904, North China Union Medical Col- lege for Women (華北協和女子醫學院) in 1908, West China Union University (華西協合大學) in 1910, Fukien Christian Union College (福建基督教協和大學) in 1916, to cite just a few.70 The movements towards amalgamation all occurred after the Boxer Movement of 1900. If there had not been such a strong impetus for merger caused by the Boxer events, it is evidently that the amal- gamations would have faced even more resistance and many more difficulties.

67 Ibid. 68 Ibid., 486. 69 Ibid., 490–506. 70 for example, the 1910 annual report of American Methodist Mission had said, “West China Union University is one kind of union university ...... the University is a kind of united associations. The University was managed by the school administration committee which was appointed by several cooperative churches and the management board.” For details on the amalgamation movement of Christian colleges, see Jessie Lutz, op. cit., 106–115. 66 chapter two

Conclusion

In this chapter, I have put forward three scenarios for illustration. These three scenarios clearly showed that the Boxer Movement did give a strong impetus to re-direct the development of Christian education in China. The Boxer Movement had not only exposed the urgency, hence speeded up educational reforms in China, it has also prompted the Chinese government to recognize and to adopt educational systems along Western lines as one valuable way towards modernization. Of course, besides the Western educational system, there was also the Japanese model.71 As the Chinese were looking for new ideas and new models, the Christian colleges in China were found greatly welcomed by Chinese students, especially during the first two decades of the 20th century. Though the examples we have chosen for illustration here, namely: the founding of Shanxi University by Timo- thy Richard, the establishment of the Yale-China Association and the amalgamation movement among the Protestant denominational universities, were just tiny parts of the Christian scene in China, they have altogether demonstrated clearly that the Boxer Movement of 1900, had a significant impact on the development of Christian education in the early 20th century China.

71 Actually, Chinese government had also sent officials to Japan for observing and studying their educational system after the Sino-Japanese War. For details, see Qian Manqian Qian (錢曼倩) and Linxiang Jin (金林祥), eds., Zhongguo Jindai Xuezhi Bijiao Yanjiu (Comparative Studies of Educational Systems in Modern China) (Guangzhou: Guangdong Educational press, 1996), 50–127. chapter three

The Other Side of 1910: the Development of Chinese Indigenous Movements Before and After the Edinburgh Conference

While I was at Cambridge, England in 2005, I was able to go through some of the documents of the 1910 Edinburgh Conference, and was amazed to read about C.Y. Cheng ( Jingyi Cheng 誠靜怡, 1881–1939), one of the three Chinese delegates who attended this World Missionary Conference. Cheng was, at the age of twenty-eight, probably amongst the youngest conference participants, yet he distinguished himself by giving a seven-minute speech at the 1910 conference. Speaking on behalf of Chinese Christians, Cheng made a strong appeal for the development of indigenous Churches in China. He believed that ‘the China Mission’ should very soon become ‘the Chinese Church’ and that ‘the Church in China’ should eventually become ‘the Church of China’, saying that: “The time has passed from the period of the China Mission into the period of the China Church, and it will slowly but surely pass from the period of the Church in China to that of the Church of China.”1 He also added: “In the nature of things China is by no means interested in such (denominational) divisions, and in fact, the very opposite is the general opinion of the Chinese Christians today.”2 Again, Cheng could feel the deepest desires of the Chinese Christians in his days, and he voiced out loudly the urgent need of the Chinese churches, not just for a unified church in China, but a truly Chinese church which was free from Western denominationalism. While his contemporaries were concerned with ‘unity and co- operation among the denominations and various mission boards’, Cheng was more concerned with the development of indigenous Christianity in China.

1 cheng later expanded his speech and published the article in International Review of Missions. See Ching-yi Cheng. “The Chinese Church in Relation to Its Immediate Task” in International Review of Missions, vol. 1, (1912), 381–392. 2 Ibid. 389. 68 chapter three

I shall, in this chapter, attempt to review the situations regarding the development of indigenous Christianity in China before and after the 1910 Edinburgh conference, and review Cheng’s speeches and subsequent work for the Christian Church of China. It was found that there was indeed a strong desire among Chinese Christians for the development of independent, indigenous Christianity in China especially in the early years of the twentieth century which laid a solid background and justification for Cheng’s speech at the 1910 conference. As we are celebrating the Centenary Anniversary of the World Missionary Conference held at Edinburgh in 1910, the development of indigenous Christianity in China needs to be given greater attention and its implications further explored.

The Indigenous Movements before 1910 The idea of developing local evangelists in China, or training Chi- nese people for localized ministry, could be traced back to the days of Karl Gutzlaff (1803–1851) when he started the Chinese Union (福漢會 Fu Han Hui ) in 1844, which aimed at ‘evangelization of China by the Chinese’.3 However, the principle of ‘Three-Self’—namely ‘self-governing’, ‘self-supporting’ and ‘self-propagating’ was also commonly associated with Henry Venn (1796–1873), the Honorary Sec- retary of the Church Missionary Society, England (1841–1872) and Rufus Anderson (1796–1880), Secretary of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions since 1826 and corresponding secretary from 1832 to 1866. For both of them, the grand aim of missionary work was the building of a genuinely native church in the mission fields. “The native church was . . . that it should potentially be a church of the country, a church that could become self-governing, self-supporting, self-extending.”4 Though both were speaking of the ‘Three-Self principles’, they were, so to say, ‘mission administrators’ only and the realization of ‘Three-Self’ (the indigenized Christianity) had yet to be seen in the specific mission fields.

3 See e.g. Jessie Lutz & R. Ray Lutz. “Karl Gutzlaff’s Approach to Indigenization: The Chinese Union” in Daniel Bays. Christianity in China—The Eighteenth Century to the Present (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996), 269–291. 4 See e.g. Max Warren. To Apply the Gospel: Selections from the Writings of Henry Venn. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1971), 26 & 64ff; and R. Pierce Beaver, ed. To Advance the Gospel: Selections from the Writings of Rufus Anderson. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1967), 97. the other side of 1910 69

The development of indigenous Christianity in China can be seen in two sequential stages. There had been some ‘Three-Self’ movements initiated by the missionaries in the Mid-19th century in some parts of China, including the development of the First and Second Amoy Church in Xiamen, and the self-governing presbyteries under the English Presbyterian Mission in Swatow. In the second stage, there were indigenous movements started by local Chinese Christians in response to the Boxer Movement in China at the turn of the century. Regarding the first stage of development of indigenous Christianity in China, recent scholars like George Hood5 and David Cheung6 have been reporting cases of indigenous churches in China. They both tes- tified to the fact that indigenous Chinese churches had already been formed, around the same time when Henry Venn and Rufus Ander- son were formulating their ‘Three-Self’ principles. As David Cheung reported, it was by the early spring of 1856 that the adult church membership at Sinkoe Chapel (The First Amoy Church) in Xiamen, one of the five treaty ports opened for trade in South China, had reached one hundred and ten, so the missionaries started, in April, the first instance of devolution in the church by the election of Chi- nese Christians as church elders and deacons. Together with the Tek- Chhiu-kha Church (The Second Amoy Church) which was established in 1859, they ordained two Chinese pastors in 1862. By 1907, the number of independent churches in Fujian Province had grown to 34, with 4,013 church members. This signified a great move as it involved real power transfer and a real attainment of self-government in the Chinese churches.7

5 george Hood has been a missionary from Presbyterian Church of England. He went to Guangdong, China from 1945–1950 and later he served as East Asia Sec- retary for the Council for World Mission from 1972–1977 and he completed his doctoral research on Presbyterian Mission in South China at Birmingham University in 1985. See George A. Hood. Mission Accomplished? The English Presbyterian Mission in Lingtung, South China. (Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Peter Lang, 1986). 6 david Cheung (Yi Qiang Chen 陳貽強) is a Malaysian Chinese who published his doctoral dissertation in 2004. It was a research he did at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London. In his book, Cheung reported on the work of the missionaries in Amoy from 1850s to 1870s. See David Cheung. Christianity in Modern China: the Making of the First Native Protestant Church. (Leiden: Brill, 2004). 7 the devolution, as Cheung discovered, was neither due to the internal agitation on the part of the Chinese Christians, nor to the external anti-foreign pressures such as those of the 1920s in China. Indeed, it was the missionaries themselves who committed to the first act of devolution as early as in 1856. There was a remarkable absence of home mission-native church friction, hence demonstrated a peaceful and 70 chapter three

George Hood has also reported of the case of the English Pres- byterian Mission in Swatow which formed its self-governing presbytery in 1881 and ordained its first Chinese pastor in 1882.8 It finally reached self-supporting status in 1907. Their missionary leader, Rev. John Campbell Gibson had been dedicated to the cause and he was so proud of his work that in 1907, while being appointed as the Brit- ish Chair at the Centenary Missionary Conference in Shanghai, he reported to the participants that his English Presbyterians mission in Swatow had already reached the target and 80% of the costs of supporting Chinese clergy, preachers, and teachers were being met by the Chinese congregations.9 He even challenged the rest of the churches in China to achieve the completion of self-support and self-government within the coming few years. These were successful cases found in China in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.10 However, the development of independent, indigenous movements in China was not as smooth as one might think. George Hood reported that the situations in China, especially during the 1920s, were not as favourable.11 Some missionaries were reluctant to realize the fully localized Christianity they had desired. For instance, some earliest missionaries like Karl Gutzlaff had developed the fastest method for gaining Chinese converts: hiring Chinese evangelists to preach the simple gospel to their own people. But later, the missionaries found themselves being ‘cheated’ by the Chinese helpers and with the addition of a distorted interpretation of Christianity by the Taiping Rebel- lions (1850–1864), the missionaries had lost their confidence in passing on all duties to the Chinese, even their church members. Another smooth process of devolution in China. See ibid., 13–14 & p. 314. See also De Jong, Gerard F. The Reformed Church in China 1842–1951, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 69–70. 8 See George A. Hood. Op. cit., 138 & 288. 9 See Gibson, John C. Mission Problems and Mission Method in South China. (London: 1901); and Records of the Centenary Missionary Held at Shanghai, 1907. (Shanghai, Method- ist Publishing House, 1907), 18. 10 gibson was full of vigor and enthusiasm for ‘self-support’, but unfortunately his report was toned down by the Shanghai conference as being too optimistic to describe the whole picture of Chinese Churches. When it was reported at the Edinburgh conference in 1910, it was however not taken seriously by the Commission, simply because ‘that was not the case in India’. See, e.g. the report and discussion in Brian Stanley, The World Missionary Conference, Edinburgh 1910. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009), 141–146. 11 See George A. Hood. Op. cit. the other side of 1910 71 factor was that in order to gain more support from their mission board, the missionaries wanted to expand their work as much as they could. They might have been expanding their missionary enterprises to include educational and social services such as schools, clinics, hospitals and orphanage, along with the literary press, in such a way that the mission field would become so big that it could in no waybe self-supporting by native Christians, but rather become another way to justify the presence of missionary stations and to perpetuate their dependence upon foreign funding and support.12 This had been a paradoxical situation for the missionaries not only in China, but also in other countries in Asia as well.13

The Indigenous Movements between the 1910s and the 1940s Throughout nineteenth century China, the Protestant missionary movement was dominated by organized missionary societies, most of which (with the exception of the China Inland Mission) were agencies of main-line denominational churches in North America and Europe, such as the Presbyterian, Anglican (Episcopalian), Congregational, Reformed Churches, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist and others. How- ever, after 1900, there was a great increase in the local, independent missionary work done by Chinese Christians. Perhaps, Western missionaries and church historians have been paying too much attention to the development of denominational Christianity in China. It was only in more recent years that scholars began to look into the growth of Chinese indigenous Christianity around the turn of the century.14

12 See e.g. the discussions by David Cheung, op. cit., and also Jessie Lutz, “Mission- ary Attitude toward Indigenization Within an Overall Context” in Peter Chi-ping Lin, ed. Christianity and Indigenization in China. Taiwan: Cosmic Light Press, 1990, 356–381; and T.C. Chao, “Christian Faith in China’s Struggle” in Chester S. Miao, ed. Christian Voices in China. (New York: Friendship Press, 1948), 28. 13 See e.g. the reports by the Japanese representative and others at the Edinburgh Conference in World Missionary Conference, Edinburgh 1910 (Edinburgh: Oliphant, Ander- son and Ferrier, 1912), vols. 2, 349–352. 14 See e.g. Daniel Bays, ed., Christianity in China—The Eighteenth Century to the Pres- ent (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996); Jessie & R. Ray Lutz, Hakka Chinese Confront Protestant Christianity 1850–1900: with the Autobiographies of Eight Hakka Christians (Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe, 1998); and R.G. Tiedemann, “Indigenous Agency, Religious Protectorates and Chinese Interests: The Experience of Christianity in the 19th Century China”, in Dana L. Robert, ed. Converting Colonialism—Visions and Realities 72 chapter three

For instance, Daniel Bays, in one report, said: “the number of Protes- tant Christian church members grew rapidly, from 37,000 in 1889 to 178,000 in 1906.”15 He then remarked: “Yet, in retrospect, the most important feature of this period was the growth of the spirit of independence in Chinese Protestant churches. This had hardly begun in the nineteenth century, but it was a prominent theme after 1900.”16 The year 1900 was indeed a turning point for the second stage of the development of indigenous Christianity in China. It was the outburst of the Boxer Uprisings in 1900 that had given birth to a very strong, immediate desire among Chinese Christians for their independence. Chinese Christians had been accused of believing in Chris- tianity as a ‘foreign’ religion (洋教 yang jiao).17 They were criticized for being protected by Western missionaries and foreigners, and for a number of privileges over the religious court cases (教案 jiaoan).18 There was a popular saying among the Chinese in those days, admitting that ‘one more Christian implies one less Chinese’. In order to get rid of those accusations, there was a new consciousness among Chinese Christians in seeking a new form of Christianity which could be freed from the dominance of the foreign missionaries. Chinese Christians, including C.Y. Cheng and others, were seeking a new identity for themselves so that they would no longer be seen as the ‘babies’ of the Western missionaries, and the Church in China would no longer be under the control of the Western Churches, but rather be ‘the truly Chinese Church’.19 They wanted to demonstrate their

in Mission History, 1706–1914. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2008), 206–241. 15 See Daniel Bays, “The Growth of Independent Christianity” in Bays, Daniel ed., op. cit., 308. 16 See ibid. 17 “The Christian religion is the only one of the religions of foreign origin for which the Chinese reserve the designation ‘foreign religion’. The foreign taste of Christianity is perhaps too strong for the Chinese people to like it.” This was precisely the remarks by C.Y. Cheng in his “The Development of an Indigenous Church in China”, in International Review of Missions, vol. 12, (1923), 371. 18 ‘Jiaoan’ were religious incidents involving Chinese Christians or missionaries that became legal and diplomatic issues in the late 19th century China. Reports of Jiaoan can be found in Paul Cohen, China and Christianity: The Missionary Movement and the Growth of Chinese Antiforeignism, 1860–1870, (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1963); and Joseph Esherick, The Origins of the Boxer Uprising. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987). 19 it was reported that Cheng and his family had had shocking experiences during the Boxer’s uprisings which would have great impact on his desire to work for the indigenization of Chinese church in his later years. See e.g. “Dr. Cheng Ching-yi— the other side of 1910 73 independence, to be a truly independent Christianity which could be freed from foreign funds (i.e. ‘self-support’), from foreign mission direction (i.e. ‘self-government’), and from foreign preaching and theology (i.e. ‘self-propagation’). In other words, they wanted to be ‘Three-Self’.20 As early as in 1902, two years after the Boxer incident, pastor Guozhen Yu (俞國楨) and some Chinese Christians met in Shang- hai and they formed an all-Chinese Christian organization called the ‘Chinese Christian Union’ (中華基督徒會 Zhonghua jidutuhui). Realis- ing the utmost importance of the development of independent Chris- tian churches, they started a quarterly magazine in 1903, The Chinese Christian (中國基督徒報 Zhongguo Jidutubao),21 and again in 1906 Yu formed an independent, all-Chinese organisation, called the ‘Chinese Christian Independent Church’ (中華耶穌教自立會 Zhonghua Yesujiao zilihui). It was stated clearly in its constitution that the independent church was to be separated from any foreign missionary societies, in order to demonstrate to the Chinese people that they could run their own churches, hence becoming truly native and fully ‘self- governing’, ‘self-supporting’ and ‘self-propagating’. By the year 1924, there were already more than 330 member branches registered with the Zhonghua Yesujiao zilihui, with over 20,000 Christians having joined the movement.22 In 1907, the Centenary Missionary Conference was held in Shang- hai. The topic of the ‘Chinese Church’ was put high on the order of discussion.23 There had already been some suggestions regarding how to establish ‘Three-Self’, ‘independent’ Chinese churches for

Resolution—Reminiscences”, in Chinese Recorder, vol. 70, no. 12, (December 1939), 689–98. 20 it should be noted that the foreign missionaries had long been reckoning the ‘Unequal Treaties’ as guarantee and protections for all missionary activities in China. It would be extremely difficult for the missionaries to understand the feelings of the Chinese Christians who demanded a truly Chinese church independent of the foreign control. When the Chinese were asking for it, the missionaries were afraid that the Chinese were seizing power, hence they could not give up their powers. 21 there was much discussion among Chinese Christians and their opinions were all expressed in this magazine. Fortunately, a full set of the magazine (nos. 2–60, from 1904–1915) are kept in the Shanghai Municipal Archives for reference. 22 See Qi Duan: Ershi shiji chu Zhongguo Jidujiao Bensehua yundong de fazhan (The Development of Christianity and Independence Movement in the Early 20th Cen- tury), in Zhongguo Jidujiao Bensehua shigao (Historical Documents of the Indigenization of Chinese Christianity), (Taiwan: Cosmic Light Publication Press, 2005), 127–132. 23 See Centenary Conference Committee, Records of China Centenary Missionary Confer- ence. (Shanghai: Methodist Publishing House, 1907). 74 chapter three indigenous Christianity in China. Among other things, there was the proposal of uniting independent churches together and organising regional conferences in different parts of China. Thus two committees were formed, one on ‘Federation’ and the other on ‘Church Union’. The editor of the Chinese Recorder even collected some significant articles on ‘Federation and Church Union’ in the special issue of February 1910, including the contributions from Rt. Rev. Bishop F.R. Graves and Rev. C.Y. Cheng.24 Likewise, in the same year of 1910, a notable movement was started and a comparable federation of independent churches was formed in North China, again called ‘Chinese Christian Independent Church’ (with a different Chinese name—中國基督教自立會 Zhongguo Jidujiao zilihui), where Chang Po Ling was appointed President.25 The federation was composed of Chinese Christians who did not give up their allegiance to the churches of which they were already members, but they associated themselves merely for the purpose of presenting the gospel message to ‘many who were otherwise unreached’.26 The federation centred in Beijing and Tianjin, and was soon joined by independent Chinese churches from all over Shandong and Shanxi provinces, including Tsingdao (1911), Jinan (1912), and Yantai (1919). Such movements of the independent churches had laid a substantial groundwork for a series of regional conferences throughout China and hence the first national conference of the China Con- tinuation Committee in Shanghai, between 1912–1913, and the later

24 See the special issue of Chinese Recorder, vol. 41, no. 2 (February 1910). There were articles such as “The Next Step in Church Unity” (by Charles George Spar- ham, 133–150); “The Problem of Church Unity in China” (by Rt. Rev. Bishop F.R. Graves, 150–155); “What Federation can Accomplish for the Chinese Church” (by C.Y. Cheng, 155–160); and “Federation and the Baptist Problem” (by James V. Latimer, 160–164). It was against this background that C.Y. Cheng brought up this issue of “federation and church union” at the Edinburgh Conference in June 1910. 25 it should also be noted that C.Y. Cheng had been working in Beijing for two years before he attended the Edinburgh conference in 1910 and he would definitely be involved and influenced by this independence movement while serving asan assistant pastor at the Mi-shi Hutong (米市胡同) Church in Beijing. Hence, his strong appeal on behalf of the Chinese Christians at the Edinburgh conference. The formation of a ‘Chinese Christian Independent Church’ accorded with C.Y. Cheng’s impressive article which concluded: “Thus union with Christ, union of all denominations, and union of all nationalities form a three-fold cord which is not easily broken”. See C.Y. Cheng. “What Federation can Accomplish for the Chinese Church”, in Chinese Recorder, vol. 41, no. 2 (February 1910), 160. 26 See Ewing, Charles E. “The Chinese Christian Church in Tientsin (Tianjin)”, in The Chinese Recorder vol. 43, no. 5 (May 1912), 282–285. the other side of 1910 75 development of the National Church of Christ in China which was also formed by Jingyi Cheng (C.Y. Cheng) in Shanghai in 1927.27 Another dynamic, Pentecostal movement had been emerging in Beijing since 1917. The founder was Paul Wei and the movement was called the ‘True Jesus Church Movement’ (真耶穌教會 Zhen Yesu jiaohui). Paul joined a church which was run by the London Mission- ary Society in Beijing in 1902, but he felt disappointed and was later attracted to Pentecostalism. He wanted to set up his own church in Beijing, one that could be independent of any missionary societies. Wei died in 1919 and was succeeded by his son, Issac Wei, who continued his work and started ‘self-propagating’ the Christian gospel, especially the spirit of the ‘True Jesus Church’ throughout China and Taiwan. Their work was so successful that they finally reached Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia and Hawaii, with a membership of over 100,000.28 One of the charismatic figures among the Chinese churches was Mingdao Wang (王明道 1900–1991). He was a powerful preacher and teacher, and a rather stern and dogmatic man. He was also critical of the missionary work and was not happy with the Western spirit of denominationalism; he wanted to build his own church in Beijing. He started by leading evangelistic meetings at his own house and later by setting up a church called ‘The Christian Tabernacle’ (基督徒會堂 Jidutu huitang), running it in his own way.29 Whereas other ‘Three- Self’ movements emphasized the priority of ‘self-financing’ or ‘self- governing’, Wang gave more emphasis to ‘self-propagating’, especially to running evangelistic meetings at homes. Wang became a very popular and influential preacher and attracted many followers throughout China.30 Another charismatic leader was Dianying Jing (敬奠瀛 1890–1953), the founder of the ‘Jesus Family’ (耶穌家庭 Yesu jiating) which began

27 See Zhixin Wang, Zhongguo Jidujiao Shigang (Concise History of Chinese Christian- ity), (Hong Kong: Chinese Christian Literature Council, 1959), 255–257. 28 See George N. Patterson, Christianity in Communist China. (New York: Word Books, 1969), 71–73. 29 See Wing Hung Lam (林榮洪), Wang Ming Dao yu Zhongguo Jiaohui (Wang Mingdao and the Church in China), (Hong Kong: China Graduate School of Theol- ogy, 1982), 62–64. 30 See ibid., 79. 76 chapter three in Ma Zhuang of Taian County in Shandong Province.31 Jing adopted the Christian gospel and transformed it into a new form of Chinese Christianity. He began by organizing a co-op for Christian believers 『聖徒信用儲蓄社』 ( ), inviting them to live out the ideal life as Jesus taught, hence living together in a communal life under the direction of Jing as the ‘family head’ ( jiazhang). The community was later renamed the ‘Jesus Family’ (1927). The ‘Jesus Family’ was a typically indigenous Christian church which practised ‘Three-Self’. It was ‘self-propagating’, by running evangelistic meetings in the homes of families; ‘self-governing’, by running families under the leadership of a jiazhang; ‘self-financing’, by living together and sharing property in a communal life.32 The ‘Jesus Family’ propagated mainly in the province of Shandong and by the 1940s there were over a hundred of such ‘families’, with a total of several thousand members joining in these families’ communal life. There was still another form of ‘Three-Self’ group started in South China. It was founded by Tuosheng Ni (Watchman Nee, 倪柝聲 1903–1972) in Fuzhou in 1922.33 Watchman Nee was the name commonly known by the West. He was also an inspiring preacher and compelling teacher. He held Christian faith firmly to what the Bible says. As the Bible had not mentioned anything about denominational churches, Nee was critical of the practice of denominational churches in the West, and thought they were ‘unbiblical’. He preferred the Bib- lical way of addressing churches by their localities, such as the ‘Church of Jerusalem’, the ‘Church of Ephesus’ and the ‘Church of Corinth’. He did not give any names for the churches he established, but simply called them by their localities. However, these Christian groups were later called by others as ‘Assembly Halls’ (聚會處/聚會所 Juhuichu or Juhuisuo) or ‘Little Flock’ (小群 Xiaoqun).34 The more significant fact

31 One of my Ph.D. students at the Chinese University of Hong Kong had written his doctoral dissertation on Jesus Family, which was awarded by the CU Press as “The Best Dissertation of the Year”. See Feiya Tao (陶飛亞), Zhongguo de Jidu- jiao Wutuobang—Jesu jiating (1921–1952) ( Jesus Family—An Utopia in China), (Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 2004). 32 See ibid., ch. 4. 33 See Shi Jie Cha, (查時傑), “Ni Tuosheng”, in Zhongguo Jidujiao Renwu xiaochuan (Biographies of Christian Characters in China), (Taipei: China Evangelical Seminary Press, 1983), 305–340. 34 See Chung Tao Chan (ed.), Wode koufu Ni Tuocheng (My Uncle Ni Tuosheng), (Hong Kong: The Alliance Press, 1970); and Shun Kin Lee, “Ni Tuosheng shengping jianshu” (A Brief Sketch of Ni Tuosheng), Ching Feng, vol. 61 (1979). the other side of 1910 77 was that these Christian groups were found to be so popular throughout China that there were more than 700 churches built, with over 70,000 followers recruited in the 1940s. All these activities signified the great concern and desire among the Chinese Christians in attempting to establish an independent, indigenous Christianity in China in the early twentieth century. Whereas the Western missionaries were mostly concerned with ‘self-financing’ by the native Christians, the Chinese Christians were attempting ‘self- propagating’ and ‘self-governing’ as key elements for the development of independent, indigenous churches. There were groups of Chinese Christians such as Mingdao Wang, Dianying Jing and Tuosheng Ni and others who wanted to realize independence by ‘self-propagation’. Their work was so successful that the growth of Chinese Christianity was phenomenal and obvious in the early twentieth century. There were also some Chinese Christians such as Guozhen Yu and others who made great efforts to develop ‘self-governing’ Chinese churches, to save Christianity from being seen as a ‘foreign religion’, to distinguish Chinese Christianity from its ‘Western’ faces or from being under the direction of Western countries, and most important of all, to make it clear that Christianity had nothing to do with ‘Western imperialism’. In order that Christianity might appeal to the minds and hearts of the Chinese people and win their growing national consciousness for the service of Christ, it was of utmost importance for these indigenous churches to be so developed that the Chinese themselves would recognize them as having become truly native. There are some statistics that are worth citing for reference here. Recorded, between 1910 and 1920, the number of missionaries grew from 5,144 to 6,204, with a 20% increase, whereas the number of Christian believers grew to almost double the number in 1910, from around 180,000 to 366,524.35 Since the Anti-Christian Movements had launched a serious attack on the missionary work in the 1920s, the number of missionaries dropped to 4,375 by 1928, yet, on the contrary, the number of Christian believers continued to rise to 446,631 in 1928, of which more than 200,000 (45%) were members affiliated to the Chinese Christian independent churches. And there were 536,089

35 See the report by Jonathan Chao: “Cong Zhongguo Jiaohui kan jiaohui zengchang” (Seeing Church Growth from the development of Chinese Church) in Peter Chi Ping Lin, ed., Jidujiao yu xiandai Zhongguo lunwenji (Essays on Christianity and Modern China). (Taiwan: Cosmic Light Publication, 1981), 350–362. 78 chapter three and 834,909 Christian believers recorded in 1936 and 1949 respectively.36 Obviously, Western missionaries had done much good work and laid substantial foundation for the subsequent growth of Chris- tianity in China, but the drastic growth in the number of Christians in the early twentieth century witnesses to the significant effort made by the various indigenous Christian groups and Chinese churches, and the Chinese Christians who had worked so hard for ‘self-propagation’ throughout the years.37 The development of indigenous Christianity in China since the 1950s has turned out to be another ‘mystery’ and a ‘miracle’ to many scholars, too. ‘Christianity Fever’ was the term used by many scholars in describing the situations in China since the 1980s. According to the official statistics, there were ten million Protestants in 1999, fifteen million in 2003, and by the year 2009, the Protestant population rose up to sixteen million.38 Yet, we understand that these government figures are normally regarded as very conservative, since these figures do not include the number of ‘house church’ Christians and those who are not registered with the Three-Self Patriotic Movement. The number of Christians who belonged to these so-called ‘underground churches’ may reach eighty millions as it was told elsewhere. Of course, it would be rather safe to take the mean, which is forty-five million. Some may suggest an estimate ranging from two to five times the official figures, which is roughly this same number.39 Though it is difficult to arrive at an exact figure, more significantly is the fact that there were only 800,000 Protestants in China in 1949, and the growth of the Christian

36 Ibid. 37 there were also other great evangelists in those years such as Meiyu Shi (Mary Stone 1873–1954), Shangjie Song ( John Sung 1901–44) and Chonggui Chen (Marcus Cheng 1884–1964). See, for reference, Daniel Bays (ed.), Christianity in China—The Eighteenth Century to the Present (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996), 314–5. 38 The official figure was sixteen million by 2009. See “White Paper—Freedom of Religious Belief in China”, from http://www.china-embassy.org/Press/wpreligi .htm. The statement was restated by Xiaowen Ye (葉小文), the Director of the State Bureau of Religious Affairs during his interview by the editor of The Outlook in 1999. See Zhongguo zongjiao zhuangkuang yu zongjiao zhengce (The Religious Situation and Reli- gious Policy in China: An Interview with Xiaowen Ye, the Director of State Bureau of Religious Affairs), in Liao Wang (The Outlook), Vol. 21, (1999), 18–22. 39 See the discussion in Peter Tze Ming Ng. “From Ideological Marxism to Moder- ate Pragmatism—Religious Policy in China in the Turn of the Century” in Chung Ming Lau et al., ed., China Review 2000, (Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, 2000), 405–422. the other side of 1910 79 population in the communist China is more than 50 times that figure. Who had made such tremendous effort to push for the growth of Christianity in China in the past sixty years? It was definitely not the work of foreign missionaries, as most of the missionaries had already left China shortly after 1949. Has the Chinese government done anything to promote Christianity in China? Certainly the communist government had no such intention to propagate Christianity by any means. It must, then, be the work of Chinese Christians who had truly committed themselves to the ‘Three-Self’ principle, especially ‘self-propagation’ and those who bore witnesses to the Christian gospel even in times of suffering or persecution. Hence we need to re-visit the history of Chinese Christianity again and look closer to make better sense of the development of the independent, indigenous Christianity in this second century of Christianity in China.

The Quest for Indigenous Christianity With this understanding of the development of indigenous movements in China as a background, especially those efforts made by Chinese Christians since 1900, we now turn to what C.Y. Cheng had spoken about and did after the Edinburgh Conference in 1910. Cheng was one of the three Chinese delegates attending the 1910 Edinburgh Conference. He made two speeches at the conference. One speech was made at the debate of Commission II on ‘The Church in the Mission Field’ and the other was at the debate of Commission VIII on ‘Co-operation and the Promotion of Unity’.40 In his first speech, he began by saying: “The (urgent) problem in China is the independence of the Chinese Church.”41 Cheng must have bore in his mind the pressing situations in China when he made such a statement.42 He then explained to the participants: “Some of our friends are a little afraid of the Chinese Church movement. They are afraid of the inability of the Chinese Christians to accomplish that which they have started, and they are also afraid that the Christian Church in China

40 for reference, see “Report of Commission II” and “Report of Commission VIII”, in World Missionary Conference, Edinburgh 1910 (Edinburgh: Oliphant, Anderson and Ferrier, 1912), vols. 2 & 8, 352–353 & 195–197 respectively. 41 See “Report of Commission II”, vol. 2, 352. 42 See the discussion above, esp. the remarks in footnote no. 26. 80 chapter three is still too young, and weak, and feeble, and cannot undertake such a great responsibility. Speaking frankly, we are both weak and poor, but experience shows that out of deep poverty Christian liberality may abound, and again the feebleness of the Chinese Christians will not be a hindrance in the way.”43 He continued to say: “The controlling power of the Christian Church in China has largely been in the hands of foreign missionaries and there is no doubt that it should have been so in the days gone by, but the time has come when every Chinese Christian should realise and undertake this responsibility, when they should know what it means to be a Christian and his relation to the Church.”44 Hence, he made a strong appeal at the conference for support to the development of indigenous Churches in China, saying: “I hope with all sincerity that this Conference will recommend and take measures towards helping the Chinese Church movement.”45 In his second speech, Cheng re-stated: “As a representative of the Chinese Church, I speak entirely from the Chinese standpoint. We may, or we may not all agree, but I feel it my duty to present before you the mind of the Chinese Church as frankly as possible. (Again, he had bore in mind the pressing situations of China in his time) . . . The Christian federation movement occupies a chief place in the hearts of our leading Christian men in China, and they welcome every effort that is made towards that end . . . Speaking plainly we hope to see, in the near future, a united Christian Church without any denominational distinctions. This may seem somewhat peculiar to some of you, but, friends, do not forget to view us from our stand-point, and if you

43 Ibid. 44 Op. cit. p. 353. 45 Ibid. John C. Gibson, who was an active leader in both the Shanghai (1907) and the Edinburgh (1910) conferences, had also the following remarks: “The time is well within the memory of working missionaries when we had to labour with the Home Church and persuade it to believe that there was such a thing as the Chinese Church in existence . . . It was now beyond doubt that the Chinese Church was an important adjunct to the Christian Missions in China.” He also recalled: “When the Centenary Conference of 1907 met, the minds of missionaries were fully prepared for this recognition. The organizers of the conference touched the core of the matter when in drawing up the programme. They set down as the first topic: “The Chinese Church”, and appointed a representative Committee to deal with it and allotted to it the whole of the first day of the Conference work . . . It was impossible that the Chinese Church should any longer fail to be recognised as holding the foremost place among the forces which are now creating a Christian China.” See J.C. Gibson, “The Part of the Chinese Church in Mission Administration”, in Chinese Recorder, vol. 43, no. 6 ( June 1912), 347–349. the other side of 1910 81 fail to do that, the Chinese will remain always as a mysterious people to you.”46 Indeed, while the missionaries were thinking of ‘unity as a means to the end of co-operation in mission’, Cheng was saying that ‘Christian unity—a united (Chinese) Christian Church’ should be the end of mission work in China.47 Moreover, while the missionaries were mostly concerned with ‘unity and co-operation among the denominations and various mission boards’, Cheng told at the conference that Chinese Christians were more concerned with the development of a united Christian Church freed from Western denominationalism. For the Christian churches to co-operate and to unite in China, they need to put aside the spirit of denominationalism. As Cheng asserted, “denominationalism has never interested the Chinese mind. He finds no delight in it, but sometimes he suffers for it”.48 The phrase, ‘Your denominationalism does not interest Chinese Christians’, has been often repeated and quoted.49 Cheng was indeed courageous in making such a statement in front of the missionary board members a century ago. Rev. Nelson Bitton, another representative of London Missionary Society from China, also spoke on the pressing situations in China. He reported that “There is already a movement from the Church, not because those who are taking part in it are in any way opposed to Christianity, but because they feel that the foreign connections of the missionary churches in China are opposed to the highest interests of their land.”50 He echoed Cheng’s appeal, saying: “I, too, would hope . . . that one of the results of this conference will be such a definite action and practice on the part of the missionary Church in China as shall make for the helping forward of the indigenous Church of that land.” He then added: “There are two things that seem to me need to be specially done. We have to give proof of the validity of our expressions of sympathy . . . There is as great a capacity not only for government but for an appreciation of the essentials of Christian

46 See “Report of Commission VIII”, vol. 8, 196. Cheng was repeating the same statement he made in his previous article, see C.Y. Cheng. “What Federation can Accomplish for the Chinese Church”, in Chinese Recorder, vol. 41, no. 2 (February 1910), 157. 47 See also Brian Stanley The World Missionary Conference, Edinburgh 1910, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009), 277–9. 48 Ibid. 49 See e.g. Chinese Recorder, vol. 70, no. 12, (December 1939), 689. 50 See “Report of Commission II”, vol. 2, 351. 82 chapter three doctrine in the Chinese (mind) . . . Another thing that seems to me to stand in the way is our denominationalism. I am not here to say that we have to un-denominationalize ourselves. We have to see that we do not make it part of our business to denominationalize the churches we are endeavouring to institute.”51 It is amazing that Rev. Bitton could envision the possibility of a separation of Western denominationalism from the missionary endeavour in China, and thus he could fully support what Cheng was trying to express on behalf of the Christian Churches in China. Though Cheng’s address was judged as ‘without question the best speech’ made at the conference, his words and his appeal were not taken with much seriousness.52 The Commission on ‘The Church in the Mission Field’ (Commission II), which had been put high in order of proceedings, began its discussion on the Church in the mission field, yet ended up by laying more emphasis on the questions of “organisation, church membership, discipline, and edification, the training and employment of workers, the development of new life within the Church, in character and spiritual fruitfulness and its deepening and strengthening by means of an adequate Christian literature in all its departments”.53 Consequently, there was not any room left for the discussion on issues towards helping church independence; instead, the churches in the mission fields were brought back into ‘a new dependence on the guidance and help of the foreigners’. Some missionaries kept reporting that the native converts in the mission field could not meet the moral standards set by the missionaries so they could not be entrusted. There was a consensus among the missionaries that the churches in the mission fields still needed the ‘correction, suggestion, illumination and guidance’ of the foreign missionaries. Hence, the development of indigenous Christian churches in China would still be a long, long way to go. One of the proposals made by the Edinburgh Conference was to cultivate better co-operation and unity among all of the Protestant denominations, hence there was the proposal to set up Continuation Committees in various mission fields, with the aim to promote inter-denominational co-operation on the national level.

51 Op. cit., 351–352. 52 the Boston Missionary Herald had so judged. See Missionary Herald (Boston), issue 106 (1910), 354, as reported by Brian Stanley, The World Missionary Conference, Edinburgh 1910. (Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.), 108. 53 See the Introduction at the “Report of Commission II”, vol. 2, 3. the other side of 1910 83

However, there was no proposal to build bridges between Western denominational churches and the Chinese indigenous Christianity.54 Nonetheless, Cheng was not frustrated with the result of the Edin- burgh Conference. After the Conference, he returned to China and continued to work for the development of a united Chinese Christian church, as he had envisioned. The Centenary Missionary Conference of Shanghai in 1907 had already made possible a series of conferences to be held in China in 1912 and 1913, Cheng committed himself to make the conferences a really joint venture for Chinese Christians and foreign missionaries.55 As he was also appointed by the Edin- burgh Conference to be one member of the Continuation Committee, Cheng managed to work for both wings. Thus, with the strong support from John R. Mott and the China Continuation Committee, he trav- elled widely in China and worked to promote inter-denominational co-operation amongst denominational churches. Yet, besides working for inter-denominational co-operation on the national level, he also worked to co-ordinate with Chinese Christians and helped independent churches to attain the goals of ‘self-management, self-support and self-propagation’, and promoted the idea of federation as a first step towards the union among the Chinese Christian churches. As a result of his diligent work, five regional conferences were held in Canton (South China), Shanghai (including Chekiang, Kiangsu, and Anwei), Tsinanfu (Shantung), Beijing (North China), and Hankow (Central China) respectively and a national conference was held in Shang- hai by March 1913 as its climax. According to the report by Rev. G.H. Bondfield, all the conferences were remarkable in the following features: a. There were significant numbers of Chinese delegates participating at the various conferences, and the Chinese churches were strongly represented;

54 See e.g. World Missionary Conference 1910, Report of Commission I, (Edinburgh: Oliph- ant, Anderson and Ferrier, 1910), 326. 55 When giving a report on the conferences in China held in 1912 & 1913, Bondfield admitted that the conferences were made possible only by the Shanghai conference of 1907. For reference, see “The Continuation Committee Conferences in China: I. The National Conference (by G.H. Bondfield); II. A Chinese View of the Conferences (by C.Y. Cheng)” in International Review of Missions, vol. 2, 1913, 501–512. 84 chapter three b. a full measure of responsible committee work was placed upon the Chinese, and their relation to the foreign missionary was shown to be an actual and active partnership; c. the Chinese views were heard; individual opinions were frankly expressed and the utmost good feeling prevailed.56

“Every foreign delegate must have felt that nothing could have been more opportune than such a conference; for to some of our ablest leaders it had seemed that we were rapidly approaching a serious crisis in the history of the Christian Church in China. The spirit of independence and the desire for self-control have been making themselves felt in many ways . . . and the demand for independence and self- government has grown more insistent.”57 In giving his report from the Chinese view, Cheng added: “It is not too much to say that in the history of the Christian enterprise in China never before has such a representative body of both missionaries and Chinese workers sat together in discussing matters concerning the whole work, and in exchanging ideas as to methods and plans which would help forward the Christian cause more speedily and more effectively . . . These conferences helped the Chinese workers to see more clearly that they are working with, not for, their missionary friends . . . The recent conferences held in China have given an illustration of such a friendship and partnership.”58 Indeed, Cheng had done much groundwork for these achievements. As a result, there were some important resolutions passed at the national conference in Shanghai, such as:

1. in the formation of the China Continuation Committee set forward by the Continuation Committee of the Edinburgh Conference of 1910, and in order to co-ordinate also with the Chinese independent churches, it was decided to appoint two secretaries—one foreign and the other Chinese. Hence, Rev. E.C. Lobenstine & Rev. C.Y. Cheng were chosen for the job. The China Continuation Committee was

56 See ibid., 502. John Campbell Gibson had also the following remarks: “We know now and never before that the Chinese Church is richly gifted in its leaders, such men do not need to plead with us to ‘give’ the control of their church life. It is theirs already by the gift of God, and these conferences have knitted together in mutual respect the Chinese and the foreign labourers”. In Chinese Recorder, 1913 (April), 197–199. 57 Ibid., 502–503. 58 Ibid., 508. the other side of 1910 85

also composed of an equal number of Chinese and foreign members and Chinese soon became the primary language of its meetings.59 In the constitution of the China Continuation Committee, it set its aims ‘to promote co-operation and co-ordination among the Christian forces of China’ and ‘to serve as a means by which Christian forces in China may express themselves unitedly when they so desire’;60 2. the Shanghai conference had gone beyond its concern for co- operation and unity among denominational churches and missionary societies. It actually recommended all denominational and independent churches in China to use the common name—“The Christian Church in China” (中華基督教會 Zhonghua Jidujiaohui);61 3. for the purpose of unity, it further proposed that the China Con- tinuation Committee should consider: a. the question of uniform terms for use in Christian churches; b. that a (Chinese) hymn book for common use, and a (Chinese) book of prayers for voluntary use in public worship, be prepared; c. that provision be made for the publication of a China Church Year Book.62

When the China Continuation Committee first met in 1913, it was attended by 1100 representatives, and one third were Chinese; but because of Cheng’s work amongst the independent Chinese churches, when it was held again in 1922, the number of Chinese representatives went up to more than one half of the total number in attendance. At the second meeting, Cheng proposed to broaden the work of the committee and renamed it the National Christian Council (NCC, 中國基督教協會 Zhongguo Jidujiao xiehui).63 It was so accepted. Hence,

59 See e.g. A.L. Warnshuis, “The Missionary Significance of the Last Ten Years: A Survey. I. China” in International Review of Missions, vol. 11, 1922, 24. 60 See World Missionary Conference Continuation Committee, The Continuation Committee Conferences in Asia, 1912–1913, 349–350. 61 Some denominational churches and inter-denominational Christian organizations have already made such changes, such as ‘The Chinese Anglican Church’ (中華聖公會 Chunghua Sheng Kung Hui) in 1912; ‘The Chinese YMCA’ (中國基督教青年會) in 1915; ‘The Chinese Lutheran Church’ (中華信義會) in 1917; and ‘The Chinese Presbyterian Church’ (中華基督教長老會) in 1918. 62 See ibid. 328–329. 63 the editor of Chinese Recorder hence had the following remarks, saying: “Has the Christian movement in China during 1922 found a new pivot? Yes! The transfer from missions and Western Christians as a pivot to the Chinese Church and Chinese 86 chapter three the NCC was formed and Cheng was appointed as the General Sec- retary. Besides that, Cheng worked for the formation of the Church of Christ in China (CCC, 中華基督教聯會 Zhonghua Jidujiao linhui) which was in operation in 1927. The CCC soon became the largest Protestant Church in China, representing close to a quarter of China’s Protestant churches, including members from both the denominational and independent churches. In short, Cheng had successfully accomplished the work of the China Continuation Committee, in the promotion of co-operation and unity among denominational churches, and more than that, he had also realized his vision regarding the accomplishment of ‘Three-Self’ and the federation of Christian churches in China. The federation of Christian churches in China was formed for the sake of unity among the Christian forces in China, while at the same time maintaining co-operative links with the missionaries. Cheng understood so well the situation in China, and envisioned her need not only to pursuit co-operation among denominational churches, but also for the development of indigenous, independent Christian churches in China. Despite the fact of his young age and being a Manchu working amongst the Han people, Cheng had demonstrated his great leadership in working among foreign missionaries and Chinese Christians, and in co-ordinating them towards the unified Christian Church in China. Cheng was indeed a great man and a great prophet of his time. It was no doubt that much of Cheng’s speech and work remained of immediate relevance and the issues he perceived as important in 1910 were still found central to the development of Christianity in China throughout the past century. In 1923, Cheng wrote an article for the International Review of Mis- sions, entitled: ‘The Development of an Indigenous Church in China’.64 He explained again, saying: “an indigenous Church means nothing more or less than the power of the Christian Church to adapt itself to the people of China, and to be able freely and fully to express itself and determine its work . . . In order to become healthy and vigorous,

Christians has been made. The Survey and Commission reports are set up mainly in terms of missions and the contributions of Western Christians. The outlook of the National Christian Conference and the National Christian Council, however, together with their programme are painted in colours of the Chinese Church and Chinese Christians.” See “The Christian Movement in China during 1922—the Editor’s Out- look”, in Chinese Recorder, vol. 54 (1923), 8. 64 See C.Y. Cheng, “The Development of an Indigenous Church in China” in International Review of Missions, vol. 12, 1923, 368–388. the other side of 1910 87 the (Chinese) Church must first of all be delivered from depending upon others for its ideas and for help and must resist tendency to become a mere imitator of other people.”65 When addressing ‘The Strengths and Weaknesses of the Chinese Church’ at the National Council of Churches conference in Shanghai in 1922, T.C. Chao (趙紫宸), a famous Chinese theologian echoed C.Y. Cheng with this remark, saying: “The (Chinese) Church is weak because she is still foreign, both in thought and form, and is divided, by Western denominationalism.”66 He mentioned two significant factors hindering the development of indigenous Christian movement in China. Firstly, Christianity was still seen a ‘foreign’ religion (i.e. World Christianity had not yet been localized or become an indigenous Christianity in China). It turned out rather to be ‘Western Chris- tianity’ in the eyes of the Chinese, and Western Christianity was not global, but simply a particularized form of Christianity in the West. The Western form of church life was found ‘foreign’ and could not become indigenized Christianity on the Chinese soil. For Christianity to become indigenized, it had to take roots in China. As one Chinese historian says: The word ‘indigenous’ (pen-se) essentially has the meaning of ‘home- grown’, but since Christianity has been imported from the West, how is it possible to become a product of China? (He then told the story of growing peanut in China and compared Christianity to the peanut.) The peanut, which we eat today, was at first called ‘Eastern peanut’ (because the seeds originated in the West, but were sown and grown in the East). After only twenty years, there is no one around now who refers to it as ‘Eastern peanut’. In the same way Christianity will be sown and sprout on Chinese soil, and over time all of its Western features will be removed by natural selection. It will grow by absorbing the new nutrients provided by the Chinese soil and become a product ‘home-grown’ in China that is precisely what is meant by the word ‘indigenized’.67

65 See ibid. 370 & 382. In another article, he continued to say: “We must not think of Christianity in China being ‘indigenous’ in the sense that it is to become exclusively Chinese.” See C.Y. Cheng. “Some Considerations Regarding the Indig- enous Church”, in Wen She Monthly, vol. 1, no. 1, October 1925, 9–10. The article was immediately translated into English. See D. Willard Lyon. “Dr. C.Y. Cheng’s Thoughts on the Indigenization of Chinese Church”, in Chinese Recorder, vol. 56, no. 12, (December 1925), 814–819. 66 See T.C. Chao. “On the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Chinese Church”, in Life Monthly, vol. 3, no. 5, January 1923, 1–8. 67 See Zhixin Wang. “The Indigenous Church and Indigenous Christian Writing” in Wen She Monthly, vol. 1, no. 6, March 1926, 21–34. 88 chapter three

We may recall another Chinese theologian and educator, Francis C.M. Wei, who was the first Chinese president of Central China University in Wuhan (1929–1952), and the first Henry W. Luce Visiting Professor of World Christianity.68 In his opening lecture at Union Theological Seminary in New York in 1945, he expounded the concept of ‘World Christianity’ and its relationship with Chinese culture.69 He made a distinction between ‘World Christianity’ and ‘Western Christianity’, saying that the latter was but one form of expressions of the World Christianity. He also criticized the non-global aspects of Western Christianity such as ‘the spirit of denominationalism’. Wei also said that in order to realize the truth of Christianity as a world religion, she needed to seek expressions in different cultures and by different peoples of the world. Hence, his suggestion was that, rather than seeking to conquer the non-Christian world, Christian missionaries should seek help from the non-Christian peoples by inviting them to join as partners in the worldwide Christian movement.70 Now, we should be in a much better position to understand that World Christianity can be separated from Western denominationalism. Western Christianity was just another form of localized Chris- tianity, like African Christianity and Asian Christianity; and they all belong to the bigger family of World Christianity.71

Concluding Remarks

Christianity has been preached to the world and it became localized and indigenized in different parts of the world, hence there are ‘Euro- pean Christianity’, ‘American Christianity’, ‘Asian Christianity’; they

68 Wei’s series of lectures in the United States was later published by the Scribner’s Press. See Francis Wei, The Spirit of Chinese Culture, (New York: Scribner Press, 1947). 69 the topic of his presentation was ‘Rooting the Christian Church in Chinese Soil’, the translation was found in Dr. Francis C.M. Wei’s Writings on Education, Culture, and Religion (Taipei: Hua Zhong Da Xue Wei Zhuomin Ji Nian Guan, 1980), 115–138. 70 for reference, see also the discussion in Peter Tze Ming Ng, “ ‘Globalization’ as a Key to the Interplay between Christianity and Asian Cultures: The Vision of Francis Wei in Early Twentieth Century China”, International Journal of Public Theology, (Leiden: Brill Publishing Co., vol. 1, 2007), 104–115. 71 Interestingly, the idea was found also in Cheng’s article where he says, “The Church in the West is not complete without that of the East . . . Each is incomplete without the other.” See C.Y. Cheng, “The Development of an Indigenous Church in China” in International Review of Missions, vol. 12, (1923), 386. the other side of 1910 89 are all but ‘parts of World Christianity’ and are ‘indigenous Christi- anities of specific localities’. Hence, World Christianity has to find its expression in all cultures, and it would be unhealthy for any Church in the mission field to stay forever as a ‘baby’ and be forever dependent upon its ‘mother church’ or ‘home church’. C.Y. Cheng was right in reminding us of the situation in China and the urgent need of Chinese Christians in his days. China has had the urgent need to be indigenized, and to develop a united Christian Church of its own. Indeed, a paper read at the 1877 General Confer- ence of the Protestant Missionaries in China had already voiced out the case as follows: Missionaries from abroad will always labor under the disadvantage of being foreigners . . .; and that Christianity may become really a power in China, it must become indigenous. . . . It is only when Christianity thus takes root in the soil of China that it can grow up into a tree that shall fill the land.72 John Campbell Gibson, Nelson Bitton and other missionaries who had their first hand experiences in China have had great sympathy and expressed their concern at the 1910 Edinburgh conference but they, too, regretted that the conference could not help the situation in China. It was indeed with great courage that David Paton responded to the situation in China in the early 1950s, claiming that ‘the end of the missionary era was the will of God’.73 Chinese Christians had undergone much suffering in the past century, and it was with great difficulty and patience for them to wait for the growth and development of indigenous Christianity in China. Again we are reminded of Cheng’s lovely story which he told at the 1910 conference, saying:

72 See W.M. McGregor, “The Training of a Native Agency” in Records of the Gen- eral Conference of the Protestant Missionaries of China held at Shanghai, 10–24 May, 1877, (Shanghai: Presbyterian Mission Pres, 1878), 453; also recalled by Gary Tiedeman in “Indigenous Agency, Religious Protectorates and Chinese Interests: The Experience of Christianity in the 19th Century China”, in Dana L. Robert (ed.) Converting Colo- nialism—Visions and Realities in Mission History, 1706–1914. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2008), 230. 73 See David Paton, op. cit., 82. As a matter of fact, most of the churches in the mission field had already become ‘independent churches’ and had to develop their indigenous Christianities in the latter part of the 20th century. 90 chapter three

A little girl once was carrying a little boy on her back. Some one said to her, ‘I see you have a big burden, haven’t you?’ ‘No’, replied the little girl, ‘that is not a burden; that is my brother’.74 Cheng had astonished many by saying that the formation of a united Christian church should be viewed as ‘a joy, not a burden’. And indeed, Chinese Christians have been taking up the task of indigenization as ‘(their) privilege, (their) joy, and not (their) burden’.75 May I end this chapter here by recalling Cheng’s appeal at the same conference a century ago, which says: “I hope with all sincerity that this conference will recommend and take measures towards helping the Chinese Church movement.”76

74 See “Report of Commission II”, vol. 2, 352. 75 See ibid. 76 See ibid., 353. chapter four

Christian Higher Education in China: A Global-local View

Introduction—The Concept of Globalization

In a recent article, ‘The First Globalization: The Internationalization of the Protestant Missionary Movement between the World Wars’, an eminent American historian of Christian mission, Dana L. Robert, reminded us that the Christian missionary movement could well be seen as ‘the first globalization’.1 Christian missionaries were amongst the first group of people who attempted their global mission in spreading the Christian gospel and Christian culture to the whole world, or in their own terminology, ‘the evangelization of the whole world’.2 They were also among the first people who received challenges and strong resistance in local contexts where the Christian gospel was brought. They were even condemned as ‘tools of Western imperialism’ by some Chinese intellectuals early in the twentieth century.3 Indeed, the history of World Christianity would exhibit a vivid interplay between the missionaries’ spreading of Christianity as the promoter of a globalization process and the indigenization of Christian faith as the localization

1 Dana Robert suggested that the Anglo-American Protestant missionary between the two World Wars contributed to what then labeled as ‘internationalization’ and which can be seen today as an early form of globalization. By ‘globalization’, she referred to ‘the global vision’ which was intrinsic to Christianity—one world, one kingdom of God under Jesus Christ. Such globalization view has been the motive and purpose behind much missionary fervor. For reference, see Dana Robert. “The First Globalization: The Internationalization of the Protestant Missionary Movement Between the World Wars”, in International Bulletin of Missionary Research vol. 26, no. 2, 2002, 50–67. 2 The motto was ‘evangelization of the whole world in this generation’, see Robert Wider, The Great Commission—The Missionary Response of the Student Volunteer Movements in North America and Europe: Some Personal Reminiscences. (London: Oliphant, 1936), quoted from K.S. Latourette, Christianity in a Revolutionary Age: A History of Christianity in the 19th and 20th Centuries. vol. 5. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1962), 504. 3 See for reference, Kai-yuan Zhang & Peter Tze Ming Ng. “Recent Development in Research on the History of Christian Higher Education in Mainland China—the Chinese Experience”, in Newsletter for Modern Chinese History, the Journal of the Institute of Modern History Academia Sinica (Taiwan), vol. 15, 1993, 118–128. 92 chapter four process in response to globalization. The two processes would complement one another and result in a richer and fuller picture for both, i.e. a broader field of Christian expansion and the localized field of regional responses.4 In this chapter, I shall attempt to look at the missionaries’ propagation of Christianity as a promoter of a globalization process and focus on the interplay between it and the indigenization of Christian faith as a local response to globalization. There is a tension between the top-down vision of Christian evangelism (i.e. ‘globalization’) and the opposing forces of nationalism from the local contexts where the gospel was spread, hence the interactions in both directions between globalization and localization. Traditionally, ‘indigenization’ was the term used to describe such phenomena in most cultures to which Christi- anity was spread. Modern scholars like Dana Robert, however, would reckon the fact that the processes of ‘internationalization’ (globalization) and ‘indigenization’ (localization) were but two sides of the same coin.5 I shall proceed to use Christian higher education in China as a case study to demonstrate that such modern conceptions of globalization would indeed enlighten us to see history in quite a different way. It can broaden our perspectives on the study of Christian missionary movements, and these missionary experiences will, in turn, help us to understand better some of the crucial issues we are presently facing in the process of globalization. Though I have limited my scope to the study of Christian higher education in China, I trust that the same would apply to experiences in other fields of missionary enterprise and that parallel experiences would be found in other Asian countries as well.6 It would perhaps be worthwhile to explore such Christian experiences in other missionary ventures and to compare and contrast those found in other Asian countries from the perspective of globalization. In this study, I shall refer to an article by Peter Beyer while I am taking Christian higher education in China as my working case.

4 See, for example, Peter Tze Ming Ng, Quanqiu diyuhua shijiaoxiade Zhongguo Jidujiao Daxue (Christian Higher Education in China—As Seen from the Perspective of Glo- calization). (Taiwan: Cosmic Light Publication Ltd., 2006). 5 see Dana Robert, op. cit., 50–52. 6 for instance, Dana Robert mentioned also the International Christian Student Movements such as YMCA and World’s Student Christian Federation (WSCF) which promoted the vision of Christian internationalism and such movements were found, not only in China, Japan and India, but also in some parts of Africa. See ibid., 50. christian higher education in china 93

What Does “Christian Higher Education in China” Refer To?

Christian missionaries established many educational institutions in China, which eventually acquired the status of colleges or universities. These institutions were situated in the major cities. Here I am referring especially to the thirteen Protestant universities which are well known in the missionary history of China. They were:

1. Yenching University in Peking (Beijing) 2. Shangtung Christian University (Cheeloo Daxue) in Jinan 3. University of Nanking ( Jinling Daxue) in Nanking (Nanjing) 4. Ginling Women’s College in Nanking (Nanjing) 5. University of Shanghai (Kujiang Daxue) in Shanghai 6. St. John’s University in Shanghai 7. Hangchow University in Hangchow (Hangzhou) 8. Soochow University (Dongwu Daxue) in Soochow (Suzhou) 9. Central China University (Huazhong Daxue) in Wuhan 10. West China Union University (Huaxi Xiehe Daxue) at Chengdu 11. Fukien Christian University in Foochow (Fuzhou) 12. South China Women’s University (Huanan nuzi daxue) in Foochow (Fuzhou) 13. Lingnan University in Canton (Guangzhou)

Most of these universities were founded in the early twentieth century, but were forced to close down after the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950.7 Their history is of great significance to the study of Christianity in China. From the 1950s until the beginning of the 1980s, Christian higher education was widely perceived in China as a manifestation of Western imperialism. Not until the last couple of decades have Chi- nese scholars attempted to view this chapter of history from other alternative perspectives.8 In 1989 I became involved in this field of study and started to interpret it in terms of the well-known ‘Impact- Response Paradigm’ which had been proposed by an American historian, John Fairbank, in the 1950s. This paradigm described missionary activities in China as a momentum that had made such a great impact on Chinese society that the subsequent transformation of China could

7 For a comprehensive study of these Christian colleges and universities, see Jessie Lutz, China and Christian Colleges 1850–1950 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1971). 8 See e.g. Kai-yuan Zhang & Peter Tze Ming Ng, op. cit., 118–128. 94 chapter four be seen as China’s response to it.9 I soon discovered that the ‘Impact- Response Paradigm’ could be better studied in a vice versa way, as I have discussed in my recent book, The Changing Paradigms of Christian Higher Education in China.10 In this study, Christian higher education in China is analyzed as an attempt by Western missionaries to offer Christian education in China. However, cultural and social upheav- als in China profoundly influenced the shape of these endeavours. In order to respond to events in China, the missionaries and their Chinese co-workers kept revising and accommodating their education policies and objectives. The subsequent development of these Chris- tian universities can thus be seen as a response of Christian education to growing Chinese concerns. This changing paradigm suggests some inter-connected relationships between Christian education, the means by which the missionaries pushed forth the process of globalization (‘the evangelization of the whole world’), and Chinese society which provided the local context for the implementation and development of Christian education in China. Accordingly, I have found the concept of globalization a very useful tool for my study of Christian higher education in China.

Historical Christianity and The Process of Globalization

Peter Beyer, a Canadian sociologist of religion, has recently raised the question of how any religion, including Christianity, can be thought of as a singular identity in a global world. In his article, ‘De-centering Religious Singularity: the Globalization of Christianity as a Case in Point’, he attempts to illustrate how historical Christianity has experienced the process of globalization since the Reformation and especially during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.11 He also discusses how religion in general and Christianity in particular came to be identified, especially with respect to relations between religious singularity,

9 See John K. Fairbank & Tang, China’s Response to the West: A Documentary Survey, 1839–1923. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1954). 10 See Peter Tze Ming Ng et al., Changing Paradigms of Christian Higher Education in China, 1888–1950. In collaboration with Philip Yuen Sang Leung, Edward Yi-hua Xu & Jing-huan Shi. (Lewiston, New York: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2002). 11 See Peter Beyer, “De-centering Religious Singularity: the Globalization of Chris- tianity as a Case in Point” in Numen, vol. 50, issue 4, 2003, 357–386. christian higher education in china 95 orthodoxy, authenticity and authority. Several of his theses echo what I am trying to say and are worth mentioning here. According to Beyer, Christianity has undergone a modern reconstruction since the Reformation era, which was a process of pluralization and a transition from an ostensibly singular, universal Christianity to multi-centred particularizations of the same religion. Besides the internal differentiations and the creation of various Protestant denominations within Christianity, this emergence of multi-centred particularizations was also due to missionary expansion and the responses it received after 1800. Beyer draws on the example of African Christian- ity to illustrate how the process of particularizing universal Christianity has worked and claims that Christianity could become a globalized religion only in the form of numerous particular and local alterna- tives. Hence, the general missionary movement not only spread the Christian gospel to Africa and Asia but also developed a plurality of localizations and particularizations for the Christian religion in non- Christian lands. Another crucial factor in the globalization of Christianity was its confrontation with other religions or, in Beyer’s words, ‘the factor of cultural otherness’.12 The first reaction of the missionaries was typically to identify non-Christian religions or cultures as ‘heresy, heathendom and superstition’, but then they had to come to grips with the fact that Christianity was but one of the many religions in the world. Beyer also discusses the issues of authority, orthodoxy, authenticity and legitimacy. One highly consequential development in the modern reconstruction, as he sees it, was the ‘de-centering of Christianity’, which expressed in itself the ‘loss of centralized authority’ and ‘the separation of religious authority from religious authenticity or legitimacy’.13 In other words, global Christianity spawned multiple localizations or particularizations of the religion, with the question of religious authority largely divorced from that of authenticity or legitimacy. Hence, the traditional standard means of orthodoxy—‘if you do not recognize a particular central authority, you are outside the fold’—no longer remained. Generally speaking, the modern way is to accept a variety of multi-centred, plu- ralistic versions of Christianity in different localities.

12 see ibid., 367. 13 see ibid., 369. 96 chapter four

Christian Higher Education in China Revisited

The Factor of ‘Cultural Otherness’ Whilst all missionaries had to confront the issue of ‘cultural otherness’ in the non-Christian world, the shock which they experienced was particularly severe in China. In his study of Chinese reactions to missionary work in the seventeenth century, Jacques Gernet concluded that: “in China, the place and functions of religion are different.”14 In this respect, the situation did not change in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In her study of Christian colleges in China, Jessie Lutz described precisely the same situation, saying explicitly that the missionary educators were confronted by ‘the other-ness of Chinese culture and people’ and they were shocked to realize that ‘in China Western norms did not apply’.15 A couple of examples are given here. There is no doubt that early missionaries built schools as a means of reaching Chinese people for evangelization. In order to strengthen religious education in their schools, they made religious courses compulsory for all pupils. The significant role or status of religion was obvious in most contemporary Western societies. However, China was a ‘non-Western’, ‘non-Christian’ and, in the Western sense, ‘non- religious’ country. Many missionaries were shocked to realize that they were running schools in a context totally different from those in their home countries. The Chinese culture was such that religion had never been allowed a central or significant place in human and social life. Religion should be, for the Chinese, both non-aggressive and non- exclusive. Yet, the Christianity brought by the missionaries was “a religion that changed customs, called into question accepted ideas and, above all, threatened to undermine existing situations”.16 Worse still, many missionaries believed that there was only one true religion and that Christianity was it. Such a conception of Christianity turned out

14 See Jacques Gernet, China and the Christian Impact. (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 1985), 3. 15 See Jessie Lutz. China and Christian Colleges 1850–1950 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1971), 4–10. Similarly, in a more recent work of Ruth Hayhoe, the theme was again on ‘cultural conflicts’. See Ruth Hayhoe, China’s Universities 1895–1995: A Cen- tury of Cultural Conflict. (Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong, 1999). 16 See Jacques Gernet, op. cit., 1. christian higher education in china 97 to be the most exclusive one which demanded that religious followers abandon their former beliefs and practices as proof of their conversion. This was what the Chinese people generally could not accept. Erik Zurcher, in his study of Confucianism in China, has suggested that since Confucianism had long represented what was zhengjiao (orthodoxy) in China, it followed that Christianity as a heterodox religion was seen as being closer to xiejiao (heretical religion) to be rejected by Chinese intellectuals.17 That was why Chinese officials and intellectuals could not favor any form of religious curriculum in any schools in China and why most Chinese pupils were not interested in any religious courses offered by the mission schools. Hence, the Chinese impact on Christian education in China was less a demand for secularization than one for the reconstruction of the Christian understanding of religion and religious education in a non-religious, Chinese context. This was a tremendous cultural shock to missionary educators.18 In response to this ‘cultural otherness’ in China, missionary education underwent a modern reconstruction which entailed a revised understanding of religion and its place in the Chinese education system. For instance, religious courses in the Christian colleges were transformed from their traditional dogmatic, evangelistic orientation to a more academic, educational orientation which was more appropriate to a secular setting. Religious instruction moved beyond the mere teaching of the Christian Bible and more attention was paid to its relevance to the Chinese cultural and social environments. In addition, the study of religion moved beyond exclusively Christian studies to give a place to the study of other religious and cultural traditions found in the Chinese context, such as Buddhism, Daoism and Confucianism. To cite one example, Yenching University developed a comprehensive curriculum for the academic study of religion in the 1920s. The announcement of courses offered at the interdenominational Yenching University in 1929–30 provides another good illustration:19

17 See the discussion in Erik Zurcher. “Confucian and Christian Religiosity in Late Ming China”, in The Catholic Historical Review, vol. 83, no.4, 1997, 614–653. Again, though Zurcher was referring to the seventeenth century China, his thesis applies to the nineteenth & twentieth century China too. 18 For discussion, see Peter Tze Ming Ng et al., op. cit., ch. 2. 19 See e.g. Yenching Bulletin, 103. 98 chapter four

Area I History of Religion Primitive Religions Comparative Religions Mohammedanism Confucianism and Taoism History of Christianity Studies in the History of Christianity in China

Area II Psychology of Religion Introduction to the Psychology of Religion Problems of Character Training at Homes Problems of Character Training in Schools

Area III Philosophy of Religion Problems of Religion Philosophy of Religion Science and Religion Religion and Life Religious Implications of Contemporary Philosophy

Area IV Religious Literatures Buddhist Literature Elementary Greek Poetic & Wisdom Literature of the Hebrews

Area V Religious Arts Religious Music of the World History of Religious Arts in the West Religious Music—Singing Religious Music—Harmony

From the table shown above, it is clear that Christianity was not the only religion taught at Yenching University. Besides the study of the Christian religion, there were also courses on other religions such as Buddhism, ‘Mohammedanism’ (Islam), Confucianism and Tao- ism (Daoism). There were also courses such as ‘Primitive Religions’, ‘Comparative Religions’, ‘Psychology of Religion’, ‘Science and Reli- gion’ and ‘Philosophy of Religion’, which suggests that religions were studied not for confessional or evangelistic purposes, but for academic as well as interdisciplinary purposes. Indeed, it all evinces a rather christian higher education in china 99 modern reconstruction of the Christian understanding of religion in Christian colleges in China, in which the Christian religion was studied not as the only valid religion in the world, but alongside other Asian religions such as Buddhism, Islam, Confucianism and Daoism. It is remarkable that such a broad conception of religion and a comprehensive curriculum on religious studies could be found in the 1920s in China.20 Hence, the confrontation with other religions in China provided the necessary context in which Christianity had to be reckoned as a singular religion, one amongst many in the world. This act of particularizing universal Christianity must be a result of the impact of ‘cultural otherness’ and a significant mark of the modern reconstruction of Christianity in a global society.

‘De-centering of Religious Singularity’ The de-centering experience of Christianity in China was much more obvious and serious than it was in Europe. Indeed, by the early twentieth century, the missionary movement in China had already generated for Christianity a process of multi-centred particularizations. The same trend can also be found in the history of Christian higher education. For example, Anglican missionaries from the Church Missionary Society were, on setting up schools in China, surprised to find themselves working among schools run by other denominations of Protes- tant missionaries, e.g. Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Lutherans, and members of the Salvation Army and the Christian and Missionary Alliance. There were also Christian schools run by other missionary boards or societies, such as the London Missionary Society and the Friends’ Foreign Mission Association of Great Britain and Ireland. Furthermore, there were those from countries other than the United Kingdom (for example, France, Germany, Switzerland, Norway, Can- ada and the USA), representing a great variety of religious traditions and theological currents (Roman Catholic, Anglo-Catholic, Reformed, Nonconformist, Fundamentalist, Evangelical or Liberal). Christian schools in China thus did not all belong to one central body but constituted a plurality of particularizations of the universal Christian

20 See also the discussion in Peter Tze Ming Ng, ‘Secularization or Modernization: Teaching Christianity in China Since 1920s’, in Studies in World Christianity, vol. 5, pt.1, 1999, 1–17. 100 chapter four faith. Though all these mission schools might seem to have been pro- claiming the same gospel of Christ, they could equally all appear to have varying agendas and different representations of the Christian gospel. Who and where was the ‘central authority’? Who represented the ‘True gospel of Jesus’? The missionary movement had instigated a process of pluralization or relativization in Christianity and generated a multi-centred particularization of the Christian religion in China. Worse still, the missionaries had come to China which was a ‘non- Western’, ‘non-Christian’ and ‘non-religious’ country. The Chinese government would not pay any attention or due respect to Christian- ity as such. From the early 1920s, there was strong opposition from the Chinese intellectuals who launched the nationwide Anti-Christian Movements and the Restore Educational Rights Campaign throughout China. As a result, the Chinese government issued regulations to the missionary schools as follows: a. Any institution of whatever grade established by funds contributed from foreigners . . . will be allowed to make application for recognition at the office of the proper educational authorities of the Government according to the regulations as promulgated by the Ministry of Education; b. Such an institution should prefix to its official name the term‘sze lik’ (privately established); c. The president or principal of such an institution should be a Chi- nese. If such president or principal has hitherto been a foreigner, then there must be a Chinese vice-president, who shall represent the institution in applying for recognition; d. If the institution has a board of managers (directors), more than half of the board must be Chinese; e. The institution shall not have as its purpose the propagation of religion; f. the curriculum of such an institution should conform to the standards set by the Ministry of Education. It shall not include religious courses among the required subjects.21

In short, the Chinese government was demanding that all schools, including the missionary schools, should no longer have among their

21 See Edward Wallace. “Report on Christian Education in China”, in Frank Rawlinson, (ed.) China Christian Year Book, (1926), 227–228. christian higher education in china 101 aims the propagation of any religious faith, even Christianity which was thought in the West to be ‘the Queen of all knowledge’ (whereas religion had no place at all among the intellectuals in China), and that religious courses should no longer be compulsory. These were very sensible demands from the government, and in his report to the Board of Trustees, John Leighton Stuart, the President of Yenching University, explained that “the nationalist movement is thoroughly reasonable and its demands are only those which any self-respecting people have a right to make”.22 Nevertheless, many Christian missionaries of the time could not accept such government regulations because these demands symbolized an external authority to which all missionary schools, regardless of their denominational or national origins, had to obey. The Chinese government would thus supersede whatever authority the missionaries claimed to have. Whose authority should the missionaries obey? Even though it may have been the case that in many parts of Europe the Christian Church was able to exercise a degree of power in relation to secular government, this was certainly not so in China. Hence, the multi-centred particularizations of Christianity had to seek other means to affirm their authority, orthodoxy or authenticity in China.

Emergence of Multi-centred Localizations and Particularizations As we have seen, the missionary movement generated a plurality of particularizations of the Christian faith in China. Consequently, each had to find its own ways of preaching the Christian gospel. This was especially the case with regard to tertiary education. In order to realize their goals more quickly or effectively, missionaries in China had to develop ways to work together, even across denominational and national lines. Of the thirteen Christian higher educational institutions mentioned at the beginning of this paper, they could be classified in three categories:23

22 See “Minutes of the Board of Trustees of Peking University”, (December 9, 1927), 299. 23 See the report in Educational Review, 9(1), March 1993, as reproduced in Chucai Li, ed., Diguo zhuyi qinhua jiaoyu shi ziliao—Jiaohui Jiaoyu (Materials on the Educational History of Invasion of the Imperialism in China—Church Education). (Beijing: Science of Education Press, 1987), 143–145. 102 chapter four

Christian University Run by Individual Missionary: Lingnan University

Christian Colleges/Universities Run by Individual Denominations/Mission Boards: University of Shanghai (American Baptist Mission) St. John’s University (American Protestant Episcopal Church) Hangchow University (American Presbyterian Mission) Soochow University (Methodist Episcopal Church, South) South China Women’s University (Methodist Episcopal Mission)

Inter-denominational Christian Colleges/Universities: Yenching University (Methodist Episcopal Mission, the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, the American Con- gregationalists, the English Congregationalists, and the American Presbyterian Mission) Shangtung Christian University (American Presbyterian Mission and English Baptist Mission) University of Nanking (Methodist Episcopal Mission, American Pres- byterian Mission, and United Christian Mission) Ginling Women’s College (American Baptist Mission, Disciples of Christ, Methodist Episcopal Mission, North and South, and Ameri- can Presbyterian Mission) Central China University (American Protestant Episcopal Church, London Missionary Society, Wesleyan Methodist Mission, Ameri- can Reformed Church, and Yale Foreign Missionary Society) West China Union University (American Baptist Church Mission, the Friends’ Foreign Mission Association of Great Britain and Ireland, Methodist Church of Canada (later the United Church of Canada), Methodist Episcopal Mission, and Church Missionary Society of England) Fukien Christian University (Church Missionary Society, the Ameri- can Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, the Reformed Church in America, and the Methodist Episcopal Mission)

One can imagine that it could be difficult for missionaries from different denominations to work together in joint ventures. This was certainly the case in China during the nineteenth century. For instance, according to the Chinese Recorder, there was an urgent request from some missionaries in 1879 that Protestants should join hands for a christian higher education in china 103

‘unified system of educational work in China’.24 Unfortunately, this could not be realized. Throughout the nineteenth century, Protes- tant missionaries had found it difficult to work together because they encountered great differences in their educational ideals, theological standpoints, and the distinctive concerns and mission policies which could not be easily harmonized. One typical example was found in Beijing in the 1890s, where the Methodist Peking University was trying to combine with North China College which was sponsored by the American Board of Commission for Foreign Missions (ABCFM). The two colleges could not be merged simply because the American Presbyterians were found to be more evangelistically orientated.25 Both were evangelical, but one more so than the other, and hence they could not be united. The Boxer Uprising has been regarded as catastrophic for Protes- tant missionary work in China, as more than 200 foreign missionaries and 30,000 Chinese Christians were killed. However, the Boxer Movement turned out to be a blessing to the missionary endeavour in China. Why was it so? The Boxer turmoil led Christian missionaries to believe that the xenophobic attitudes of the Chinese people were caused by their misunderstanding or ignorance of Christianity. Such anti-foreign attitudes could be eradicated by Christian education in China, so the missionaries sought more efficient ways to expand their mission schools. And since many of the school buildings had been burned or severely destroyed by the Boxers, it was necessary to rebuild them from the Boxer indemnity funds. It was thought that reconstruction could be done more efficiently by joining hands with representatives of other denominations or mission societies.26 Consequently, the mission boards and societies began to discuss plans for merging different Christian schools and colleges into a Union University. The universities listed above were all founded after 1900.27 Such mergers were now possible only because of the Boxer Movement of 1900.28

24 see Chinese Recorder, vol. 10, November 1879, 465–467. 25 See e.g. the discussion in Jessie Lutz, op. cit., 19 and 30f. 26 See Jessie Lutz, op. cit., 104–105. 27 Examples were the establishment of Boone University (Wenhua Daxue) and West China Union University (Huaxi Xiehe Daxue) in 1910, the Ginling University ( Jinling Daxue) in 1911, the Shantung Christian University (Cheeloo Daxue) in 1915 and the Yenching University (Yanjing Daxue) in 1919. 28 For more discussions, see Peter Tze Ming Ng. “Some Scenarios of the Impact of Boxer Movement on the Work of Christian Education in China” in Angelo 104 chapter four

As one missionary recalled: “Up till the Boxer year, though the friendliest relations always obtained between the missionaries of the BMS (English Baptist Missionary Society) and those of neighboring missions, each had its own distinct field and carried on its own evangelistic and educational work. But God . . . over-ruled the Boxer outbreak to bring the workers of the various societies closer together and gave them the chance to plan new enterprises in cooperation . . . They were thus thrown into more intimate fellowship than had been possible before, and the enforced pause in their usual activities (which was due to the Boxers) had led them to review the whole situation and plan unitedly for the future.”29

A New Understanding of World Christianity

During the past decade, historians of world Christianity have been developing a new paradigm for its study in a global context. These scholars have come to understand that Christianity should no longer be perceived as something ‘merely from the West’ or be confined to ‘the White people’, though most of the missionaries had come from Europe or North America. It is widely understood that during the twentieth century Christianity expanded rapidly in Africa and much of Asia.30 Hence, Christianity does not merely belong to the West. Andrew Walls and others have proposed regarding Christianity as a world movement which started from Jerusalem and moved not exclusively westward, but also eastward and southward. That is why many scholars now use the phrase ‘World Christianity’. Historians of Christianity today are more concerned with how the ‘universal’ Christian faith interacts with a diversity of cultures and societies and, as Walls has remarked, “. . . by cross-cultural diffusion it [i.e. the Chris- tian movement] becomes a progressively rich entity”.31 Dale Irvin and

S. Lazzarotto et al. The Boxer Movement and Christianity in China. (Taiwan: Fu Jen Catho- lic University Press, 2004), 201–224; or Chapter Two in this volume. 29 see Charles Corbett, Shantung Christian (Cheeloo) University, (New York: United Board for Christian Colleges in China, 1955), 63. 30 Philip Jenkins has already given us significant figures and an exciting picture about the global Christianity in this 21st century. See e.g. Philip Jenkins. The Next Christendom: the Coming of Global Christianity. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002). 31 see Andrew Walls, The Cross-cultural Process in Christian History. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2002), 9–10. christian higher education in china 105

Scott Sunquist are working together on a two-volume textbook: His- tory of the World Christian Movement to orientate students to this new approach.32 As we study Christianity within a global context, we are again facing crucial issues regarding how to relate it to other cultures, especially non-Christian ones. Some important questions are: Does globalization mean a progressive relativization of all cultures, including those from the West? How should we relate World Christianity to other non-Western cultures? How should we understand Christianity as a world religion or as a religion in the global context, and how should we conceive the interplay between the universalization of particularism and the particularization of universalism in the global context? We shall now proceed to see how the concept of World Christianity was conceived in Christian higher education in China. One college president’s remarks may be cited as an illustration. Francis C.M. Wei was the first Chinese president of Central China University (Huachung University, now known as Huazhong Normal University). Born in Wuhan in central China, he received his early education at a school run by American Protestant Episcopalian missionaries in Wuchang. Wei studied up to the post-graduate level and earned a Master of Arts degree before being sent to Harvard Univer- sity to study comparative Eastern and Western philosophy under the renowned professor William E. Hocking. In 1927 he proceeded to the University of London, where two years later he successfully completed his doctoral dissertation on ‘A Study of the Chinese Moral Tradi- tion and Its Social Values’.33 Wei’s experience and research work had already exhibited his concern for a fair interplay between Western and Chinese cultures. Kenneth Scott Latourette, a renowned historian of Christian foreign missions, wrote of him, saying: Toward the comprehension of the spirit of the Chinese and their culture Dr. Wei is a superb guide. A Chinese by birth and nurture, he knows his people and the unseen forces which have molded them. He is a specialist on the religion and the philosophies of his people. . . . At the same time, he knows the Occident and so is able to bridge the gulf between that part of the world and China. . . . Sympathetic with the deepest insights of

32 See e.g. Dale Irvin and Scott Sunquist. History of the World Christian Movement. Vol. I: Earliest Christianity to 1453. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2001). 33 Wei’s doctoral thesis was completed in 1929. It is still available at the Senate House Library, University of London, England. 106 chapter four

the Chinese spirit, he is also a Christian. Few can equal him and none can surpass him as an interpreter of the Soul of China to the English- speaking world.34 As a Chinese president of a Christian college in China from 1929 to 1952, Wei began to find his own ways of integrating Christian ideals within the Chinese social contexts while remaining faithful to the identity of Christianity as a truly world religion. In 1945, he was appointed the first Henry W. Luce Visiting Professor of World Christianity at Union Theological Seminary in New York.35 In his inaugural lecture, Wei expounded his view of the concept of ‘World (Global) Christian- ity’ and its relationship to Chinese culture.36 Though the terms ‘globalization’ and ‘localization’ had not yet been developed in 1940s, the idea behind them was spelt out. Roland Robertson has propounded the view that globalization implies a process of ‘relativization’ of cultures and a dual process of ‘the universalization of particularism’ and ‘the particularization of universalism’.37 In the case of Christianity, the missionary movement had long been thought of as a means of spreading the Christian faith as a global or universal belief system. However, in its confrontation with the ‘cultural otherness’ in China, Christianity turned out to be a merely ‘Western socio-cultural particularism’ and hence was regarded by many Chinese intellectuals as ‘Western Christianity’.38 This was precisely what Wei had said in his lecture. In his attempt to expound

34 see Francis Wei, The Spirit of Chinese Culture. (New York: Scribner Press, 1947), viii. 35 Wei was the first one appointed to the Henry Luce Professorship of World Chris- tianity and his series of lectures in the United States was published by the Scribner’s Press in New York. See Francis Wei, The Spirit of Chinese Culture. (New York: Scribner Press, 1947). 36 The topic of his presentation was “Rooting the Christian Church in Chinese Soil” (1945), the translation later appeared in Wei Zhuomin boshi jiaoyu wenhua zonghiao lunwenji (Dr. Francis C.M. Wei’s Writings on Education, Culture, and Religion), Xianfa Wan ed., (Taipei: Hua Zhong Da Xue Wei Zhuomin Ji Nian Guan, 1980), 115–138. 37 see Roland Robertson, Globalization: Sacred Theory and Global Culture. (London: Sage Publication, 1992), 61–84; and T.D. Hall (ed.), A World Systems Reader. (New York: Littlefield, 2000). This paper focuses on the particularization of universalism in Christianity, and as for the process of universalization of particularism, we may turn to the development of charismatic Christianity. See, e.g. Simon Coleman, The Globaliza- tion of Charismatic Christianity. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000). 38 The term ‘Western socio-cultural particularism’ was borrowed from Peter Beyer. See, for reference, Peter Beyer, Religion and Globalization. (London: Sage Publications, 1994), ch.2. As for the term, ‘Western Christianity’, Wei was referring it in his paper too. Now, scholars may like to describe it as ‘Christian culture in the Western world’, see e.g. the course description of the Faculty of Divinity, Cambridge University. christian higher education in china 107 the concept of World Christianity, he deliberately separated ‘World Christianity’ from ‘Western Christianity’ and criticized the non-global aspects of the latter such as ‘the spirit of denominationalism’.39 On the issue of how to relate Christianity to non-Western cultures, Wei affirmed that in order for it to be recognized as a world religion, Chris- tianity must find its full expressions in all cultures, including those of Asia/China. For Western Christianity and Chinese Christianity were the same, being two parts of the whole, and without both parts, Chris- tianity could not claim to be a ‘world religion’. He also suggested that “when we are taking Christianity as a global religion, the full expression of Christian faith needs to be in congruence with its specific contexts (whether it was Europe or America or China)”.40 If we translate his message into modern terminology, Wei was affirming that in the process of globalization, the ‘local’ (Chinese culture in this case) should be seen as an indispensable part of the ‘global’ (World Christianity).41 Perhaps few could understand what Francis Wei said in his time, but today we are in a much better position to understand his conception of world Christianity. In fact, he may help us to understand better the inter-connected relationships between ‘globalization’ and ‘localization’, and to appreciate the real meaning of developing a global perspective without losing our local characteristics.42 Wei went a step further to suggest a new way of understanding Christian mission which I have found very helpful in my teaching of world Christianity. As we know, the Christian mission had long been reckoned as evangelization and the making of converts from

39 Dana Robert has also recalled the attempts of some missionaries in the 1920s and 1930s to separate Christianity from Western cultures, which were seen as one important aspect of the internationalization movement by the missionaries. See Dana Robert, “The First Globalization: The Internationalization of the Protestant Mission- ary Movement Between the World Wars”, in International Bulletin of Missionary Research vol. 26, no. 2, 2002, 54. 40 See Francis Wei. “Rooting the Christian Church in Chinese Soil” (1945), in Wei Zhuomin boshi jiaoyu wenhua zonghiao lunwenji (Dr. Francis C.M. Wei’s Writings on Education, Culture, and Religion), Xianfa Wan ed., (Taipei: Hua Zhong Da Xue Wei Zhuomin Ji Nian Guan, 1980), 132. 41 Dana Robert also suggested that the attempt towards the indigenization of Chris- tianity in each culture could be a significant contribution made by the Christian missionaries. In this way, she endorses what Wei has said in his lecture in US. 42 Scholars like Roland Robertson, for instance, would suggest a new term, ‘glocalization’ which implies that the local and the global are not mutually exclusive. See, Roland Robertson. Globalization: Sacred Theory and Global Culture. (London: Sage Publi- cation, 1992); and “Glocalization: Time-Space and Homogeneity-Heterogeneity” in Mike Featherstone et al. (eds.) Global Modernities. (London: Sage Publications, 1995). 108 chapter four non-Christian peoples. Accordingly, Christian missionaries long condemned non-Christian cultures as pagan and heathen or superstitious. Rather than seeking to conquer the non-Christian world, Christian missionaries should seek help from non-Christian peoples by inviting them to join as partners in a worldwide Christian movement, Wei contended: It is because the Christian believes that the Christian Church (or World Christianity) needs all people in the world, as much as all people in the world need the Christian faith, that the world-wide Christian missionary movement is supported and kept going. When this is explained and understood in China the missionary movement will no longer be regarded as Western arrogance and presumptuousness, and the missionary will not be considered as exercising his prerogative of making known what he has in himself and what others lack, but (rather) as doing his duty in seeking for a more adequate expression for the (Christian) Faith which is intended for the whole of mankind.43 Why did he put it in this way? Wei suggested that only in this manner could the receivers (the Chinese or other peoples as well) feel respected as a person and as individuals when they were invited to join the worldwide Christian movement. In other words, the missionaries were not merely exercising their prerogative of conquering China by the Christian religion but were seeking a more adequate way of pro- claiming Christianity as a global faith.44 It is indeed this provision of space and time for the expression and mutual understanding of needs and problems which is the key to globalization, so that both the local peoples and their cultures are to be respected before they can contribute their parts to global cultures. If we put this new understanding into our modern context, we may discover that missionary experiences could give us very good insights for our understanding of the process of globalization and the issues we are facing today.

Concluding Remarks

It is indeed an excellent opportunity for us today to talk about ‘globalization’ and the World Christian Movement as a process of ‘globalization’.

43 see Francis Wei, op. cit., 159–160. 44 See also the discussion in Peter Tze Ming Ng, “Wei Zhuomin boshi yanzhongde Jidu- jiao yu Zhongguo wenhua zhi guanxi” (Christianity and Chinese Culture As Seen from the Eyes of Francis Wei) (Chinese) in Min Ma, ed. Kuayue Zhongxi Wenhuade Juren. (Wuhan: Huazhong Normal University Press, 1995), 83–98. christian higher education in china 109

In an earlier book, Peter Beyer affirmed that “Globalization . . . is more than the spread of one historically existing culture at the expense of all others. It is also the creation of a new global culture . . . which increasingly becomes the broader social context of all particular cultures in the world, including those of the West.”45 Since religions are closely tied to cultures, Christianity as one traditional religion has had to face serious challenges of pluralization, relativization and particularization in this process. We have seen that contemporary scholarly understanding of the process of globalization may help us to broaden our perspectives on the history of Christian missionary movements. On the other hand, the history of Christian higher education in China has witnessed to the fact that Christian higher education could be an ideal model for the examination of these processes of pluralization, relativization and particularization of Christianity in a non-Chris- tian world and how Christianity underwent a modern reconstruction when confronted by ‘the cultural otherness’ of China. When Dana Robert was reviewing the internationalization movement of Ameri- can Protestant missions in the 1920s and 1930s, she observed that the global vision of internationalism was spread by means of the mainline Protestant colleges and student movements, including those in China and her thirteen Protestant universities.46 The internationalization movement, together with the corresponding indigenization movement in China, aroused much interest among college students and professors in China who later became ambassadors or ‘reverse missionaries’ to the West.47 Among them were T.C. Chao, David Z.T. Yui, Timothy T. Lew, T.Z. Koo and Francis Wei.48 Hence, the Chris- tian colleges and universities in China served as the most appropriate place for the cultivation of educational dialogues and discussions of the reconstruction of a modern theology—for the development of a new understanding of Christianity as ‘a religion’, to relate Christianity to other religions as well as relating it to non-religious cultures and systems. The curriculum of Yenching University could be a very good

45 see Peter Beyer, Religion and Globalization. (London : Sage Publications, 1994), 9. 46 See Dana Robert, “The First Globalization: The Internationalization of the Protestant Missionary Movement Between the World Wars”, in International Bulletin of Missionary Research vol. 26, no. 2, 2002, 50–67. The global vision of internationalism includes ‘peace, friendship, inter-racial reconciliation and global unity’. 47 Dana Robert even argued that the movements of internationalization and indigenization were ‘two sides of the same coin’. See Dana Robert, op. cit., 50. 48 These Chinese Christian intellectuals had all contributed essays to the ground- breaking series, China To-Day through Chinese Eyes, published by Student Christian Movement in England in 1922–1926. 110 chapter four example of this. If we examine the history of Christian higher education in China from this perspective, the Chinese experience and the story of Christianity in early twentieth-century China could be very enlightening. This may, in turn, help us to understand better some of the crucial issues we are facing in the process of globalization. chapter five

Timothy Richard: Christian Attitude towards Other Religions & Cultures

In October 2006, when Dr. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Can- terbury was paying a two-weeks visit to China, he gave a lecture in the city of Nanjing where he made the following remarks: China is emerging as a senior partner in the fellowship of nations; a country whose economy is changing so fast and whose profile in the world has become so recognisable and distinctive that we can’t imagine a global future without the Chinese presence . . . (And he said to the students there) Yours is a society which will have messages to give to the rest of the world . . .1 About a year ago, in November 2005, Lord David Wilson, the Master of Peterhouse spoke as the Lady Margaret Preacher at the Commemo- ration of Benefactors Sunday at the University Church, the Great St. Mary’s Church of Cambridge. He also reminded his audience that what was happening in China then and in the years ahead would be very significant for the rest of the world. It was indeed a very appropriate time for Cambridge scholars to commit a series of lectures on the China Mission for their Seventh Henry Martyn Lectures in 2007. For the three lectures I offered there, I chose a theme, namely: ‘Three Prophetic Voices in China’. I focused on the life and the work of Timothy Richard, David Paton and K.H. Ting as three prophetic voices from the twentieth century China. They would indeed give us not only prophetic voices from their work and experiences in China, but also good illustrations of the interactive relationship between the ‘global’ and ‘local’ perspectives on the development of indigenous Christianity in the twentieth century China.2 Robert Morrison (1782–1843), the first Protestant missionary was sent to China by the London Missionary Society in 1807. When Morrison

1 for reference, see http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/sermons_speeches/ 061010.htm. 2 i have included all the three chapters in this volume, namely ch. 5, ch. 9 and ch. 11. 112 chapter five went to China, he could not go directly, because at that time, China was still adopting a closed door policy and the British East India Com- pany dared not take Morrison to China, fearing that this would upset the Chinese government. Morrison had to go to New York and took another boat from America to China. So, in the very beginning of the Protestant Missionary to China, the missionary had already known that it was not an easy job to evangelize in the Far East. A hundred years after Robert Morrison’s arrival in China, Protestant missionaries held a Centenary Conference in Shanghai in 1907. In the same year, Timothy Richard published his biographies and articles, sharing his experiences and his new vision on Christian mission.3 Now in 2007, another hundred years have passed by and it is definitely the most proper and significant time for us to do similar work to that of Timo- thy Richard and review the work of Christian missionaries from our experiences in the past 200 years. Prof. Andrew Walls once reminded us that the ‘the missionary movement was a great learning experience for Western Christianity’.4 It could be a great challenge to review some basic assumptions about our Western theology and about our conception of Christian mission. Hence, I shall bring to our attention these prophetic voices of Timothy Richard, David Paton and K.H. Ting, all valuable voices in our rethinking of Christian mission today.

What is a ‘Prophet’?

Before we turn to the story of Timothy Richard, we may stop for a while to consider the question of what constitutes a prophet. In his book, The Shaping of Prophecy: Passion, Perception and Practicality, Adrian Has tings remarked that “Prophecy is an old-fashioned, biblically grounded concept which is still valid today—provided it contains two essential elements. The first is a clear, rational and sophisticated understanding of the world . . . The second is fidelity to a tradition, a faith, a shared

3 see Timothy Richard. Conversion By the Million in China, in two volumes. (Shanghai: Christian Literature Society, 1907). 4 see Andrew Walls. The Cross-Cultural Process in Christian History. (Maryknoll, N.Y: Orbis Books, 2002), 258. christian attitude towards other religions & cultures 113 discourse through which one speaks; not a rigid, uncritical fidelity, but the acceptance of a language and culture of meaning and of value.”5 Perhaps I may cite also the words of Hubert Allen, the grandson of Roland Allen, who wrote a book on his grandfather describing him as a 20th century prophet of Christian mission. Allen defines a prophet “as a person who has the perspicacity to observe truths that are unfashionable, and the tactlessness to voice them. In this way the prophet greatly annoys whoever those people are that happen to be the contemporary ‘pillars of the society’: because the prophet makes them feel uncomfortable, and rather less confident of their own wisdom and their own worth.”6 Like the Old Testament prophets who were committed to what the Lord had commissioned them, and out of their personal experiences they could speak of their visions and express prophetic voices which were so distinctive of their time, yet could not be apprehended by the people of their time. And also like the Jesus of Nazareth, a prophet would be rejected by his own people. There are four characteristics I shall lay my focus upon. They are outstanding in the life of Timothy Richard, whom we are going to review. The four characteristics are: (a) A prophet is one who is faithful to one’s religious calling; (b) A prophet is one who is open and keeps an open attitude to the culture and society of one’s living context; (c) A prophet is one who not only has a clear, rational and sophisticated understanding, but is also responsive to the contemporary world; and (d) A prophet is one who is quick to understand the unfashionable yet greater truths, and dare to adventure new visions, in such a way that may greatly annoy those who reckon themselves as ‘pillars of the society’. To illustrate these characteristics, I shall choose some prophetic voices from the history of modern China. They may either be West- ern missionaries or Chinese Christians, it was because of the specific situations they encountered in China and their unfailing commitment to Christianity which made them prophets of their times. Their commitment to the Church required them to be open and be responsive to their situations, in such a way that they could discover deeper mean- ings and the bigger truth of Christianity which could accommodate

5 see Adrian Hastings. The Shaping of Prophecy: Passion, Perception and Practicality. (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1995). 6 see Hubert Allen: Roland Allen-Pioneer, Priest and Prophet (Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995), 1–2. 114 chapter five their experiences in China. Hence, they became prophets of their time, calling for a new understanding of Christian mission in China. The three prophetic voices I have chosen are, namely: Timothy Rich- ard, David Paton and K.H. Ting. Their voices are still relevant today. I shall focus on the life of Timothy Richard in this chapter.7

The Story of Timothy Richard Revisited

Timothy Richard (1845–1919) was a well known missionary in China, sent by the Baptist Missionary Society of England. In the book, A History of Christian Missions in China, Prof. K.S. Latourettee described Richard as ‘one of the greatest missionaries whom any branch of the Church, whether Roman Catholic, Russian Orthodox or Protestant, has ever sent to China’.8 He was also ‘a prophet . . . and a nation builder of modern China’.9 “Like all prophets, he (Richard) was ahead of his times and therefore misunderstood by some. But he lived and died beloved by the Chinese people who know him to be their friend.”10 Though Richard spent forty-five years in China as a Baptist missionary, most of his work was not so much in congruence with the expec- tations of the Baptist Missionary Society. Richard kept asking society to be patient and to understand and to support what he was doing, as it was true to his calling as a Christian missionary in China. How did Richard understand his own mission in China? We shall re-visit his story and see how it fits into the four characteristics I have just mentioned. In doing so, I am trying to find some new insights into what we can learn from Richard’s humble examples.

Being Faithful to his Christian Calling Richard received his calling to China when he was a seminarian at Haverfordwest Theological College in Pembrokeshire in 1868, at the age of twenty-three. He heard about the story of Hudson Taylor

7 Readers may find the two chapters on David Paton and Bishop K.H. Ting respectively in Chapters 9 and 11 this same volume. 8 see K.S. Latourettee, A History of Christian Missions in China. (New York: Mac- millan, 1929). 9 see also Albert J. Garner. A Maker of Modern China (London: The Carey Press, 1945), 7. 10 Ibid., 7–8. christian attitude towards other religions & cultures 115

(1832–1905) who had founded the China Inland Mission in 1865.11 With his famous motto: ‘if I have a thousand lives, I would give them all to China’. Hudson Taylor had called many young people from England to be missionaries in China, including the ‘Cambridge Sev- ens’ in the 1860s, who had changed the whole world for a new era of Christian mission in those days.12 In 1868, Richard was already moved by the example of Taylor and decided to give his life to China, hence becoming a missionary to China. People often compared the differences between Richard and Taylor for their different theologies and missionary methods, but in fact they were much closer to one another at the beginning of their missionary work in China.13 Richard wanted to follow Taylor’s vision to be a missionary to China and he asked to be sent by the China Inland Mission, though it was rejected. Being a Baptist, he was recommended to apply to the Baptist Missionary Soci- ety, his own denominational mission society. He did and was accepted. He was sent to China in 1870. In the beginning years of his work in China, Richard followed the evangelistic methods used by the China Inland Mission, namely the daily preaching and the distribution of Bibles.14 When famines broke out, he urged people to repent and pray to the living God, the same way as those CIM (China Inland Mission) missionaries were doing. It was only when he encountered failures with the conventional missionary methods that he changed to new ways. Even while changing his missionary approaches, he often supported and justified his own act with the Christian Bible. So to say, he remained as an Evangelical and Biblically oriented missionary.15 Some scholars may have given him

11 for a comprehensive story of Hudson Taylor, see A.J. Broomhall, Hudson Taylor and China’s Open Century, 7 volumes. (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1981–1989). 12 see e.g. E.W. Price Evans. Timothy Richard: A Narrative of Christian Enterprise and Statesmanship in China. (London: The Carey Press, 1945), 18f. 13 for instance, Paul Cohen had placed their missionary strategies in relative opposition, whereas Lauren Pfister added a remark that Taylor and Richard were both ‘committed, Non-conformist Evangelicals’. See the discussions by Paul Cohen in “Missionary Approaches: Hudson Taylor and Timothy Richard”, Paper On China, vol. 11. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1957), 29–62; and Lauren Pfister in “Rethinking Mission in China: James Hudson Taylor and Timothy Rich- ard” in Andrew Porter (ed.) The Imperial Horizons of British Protestant Mission, 1880–1914. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 2003), 183–212. 14 see E.W. Price Evans, op. cit., 20–23. 15 prof. Andrew Walls is suggesting that “it is truer to say that Richard expanded his vision than that he altered his theology. The expansion of vision came through the inexorable pressure of Chinese conditions. The original missionary aim was never 116 chapter five other titles, such as ‘Seer, Statesmen, the most Disinterested Adviser in China’,16 ‘Relief Administrator and Advocate of National Reform’17 or ‘Maker of Modern China’,18 but basically he was still a missionary. There had been several times he could leave his work as a missionary— Chinese people had offered him new jobs during his relief work in Shanxi (Shansi ), inviting him to implement his modernization programs for China, but he had turned them down. Hung Chang (Hong Zhang) Li, a Chinese government official of high rank introduced him to be the editor of a Chinese newspaper in Tianjin (Tientsin) in 1890, though he accepted the offer, he did not give up his original status and he still regarded himself as a missionary in China. Richard had indeed given his whole life to China as a missionary. He became a missionary to China as soon as he completed his theological training in his early twenties and did not take the first furlough until he had been fifteen years in China; it was another ten years before the second, and eight more years before the third. He spent all together forty-five years in China and he could live only five more years, two years in China and three years in his own country after his final retirement in 1914. So, indeed Richard had not departed from his missionary vocation and was faithful throughout his whole life to his Christian calling as a missionary in China.

Keeping an Open Attitude to Chinese Culture and Society Being a missionary in China, Richard did not look down upon Chinese people and their culture. He always kept an open heart (mind) and tried to learn whatever he could from them. Upon arrival to China in 1870, Richard worked in a Baptist Church in Yantai (Chefoo), in Shandong (Shantung) Province. When he was teaching catechism to his first Chinese convert, he raised a question to him: “Are not allmen sinners in the eyes of God?” (This was a common question for any

abandoned; but in the process of fulfilling that aim new dimensions of the task were recognized, dimensions not visible at the beginning.” See Andrew Walls, op. cit., 242. 16 see e.g. Willaim E. Soothill. Timothy Richard of China: Seer, Statesman, Missionary & the Most Disinterested Advisor the Chinese Ever Had. (London: Seeley, Service & Co. Ltd., 1926). 17 see e.g. Paul Richard Bohr. Famine in China and the Missionary: Timothy Richard as Relief Administrator and Advocate of National Reform, 1876–1884. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972). 18 see also Albert J. Garner. Op. cit. christian attitude towards other religions & cultures 117 baptismal class). But the answer he got was: “I do not know about other people, but I know I am a great sinner.” As Richard recalled, he said: “I was much struck by the sincerity of the answer and the foolishness of the question, and felt that the man was a true Christian in spirit. Never again did I repeat that question.”19 So, he was open enough to revise his catechetical questions. As a missionary in China, Richard began the same way as most of missionaries did, to preach and distribute Bibles on the streets. But after two years, he wrote the following remarks: I did not find the preaching very productive of good results, and was consequently considerably discouraged . . . In my evangelistic work during the first two years in Chefoo I had tried street-chapel preaching without any success worth mentioning. I then began to follow the plan of ‘seeking the worthy’, as our Lord commanded, for I found that they constituted the ‘good ground’ in which to sow the seed.20 Richard’s new method was confirmed by reference to the Bible as the foundation of his missionary work. It was quoted from the remarkable sermon of Edward Irving on Missionaries after the Apostolic School delivered at the London Missionary Society in 1824. Irving cited the instruction of Jesus to his disciples when he sent them out to preach, saying: “When you come to a town, enquire who there is worthy, and stay with them until you leave that place.”21 Richard’s mind was opened while he was prepared ‘to find’ and looked for ‘the worthy ones’. This attitude of ‘seeking the worthy’ had changed his life for new missionary methods. It was no longer to go out to preach or make converts among the Chinese, but to find and seek those who are worthy of the Christian message. It was not so much to ‘seek the lost’, but to ‘look for those who are worthy’. Rather than mere preaching and distribut- ing Bibles on the street, he put up on town walls carefully chosen texts, and with statements which would stimulate thought and inquiry. Some Chinese came up to him and the results were encouraging. Later, he started even better methods, to ‘find the worthy’ by going into the homes of the leaders who were more worthy as they were prepared to listen. And he went to them with an open and learning heart. In affirming that they were ‘worthy’, Richard began to appreciate the

19 see E.W. Price Evans. Op. cit., 23. 20 see ibid., 25f. Also his own reflections in Timothy Richard, “Thoughts on Chi- nese Missions: Difficulties and Tactics”, in Chinese Recorder vol. 11 (1880), 430–441. 21 see The Gospel According to Matthew ch. 10, verse 11. 118 chapter five good side of the Chinese people and their culture and even of the Chinese religions, including Buddhism, Daoism and Confucianism. During the early years in Yantai (Chefoo), Richard was blessed with the acquaintance of some enlightened missionaries such as Dr. Alexander Williamson 1829–1890, of the National Bible Society of Scotland (also the founder-secretary of the Society for the Diffusion of Christian and General Knowledge among the Chinese), John Liv- ingstone Nevius 1829–1893, Hunter Corbett 1835–1920 and Calvin Mateer 1836–1908 (the three giant missionaries from the American Presbyterian Mission). John Nevius was well known for his development of three-self churches in China & Korea; Hunter Corbett and Calvin Mateer were known for their educational work at Shantung Christian University. The missionary partners had introduced him to the scriptures of Chinese religions and the fields of comparative religion and the science of missions which he found so important for his work in China. In 1875, Richard had to move to Qing Zhou (Ching Chou Fu) where he later found himself in the neighbourhood of various religious sects. For instance, there was an important Islamic centre, with two big mosques and a theological college for the training of mullahs (Muslim theologians) for the country. Richard was invited to attend lectures at the Islamic college and discuss issues with the mullahs. Hence, he began to reach out for ‘the worthy’ and began dialogues with people of other religious traditions. In 1876, he reported of an incident he had of meeting a Muslim priest with six of his students.22 It was an open, religious dialogue and they had serious discussions comparing the lives of Jesus and Mohammed and the uniqueness of the two religions. Though he was confirmed of the Christian superiority over the Muslim faith, he still discovered the richness of the Koran and that there were much in common between the two religions.23 In Qing Zhou, Richard met some Taoists too. And he kept an open attitude to all the people he came across. With his usual courtesy, he won the good-will of the Taoist priest and obtained permission to attend one of their midnight ceremonies. And he reported, saying: “having found the devout always ready to welcome and hear me, and give me every hospitality, thus proving the soundness of the principles

22 see Timothy Richard, “Mohammedan and Christian Evidences” in The Chinese Recorder, vol. 7 no. 2, (1876), 129–131. 23 see also Timothy Richard. Forty-five Years in China. (London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1916), 88f. christian attitude towards other religions & cultures 119 laid down by our Lord in the 10th chapter of St. Matthew (i.e. to find those who are worthy).”24 So, even before being involved in social services work, Timothy Richard had already opened himself for new missionary methods. Richard also had much contact with Buddhism in China. He had had discussions with some Buddhist friends, especially with Wenhui Yang and found that they were well-versed in Buddhist scriptures (sutras), so he attempted to study and translate some of their Buddhist scriptures.25 In his famous book, The New Testament of Higher Buddhism, he says: There was a time when every religion (including Christianity) considered itself true and every other false, but that time has long since been super- seded by a more just classification of all the great religions into good, better and best.26 Modern scholars may wonder whether Timothy Richard had understood Buddhism properly.27 They may have doubts about his scholarship and his literal accuracy, knowing that he had no mastery of Sanskrit or Pali. But that was not the point of his translation and his work on Buddhism. Richard was rather one of the pioneers who advocated a new mode of interpretation as he was translating the Buddhist scriptures—he was doing it wholly from a Christian point of view. As I have said, Richard had a deep conviction of ‘seeking the worthy’ in approaching Chinese culture and Chinese religions. This was precisely a good illustration of how the interplay between the ‘global’ and the ‘local’ perspectives can work. In adopting such a positive approach to find ‘what are worthy’ of Buddhism, Richard read into it much parallel Christian elements and he even discovered the concept of Trinitarian theism in Chinese Buddhism (Mahayana Buddhism) such as a loving father (Buddha), a compassionate saviour (Guan Yin) and a life-giving

24 see E.W. Price Evans. Op. cit., 51f. 25 see Timothy Richard, The New Testament of Higher Buddhism. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1910), 46. 26 see ibid., 29. 27 richard did not have a comprehensive understanding of Buddhism. His interpretation of Mayahana Buddhism was just one among the many sects in Buddhism. There had been criticisms from both sides—Christians and Buddhists, on the way he understood Buddhism in China. See, e.g. G.E. Moule, “The Awakening of Faith” in The Chinese Recorder, vol. 42, (1911), 347. 120 chapter five spirit (for the work of enlightenment in the human mind).28 Richard also believed that the study of other religions was crucial for the self understanding of Christianity and ‘true Christianity’ would welcome all the good found in other religions. As he said: True Christianity does not destroy any good that is found in other religions. Like its founder, it comes not to destroy but to fulfil, (he was citing the words of Jesus again who says: ‘Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them’—Matthew 5:17), and supplementing what is lacking in other religions, aiming to make its followers perfect as their Father in Heaven is perfect.29 Later, he added: “All religions have some true ideas concerning the true God . . . all have much good, some are better than others, and finally it will tend to make all to seek the highest and the best in order to be perfect as our Father in Heaven is perfect.”30 As Prof. William Soothill, the author of Timothy Richard of China, has remarked: “To reveal a new point of view is the work of a prophet.”31 For Richard, he had done it precisely so.

Being Responsive to the Living Context Richard’s first-hand experience of the catastrophic famine which hit Shandong (Shantung) province in the years 1876–1877 and in the following years in Shanxi (Shansi ) province (which was recorded as the worst in history) had convinced him that salvation for the Chinese people was not confined to the soul, but also for the physical body. China needed the gospel of love and forgiveness, but she also needed the gospel of material progress and scientific advance. As Brian Stan- ley reminds us: “Whereas in the West it was the problems of urban life which gave rise to the social gospel movement, in China the social

28 richard could see that Chinese Buddhism had developed from a non-theistic religion (Hinayana Buddhism) to one which accepted the doctrine of grace and a mer- ciful saviour (Mahayana Buddhism). He also claimed that the concept of a trinitarian theism can be found in the Chinese Buddhist texts, e.g. a loving father, a compassionate saviour and a life-giving spirit. See ibid. 29 see Timothy Richard, “The Historical Evidences of Christianity: Present Ben- efits” in The Chinese Recorder, vol. 22, no. 11, (November 1891), 492. 30 see Timothy Richard, “The Future of the Church in China” in The Chinese Recorder, vol. 43, no. 11, (November 1912), 647. 31 see William Soothill, op. cit., 319. christian attitude towards other religions & cultures 121 gospel was a response to the predicament of the rural peasantry.”32 Anyway, Richard greatly cared for the Chinese people, saving their souls as well as their bodies. After several years of working in the two provinces, he even believed that China could find national salvation only through a massive program of Westernization and economic modernization. And his Christian concern was not limited to individuals and society, but the whole nation of China. The Great Famine of 1876–1879 had, indeed, given a very good chance for the missionaries to be involved in relief work and social services, as an expression of Christian concern. Andrew Walls was right in saying that “such things were far from the minds of those who established the missionary movement, and by no means part of normal conception of missionary duty at the time when Timothy Richard first volunteered for service overseas”.33 It was not the job normally assigned to a missionary, but was only a voluntary response to the immediate situation where he was. Hence, Richard began to realize that the Christian gospel was not confined to preaching in the church, but to be lived out in society by direct caring and concern for the Chinese people. In Shandong, famine broke out in places where Rich- ard had been working, so it would be easier for him to be involved in relief work. When famine came, he was asked for help in finding food and funding for relief work alongside with his preaching work in Shandong. But in the case of Shanxi, it was another, distant province. There had not been any Protestant missionary work in Shanxi and Richard was invited just to help with famine relief work there. “What have it to do with the work of a Christian missionary? Would a missionary be called to leave his own mission field and help others with things which was not normally assigned to a missionary?” This was a really great challenge for Richard, whether it could be justified to leave his own mission in Shandong and go to Shanxi as a relief worker. Of course, Richard had to seek permission from his church and he asked his colleagues to pray for God’s guidance. Eventually they all agreed that it was his Christian duty to go to Shanxi. So it was a great learning experience for Richard and his missionary colleagues, learning to be open and responsive to the call of God, to realize and

32 see Brian Stanley. The Bible and the Flag: Protestant Missions and British Imperialism in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. (London: Routledge, 1990), 138. 33 see Andrew Walls. Op. cit., 248. 122 chapter five extend the Christian duty by helping the needy even though they were not the immediate target group of their mission. Richard wrote in 1906, “When China suffered famines, we advised the Chinese officials to open railways, mines and manufactures which would avert and ameliorate future famines. When China suffered from defeat from foreign nations, we advised China to educate the people . . . to introduce the best methods of the West for the material, social, intellectual and religious benefit of China; thus proving ourselves to be far better friends of China than their own statesmen.” Richard was always responsive to local needs and was caring for China. That was why he was honoured and remembered by millions of Chinese people even for almost a century after his death.

Daring to Adventure New Visions After working in China for fifteen years, Richard had his first furlough (sabbatical year) in 1885. He went back to England and attended the annual meeting of the Baptist Missionary Society held at the Old Exeter Hall in London. He reported to the society his work in the provinces of Shandong and Shanxi. Then he put forth his grand plan for ‘the national conversion of China’, the proposal of establishing a comprehensive educational institution (a small scale Christian college) in each provincial capital to train Chinese leaders.34 Richard dared to see new visions and, while ‘seeking the worthy’, he discovered that it was necessary to target the training of leaders for the whole nation of China. “I am after the leaders,” he said. “If you get the leaders, you’ll get all the rest.”35 It was at the time when the other missionaries were still struggling to resolve the tensions between evangelistic and educational/social service priorities, seeking justification for educational concern besides missionary work in China,36 yet for Richard, he had already come up with his grand project of advancing national, educational programmes in China. He was a great prophet indeed. Yet,

34 see e.g. E.W. Price Evans. Op. cit., 96f. 35 see ibid., 97. 36 see e.g. Calvin Mateer, “The Relation of Protestant Missions to Education” in Records of the General Conference of the Protestant Missionaries of China Held on May 10–24, 1877. (Shanghai: American Presbyterian Mission Press, 1878), 171–180. Mateer represented a tiny minority of missionaries who emphasized the importance of education and his paper aroused much discussions at the First Conference of Protestant Mis- sionaries in China held in 1877. christian attitude towards other religions & cultures 123 of course, Richard was bitterly disappointed because it annoyed the missionary board members at home as they were not yet ready to support his grand plan. He returned home in great anguish, but he still comforted himself by saying “(perhaps) God would have me bear my cross alone, and that I must fit myself more fully for influencing the leaders of China.”37 By 1890, Richard was invited by his Chinese friend, Hung Chang Li (李鴻章), a government official of high rank, to become the editor of a Chinese daily newspaper, the ‘Tianjin (Tientsin) Times’ (Shih Pao) which would provide him much chance to reach the Chinese intellectuals. And he accepted the offer immediately. Since by working in Shandong and Shanxi, he could influence not only the Chinese of the two provinces, but also through his writings in the newspaper; he could reach a much wider audience—readers and Chinese intellectuals from all over the country. As he recalled, “This was the beginning of the systematic and daily publication of the leading ideas of Christendom among the Chinese . . . a powerful organ of enlightened opinion and a pulpit from which goodwill and reform are preached.” This experience had helped him open up a new vision, namely: ‘The Conversion by the Million’.38 In 1891, several months after the death of Dr. Alexander Williamson, the founder-secretary of the Society for the Diffusion of Christian and General Knowledge among the Chi- nese, Richard was approached to be his successor.39 Having experienced of the power of literary work in China, Richard was convinced that this would be the best means to realize his vision of ‘Conversion by the Million’. It was so surprising that the Baptist Missionary Soci- ety, despite seeing his work as irrelevant and his missionary methods as misguided, resolved to second Richard and continued to support

37 see E.W. Price Evans. Op. cit., 98. 38 later, he had the vision of circulating Christian literature to the Chinese intellectuals, esp. at the examination centres, “the leading men in the whole empire would be easily reached”. See Timothy Richard, “How One Man Can Preach to a Million”, in The Chinese Recorder, vol. 20, no. 11, (November 1889), 487–498. Richard had also written a book with the same title, see Timothy Richard. Conversion by the Million, in two volumes. (Shanghai: Christian Literature Society, 1907). 39 ever since the First Protestant Missionary Conference held in China in 1877, a Standing Committee on Literature was set up primarily for the publication of suit- able text-books for mission schools. Later when Dr. Alexander Williamson took up the committee in 1887, he re-organized it and formed the Society for the Diffusion of Christian and General Knowledge among the Chinese. After four years, Williamson died suddenly and Timothy Richard was asked to take his place. 124 chapter five him financially for a provisional period of three years. When Richard became the General Secretary, he broadened the scope of work and served an immediate group of non-Christian truth seekers.40 Later, in response to the Boxer Uprising, Richard pointed out that the chief sources of China’s anti-foreign feelings were to be found in her prejudice or ignorance of Western civilization. He then set society’s aim as that of removing prejudice and ignorance among the Chinese young people so that the Christian gospel might have a free course. Among their publications, they introduced Ernst Faber’s Civilization, Chinese and Christian, Timothy Richard’s The Historical Evidences of the Benefits of Chris- tianity, and the translation of Mackenzie’s History of Christian Civilization in the Nineteenth Century. These books were targeted to a wider audience with the intention to propagate the values of Western civilization, and to bring about awakening of non-Christian Chinese. Richard had indeed many great ideas and had done much to promote Western and Christian knowledge through literary work in China, including the following: a. a free distribution of books to thousands of examination students in Peking (Beijing). As he believed, these were leaders, and ‘the conversion of one leader is often potentially the conversion of a thousand followers as well’. One thousand multiplied by one thousand will become a million. That’s how Richard came up with his vision of ‘conversion by the million’;41

40 Richard believed in the power of books. In the first place, he knew that Chinese people loved reading and writing, and they were fond of books. Secondly, he found that it was by means of books that he could enlighten the minds of officials and scholars, and he considered it an important part of a missionary’s work at the time. Furthermore, he discovered that there may be some places in China where missionaries could not go, where churches and schools could not be established, yet there books might still find their way. The Society was later changed to be known as the Christian Literature Society of China in 1905. It was in 1943 that the society joined with the Canadian Mission Press, the Associated Press and the Christian Farmer to become the United Christian Publishers in China. After 1949, the society was moved to Hong Kong and became what is now known as the Hong Kong Christian Literature Coun- cil, which celebrated its 60th anniversary in Hong Kong on December 3, 2011. 41 as Richard reported in 1903, there were some 150,000 students attending M.A. examination in China. And he believed that “the conversion of one leader is often potentially the conversion of a thousand followers as well”. That’s why he had chosen them as his target group. See Timothy Richard, “Of More Than a Thousand Mis- sionaries” in The Chinese Recorder, vol. 34, no. 1, ( January 1903), 2–8. christian attitude towards other religions & cultures 125 b. translation of Mackenzie’s History of Christian Civilization in the Nine- teenth Century, a book which had a considerable impact upon the Chinese Reform Movement; c. the presentation of his writings, esp. The Historical Evidences of the Benefits of Christianity, to the highest authorities in most of the provinces; and through their work in the society, both he and Mrs. Richard had given much support to the Anti-Footbinding Society, to enhance the movement against foot-binding in China; d. the presentation to the Empress-Dowager for her 60th birthday in November 1894, a beautifully bound copy of the New Testament was made in the name of the Protestant women of China. (There was an exhibition of the Empress-Dowager’s Bible in England in 2005.) The Bible was printed on the best foreign paper of that time, with an introductory address prepared by Mrs. Richard and was enclosed in a silver casket.42 e. during the 25 years he served society, Timothy Richard had written or translated over a hundred books or booklets, and had some shares (a chapter or so) in the production of at least 300 books; f. Most significant was his influence on the Reform Movement in the 1890s, known as the ‘Self-Strengthening Movement’ led by Yu Wei Kang and other reformers. His message to the Chinese scholar- officials was clear: the road to ‘self-strengthening’, in which Chinese scholars were prompted to follow the path of Westernization. He was later told that Yu Wei Kang, being influenced by his work, shared his beliefs in the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of nations and Kang hoped to co-operate with him in the work of China’s regeneration. The Reform Society had published a paper of its own to propagate Western knowledge and ideas. In one of the society’s most influential publications, Tracts for the Times, 31 of the one hundred and thirteen articles were written by Richard. Indeed, the name ‘Li Ti Mo Tai’ (the Chinese name of Richard) was very popularly known in China.43

42 there was a report of the event by Rev. Timothy Richard in The Chinese Recorder. See Timothy Richard, “Presentation Testament to Empress-Dowager of China” in The Chinese Recorder, vol. 26, no. 4, (April 1895), 151–161. 43 the name, Li Ti Mo Tai holds a secure place in the hearts of many Chinese people, from the mud hut of the Shanxi and Shantung peasants to the Imperial Palace in the Forbidden City of Peking. I still remember I have read his biography in Chinese when I was a small boy and I already knew that he was a great hero in China. As a Chinese poet has written in the time of Richard’s death, saying: 126 chapter five

As a result, there were great changes in China in the beginning of the twentieth century, such as: (1) the abolition of the traditional examination system and the reform of examination alongside Western lines; (2) the changing of the educational system, with the emergence of schools of Western learning, with a University in each provincial capital; and (3) the creation of opportunities for able young people to go abroad for overseas study. And in 1902, the Empress-Dowager issued an edict to abolish the custom of foot-binding. Hence, we can see the impact and influence of the work of Timothy Richard and his dream of ‘Conversion by the Million’ becoming at least partially realized. Throughout his missionary career, Richard emphasized greatly the need for education. He was so convinced of the necessity of sound education along modern lines that he suggested to the Committee of the Baptist Missionary Society in 1888 establish a Christian College under his charge in Jinan (Tsinanfu), the capital of Shandong Prov- ince. His idea did not prove feasible at that time. However, the great opportunity came after the Boxer Uprising in 1900. The events in 1900 were catastrophic for Protestant missionary work in China, as more than 200 foreign missionaries and 30,000 Chinese Christians were killed. After the incidents, China had to pay great indemnities as the foreign powers all claimed China’s compensation for lives lost and property damaged. While most of the Western missionaries were restoring their lost properties, with the rebuilding of churches and their schools,44 Richard made his proposal which was accepted by the Chinese government, i.e. to use the Boxer indemnity funds to develop modern education in China, by setting up a Western-style university in Shanxi. Richard was then asked to take care of all the appointments of

Richard, the modern sage, I love: That worthy man, to end all wars Wrote many books, his views to prove. Past is the war, gone are our fears, The Altar of great Peace is built, Our friend, alas! His life is done! Lamenting all the blood that’s spilt, I sign for him and mourn alone. My land! My land! Alas! (Quoted from Garnet, op. cit., 83.) 44 except those of the China Inland Mission which adopted the policy of not making any corporate claim for compensation, to exemplify to the Chinese ‘the meekness and gentleness of Christ’. For reference, see Broomhall, M. The Jubilee Story of the China Inland Mission (London: Morgan and Scott, 1915), 257. christian attitude towards other religions & cultures 127 the professors, the arrangement of curriculum and the administration of the university funds for a period of ten years. While negotiating for the establishment of the Shanxi Imperial Uni- versity, difficulties arose over the type of university needed for the Chinese people. Timothy Richard did not favour any use of Shanxi University as a direct tool for evangelization, which upset many missionaries of his time. Their justification was that it was both right and logical to use the Boxer indemnity to realize the ends for which the martyred missionaries had come to China.45 Yet, Richard insisted that though Christian education could be taught in the university, it would by no means be right to impose Christianity upon the students, neither could it be proper to advance evangelization work in the new university.46 Instead of setting up another Christian university in China, Richard proposed to set up a ‘Chinese university with Christian characteristics’, i.e. with the provision and promotion of Christian studies in the Chinese university. It was quite a revolutionary idea at that time, for it would upset people from both sides. Richard also faced opposition from the Chinese officials and gentry who were anti-Christian, over the issue of religious teaching in the new university. The Chinese officials forbade the teaching of Christianity in any form in thenew institution. Richard of course refused to accept this. He insisted that the religious liberty which had already been granted by international treaties should operate in the new university. For he said: “To agree to such a course, would have meant that what the missionaries and Chinese Christians who had lost their lives for their faith had done, was not worthy of the University.” What the Chinese feared was that the teaching of Christianity would become a tool for evangelization in the university. Finally, the viceroy stated: “If you do not force our people to become Christians, we would not prevent them from becoming Christians if they wish to.” The matter was then settled and it was for the first time in Chinese history that Christianity would be taught in a government university, (this remains a very good example even for Communist China today, as it advocates the academic study of

45 see e.g. Willaim E. Soothill, Timothy Richard of China: Seer, Statesman, Missionary & the Most Disinterested Advisor the Chinese Ever Had. (London: Seeley, Service & Co. Ltd., 1926). 256f. 46 soothill added, “ . . . to compel an entire body of non-Christian students to submit to Christian propaganda in a university established by non-Christian provincial funds would have been immoral, and have defeated its own ends.”, see ibid., 257. 128 chapter five

Christianity in State-run universities in China) and Richard had done a really great thing for China (a hundred years ago!).47 Richard had indeed demonstrated his missionary zeal to promote the ‘real’ modern education for the Chinese. In his study of Mod- ern Education in China in 1922, Prof. Roxby of Liverpool Univer- sity remarked that, educationally, “Shanxi was the furthest advanced province and that, at that time, it was known as ‘the model province’ (in China)”.48 Shanxi University is still running in China, of course it’s quite a different model now. However, in 2002 when Shanxi Univer- sity was celebrating it’s 100th anniversary, the name Timothy Richard was still remembered and honoured as its great founder and as a great pioneer of modern education in the province, and the Chinese people (though living in a Communist state today) still respected him, despite the fact that he was a Western missionary a century ago.

Concluding Remarks—‘Converted Before Bringing About Conversion’

In the year of 1997, I came across a book, entitled: The Conversion of Mis- sionaries.49 I was so attracted by the title of the book that I read through the whole book right away. It was a doctoral thesis written by a Chinese who studied in the United States.50 His work was on three different missionaries in China who came from the United States of America. They were, so to speak, converted by the Chinese people and culture after staying there for some years. They were Edward Hume, Presi- dent of Yale-in-China, Frank J. Rawlinson, editor of Chinese Recorder, and a novelist, Pearl Buck.51 Perhaps, we have been focused so much

47 see ibid. 257f. Also the discussions in Peter Tze Ming Ng, “Some Scenarios of the Impact of Boxer Movement on the Work of Christian Education in China” in Angelo S. Lazzarotto et al. The Boxer Movement and Christianity in China. (Taiwan: Fu Jen Catholic University, 2004), 202–224. 48 see Garner, op. cit., 69. 49 see Xi Lian. The Conversion of the Missionaries: Liberalism in American Protestant Mis- sions in China, 1907–1932. (University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1997). 50 Xi Lian was an Assistant Professor of History at Hanover College, Indiana. He had taught at Fujian Normal University. 51 most studies have sought to explore how missionaries attempted to impose their own thoughts upon the Chinese, but the book tells stories of how Chinese culture and her growing nationalism had changed the lives of these three missionaries and shaped the formation of early 20th century liberal Protestantism. See ibid. christian attitude towards other religions & cultures 129 on how missionaries had worked to change the lives of many in their mission fields that we seldom studied how their lives were changed by where they had gone. In this chapter, I have attempted to look at the life and work (or, if I may say the ‘conversion’)52 of Timothy Richard in several areas, including: (a) the breakthrough of the conventional ideas by adopting a more open attitude towards Christian mission, i.e. instead of ‘finding the lost’, he worked for ‘seeking for the worthy’; (b) to expand and broaden the concept of Christian mission by actively becoming involved in relief work and social services in China; and (c) by launching nation building programs such as literary and educational ones for the realization of his daring vision of the ‘Conversion by the Million’. It is interesting to note that ‘prophets’ are precisely those who could be changed by where they were, or by what they had seen, so that they would start prophesize and became prophets. And Richard was prophetic in the sense that he had enlightened us with a broader understanding of Christian mission—‘he had preached with a learning heart’. Rather than seeking for the lost, he went out to seek for the worthy. And in approaching Chinese culture and Chi- nese religions, he did not condemn them as pagan or false religions, but affirmed that ‘all are good’. The Chinese people believed that all religions were good because they taught us to be morally good—this was precisely what Richard had learnt from China. Hence, in order to bring about any ‘changes’ in China, Richard had first of all to be changed by China.53 Paul Cohen once attempted to compare Richard’s work with that of Hudson Taylor, giving much doubt to the daring attempts of Richard.54 Taylor’s approach was typical of the conservative, evangelical

52 interesting to note that Prof. Andrew Walls has used the word ‘conversion’ in describing the change of Richard’s life in China. See Andrew Walls, “The Multiple Conversions of Timothy Richard” in Walls. Op. cit., 236–258. 53 the conversion of Timothy Richard does not mean that he had forsaken his Christian faith, but it rather means the change in his missionary methods and in the ways to live out his Christian faith in China. 54 cohen’s remark was: “Richard advocated a much more comprehensive Chris- tianity . . . However, the history of modern China has ample proven that certain vital elements of Western civilization can be adopted and assimilated while Christianity is rejected. From the standpoint of the spread of Christianity, Richard’s approach thus seems to have been enfeebled ultimately by the very same characteristic which made it potentially appealing to the Chinese- its broadness.” See e.g. the discussion by Paul Cohen in “Missionary Approaches: Hudson Taylor and Timothy Richard”, Paper On China, vol. 11 (1957), 55f. 130 chapter five missionaries who had a narrower conception of ‘Christian Mission’; whereas Richard represented those who had changed for a broader, more liberal understanding of the concept of Christian mission. Taylor wanted to save the souls of the Chinese, in such a way that it echoed with the saying: ‘One more Christian, one less Chinese’; whereas Richard worked to Christianize the whole country, not only with the Christian gospel but also by Western civilization. Despite the fact that they had attempted different approaches to reach the Chinese people, they both failed in their missions to Christianize China. Taylor failed because his attitude toward Chinese culture, traditional religions and customs, particularly ancestor worship, was rigid and uncompromis- ing; whereas Richard, though showing more tolerance and sympathy toward Chinese religions and culture, had tried to conquer China with Western civilization.55 I shall come back to this issue about Western civilization in the two other chapters, namely those on David Paton and Bishop K.H. Ting. Here, Richard was convinced that the Chinese people would accept Christianity if they accepted Western civilization, however, it turned out that even though Chinese people were willing to accept Western civilization, it did not necessarily imply that they would take Christianity accordingly. Worse still, Chinese intellectuals even turned against Christianity using Western weapons of Science and Communism. I shall come to some other views of Christian mission offered by Chinese Christians in my other chapters in this volume. But to conclude this chapter, I would affirm that Timothy Richard can still be reckoned as a prophet of his time.56 He was indeed a man of vision and also a practical man, as he had successfully broken through conventional missionary methods and worked out new ways, and broadened

55 Though Lauren Pfister had attempted a more lenient view on Richard by claiming that “Taylor’s minimalist missionary strategy probably promoted more confrontation between missionaries and Chinese officials because of the missionaries’ inadequate sensitivity to Chinese everyday culture and elitist political values, while Richard’s more aggressive approach to China’s elites earned him the right to explain his view of ‘true Christian civilization’ and predisposed some Qing officials toward a selective acceptance of Christian claims”, yet at the end, he still had to admit that Richard’s strategy could not be as easily acceptable to the Chinese officials. See his discussion in Andrew Porter (ed.), op. cit., 212. 56 timothy Richard was not a theologian, nor was he a systematic scholar. He remained as one who was faithful to his Christian calling, he was responsive to the needs of others, he dared to break through boundaries, dared to dream visions and attempt new adventures. He was indeed a prophet of his time. christian attitude towards other religions & cultures 131 new visions, in approaching Chinese people and cultures. Richard was indeed successful, as at the end it turned out to be that he was truly respected and is still honorably remembered by the Chinese people even in Communist China today.57 Scholars today are more aware of the fact that the study of missionary movement should go beyond any mere evaluation of missionary methods, or the debate between conservative and liberal conception of Christian mission or Christian theologies. Prof. Andrew Walls has rightly reminded us, saying: The missionary movement was a great learning experience for West- ern Christianity. For those engaged in it, it was a process of discovery . . . It is no accident that one outcome of the process was a challenge to many of the assumptions that had originally under-girded the movement . . . assumptions about the values of Western society, and, eventually, about the adequacy of Western theology. Part of the story of the missionary movement as learning experience is the creation of an instru- ment for Western self-criticism.58 We have already seen the story of Timothy Richard which had indeed challenged us with a broader conception of Christian mission and a new way to understand Western theology. At the missionary conference held in Jerusalem in 1928, An American missionary, John Leigh- ton Stuart, who then was the President of Yenching University, had already argued that missionary efforts to reconcile Christianity and Chinese culture ought to “(bring) to ourselves the corrective influences it can exert upon the defects of our civilization and a broader, better- balanced understanding of our own religious faith”.59 Hence, the conversion of Timothy Richard does not mean that he had to forsake his Christian faith altogether, certainly he did not do

57 even last year, the Global Times of Taiwan reported of the 50 foreigner who had great impact on China, of whom four were missionaries and Richard was one of them. See Report from Global Times, 20060925 posted at http://tw.gospelherald .com/news/wor_981.htm The four missionaries named were: John Cadbury (嘉約翰) 1824–1901, a medical missionary in Canton; W.A.P. Martin (丁韙良) 1827–1916, the English Chancellor of Jingshi Daxuetang; Arthur H. Smith (明恩溥) 1845–1932, urged US government to return half of the Boxer indemnity for the promotion of Students Study Abroad programme, he was also one of the founders of Peking Medical Union College; and of course, Timothy Richard (李提摩太). 58 see Andrew Walls, op. cit., 258. 59 see The Christian Life and Message in Relation to Non-Christian Systems of Thought and Life vol.1 of The Jerusalem Meeting of the International Missionary Council, March 24–April 8, 1928. (New York: International Missionary Council, 1928), 45. 132 chapter five that. It was rather a challenge for him to review his own missionary methods, to revise his conception of Christian mission and even to see how far he could go in searching for a broadened understanding of his Christian faith for the new world.60 Indeed, among the many important things Richard had drawn our attention to, he called for the study of ‘The Science of Missions’ (i.e. the study of Missiology) for a new conception of Christian mission in modern times.61 This reminds me also of the remarks of another American missionary, Earl H. Cressy who has been an educational missionary in China from 1910–1946, working mostly for the Council of Higher Education of the China Christian Education Association, saying: The conversion of the missionary by the Far East results in his being not only a missionary but an internationalist, an intermediary between the two great civilizations that inherit the earth . . . bringing to them something of his new breadth of vision, and helping them to a larger appreciation of the greatness and worth of the civilization of the Far East.62

60 of course, we should not blame Timothy Richard for his arrogance in upholding the Christian and Western superiority over all civilizations and religions of the world. It was the exact mentality underlying the knowledge of comparative religion in the nineteenth century. 61 see e.g. Timothy Richard, “Some of the Greatest Needs of Christian Missions” in The Chinese Recorder, vol. 38, no. 2, (April 1907), 211–212. 62 see Earl H. Cressy, “Converting the Missionary”, Asia, ( June 1919), as quoted by Xi Lian in his, op. cit., 207. chapter six

C.Y. Cheng: the Prophet of Chinese Christianity

This short chapter was written for the mission legacy project, at the invitation of Dr. Jonathan Bonk of the Overseas Ministries Study Cen- ter, New Haven, USA. In this chapter, I shall reflect on the situations in China before and after the 1910 Edinburgh World Missionary Con- ference, giving more focus and reviewing the remarks and work of C.Y. Cheng ( Jingyi Cheng 誠靜怡, 1881–1939), especially his vision regarding the development of indigenous Christianity in China. In June 2010, I was invited to attend a Reformed Church Mis- sion Conference at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA. There was an exhibition set up in the memory and celebration of the Centenary of the World Missionary Conference of 1910 held in Edin- burgh, Scotland. I was amazed to find on its first exhibition board, a photo of a Chinese delegate, Jingyi Cheng (C.Y. Cheng) and a quota- tion from him: “Speaking plainly we hope to see, in the near future, a united Christian Church without any denominational distinctions. This may seem somewhat peculiar to some of you, but, friends, do not forget to view us from our stand-point, and if you fail to do that, the Chinese will remain always as a mysterious people to you.”1 It is marvellous to find that Cheng’s words were still relevant, even after one hundred years, and it is indeed worthy of being re-cited for deeper reflections. Cheng was a Chinese born in Beijing on September 22, 1881. His father was a pastor of London Missionary Society (LMS). He received education from LMS’s Anglo-Chinese College in Beijing, and theological training from LMS’s theological school in Tientsin (Tianjin). Within a week or two of his graduation day in 1900, Jingyi became involved, along with his family, in the terrible experiences of the Boxer outbreak. It was later recalled: “Six times he had very narrow escapes from death. His family was shut up in the British Legation quarter in

1 see “Report of Commission VIII”, vol. 8, 196. 134 chapter six

Peking (Beijing) for two months, where they suffered terrible hardships, costing the life of his little sister and permanent injury of his younger brothers.”2 These experiences must have a great impact on Jingyi’s life thereafter. Cheng went to England in 1903 to help George Owen in the translation of the Union version of the Mandarin Bible. Then he studied again at the Bible Training Institute in Glasgow, Scotland for two years, 1906–1908. In the summer of 1908, he returned to China and served as an assistant pastor at the Mi-shi Hutong (米市胡同) church in Beijing. He was ordained pastor shortly after he returned from the Edinburgh conference of 1910. The Mi-shi Hutong church was associated with London Missionary Society, but it was an independent Chinese church.3 Mi-shi Hutong church was probably the first Chinese church in Beijing which adopted Zhonghua Jidujiao hui (The Christian Church of China) as its name in 1915. Thus Cheng had been working in the frontier for the promotion of indigenous Christianity in China. Meanwhile, there had been some ‘three-self ’ movements initiated by the missionaries as early as in the Mid-19th century in some parts of China, including the development of the First and Second Amoy Church in Xiamen, and the self-governing presbyteries under the Eng- lish Presbyterian Mission in Swatow.4 The ‘three-self ’ movement was led to its second stage where the indigenous works were started by local Chinese Christians in response to the Boxer Movement in China. In the following paragraphs, I shall attempt to review especially this second stage of development of indigenous Christianity in China before and after the 1910 Edinburgh World Missionary Conference. It is found that there was indeed a strong desire among Chinese Chris- tians for the development of independent, indigenous Christianity in China, and hence Cheng’s speech at the 1910 conference was indeed prophetic for his time.

2 see Boynton, C.L. et al. “Dr. Cheng Ching Yi—Resolution—Reminiscences”, in Chinese Recorder, vol. 70, no. 12, (December 1939), 691. 3 The Chinese church attained full independence, financially and in every other way, while maintaining the most friendly relations with the parent mission. See ibid. 4 see e.g. research work done by David Cheung (Chen Yi Qiang 陳貽強), Christian- ity in Modern China: the Making of the First Native Protestant Church. (Leiden: Brill, 2004); and George A. Hood. Mission Accomplished? The English Presbyterian Mission in Lingtung, South China. (Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Peter Lang, 1986). c.y. cheng: the prophet of chinese christianity 135

The Indigenous Movements in China between the 1900s and the 1940s Throughout nineteenth century China, the Protestant missionary movement was dominated by organized missionary societies, most of them (with the exception of the China Inland Mission) being agencies of main-line denominational churches. However, after 1900, there was a great increase in the local, independent missionary work done by Chinese Christians. Perhaps, so much attention has been paid to the development of denominational Christianity in China that it was only in more recent years that scholars began to look into the growth of Chinese indigenous Christianity at and after the turn of the century.5 For instance, Daniel Bays said: “the number of Protestant Christian church members grew rapidly, from 37,000 in 1889 to 178,000 in 1906.”6 He further added: “Yet, in retrospect, the most important feature of this period was the growth of the spirit of independence in Chinese Protestant churches. This had hardly begun in the nineteenth century, but it was a prominent theme after 1900.”7 Indeed, there was a very strong desire among Chinese Christians for independence since the outburst of the Boxer incidents in 1900 in China. Chinese Christians have long been accused of believing in Christianity which was a “foreign” religion.8 They were criticized by local people of being protected by Western missionaries and foreigners and for a number of privileges they had enjoyed over the religious court cases (教案 jiaoan).9 In order to get rid of these accusations, there

5 see, e.g. Daniel Bays, ed., Christianity in China—The Eighteenth Century to the Present (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996); Jessie & R. Ray Lutz, Hakka Chinese Con- front Protestant Christianity 1850–1900: with the Autobiographies of Eight Hakka Christians (Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe, 1998); and R.G. Tiedemann, “Indigenous Agency, Religious Protectorates and Chinese Interests: The Experience of Christianity in the 19th Century China”, in Dana L. Robert, ed. Converting Colonialism—Visions and Realities in Mission History, 1706–1914. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2008). 6 see Daniel Bays, “The Growth of Independent Christianity” in Bays, D. (ed.), op. cit., 308. 7 see ibid. 8 “The Christian religion is the only one of the religions of foreign origin for which the Chinese reserve the designation ‘foreign religion’. The foreign taste of Christian- ity is perhaps too strong for the Chinese people to like it.” See the remarks by C.Y. Cheng in his “The Development of an Indigenous Church in China”, in International Review of Missions, vol. 12, (1923), 371. 9 ‘Jiaoan’ were religious incidents involving Chinese Christians or missionaries that became legal and diplomatic issues in the late 19th century China. Reports of Jiaoan can be found in Paul Cohen, China and Christianity: The Missionary Movement and the Growth of Chinese Antiforeignism, 1860–1870, (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University 136 chapter six was a new consciousness among Chinese Christians in seeking a new form of Christianity which could be freed from the dominance of foreign missionaries. Chinese Christians were seeking a new identity for themselves. They wanted to demonstrate their independence, an independent Christianity which could be freed from foreign funds (i.e. ‘self- support’), from foreign mission direction (i.e. ‘self-governance’), and from foreign-orientated preaching and theology (i.e. ‘self-propagation’). In other words, they wanted to be ‘Three-Self ’.10 As early as in 1902, two years after the Boxer incidents, pastor Guo- zhen Yu (俞國楨) and some Chinese Christians met in Shanghai and they formed an all-Chinese Christian organization called the ‘Chi- nese Christian Union’ (中華基督徒會 zhonghua jidutuhui ). They started a quarterly magazine in 1903, entitled: The Chinese Christian, and later in 1906 Yu also formed an independent, all-Chinese organisation, called the ‘Chinese Christian Independent Church’ (中華耶穌教自立會 Zhonghua Yesujiao zilihui ). It was stated clearly in its constitution that the independent church was to be separated from any foreign missionary societies, in order to demonstrate to the Chinese people that they could run their own churches, hence becoming truly ‘self- governing’, ‘self-supporting’ and ‘self-propagating’. By the year 1924, there were already more than 330 member branches registered to this ‘Chinese Christian Independent Church’, with over 20,000 Christians joining the movement.11 Another dynamic, Pentecostal movement was emerging in Beijing in 1917. The founder was Paul Wei and the movement was called ‘True Jesus Church Movement’ (真耶穌教會 Zhen Yesu jiaohui ). Wei died in 1919 and was succeeded by his son, Issac Wei who continued his work and started ‘self-propagating’ the Christian gospel throughout China and Taiwan. Their work was so successful that they finally

Press, 1963); and Joseph Esherick, The Origins of the Boxer Uprising. (Berkeley: Univer- sity of California Press, 1987). 10 it should be noted that the foreign missionaries had long been reckoning the ‘Unequal Treaties’ as guarantee and protections for all missionary activities in China. It would be extremely difficult for the missionaries to understand the feelings of the Chinese Christians who demanded a truly Chinese church independent of the foreign control. When the Chinese was asking for it, the missionaries were afraid that the Chinese were seizing power from them, hence they could not give up their powers. 11 see Qi Duan: Ershi shiji chu Zhongguo Jidujiao Bensehua yundong de fazhan (The Development of Christianity and Independence Movement in the Early 20th Cen- tury), in Zhongguo Jidujiao Bensehua shigao (Historical Documents of the Indigenization of Chinese Christianity), (Taiwan: Cosmic Light Publication Press, 2005), 127–132. c.y. cheng: the prophet of chinese christianity 137 reached as far as Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia and Hawaii, with membership over 100,000.12 One other popular figure in the Chinese churches was Mingdao Wang (王明道 1900–1991). He was a powerful preacher and teacher, and a stern and rather dogmatic man. He started by leading evangelistic meetings at his own house and later by setting up a church called ‘The Christian Tabernacle’ (基督徒會堂 Jidutu huitang), running it in his own way.13 Another charismatic leader was Dianying Jing (敬奠瀛 1890–1953), the founder of ‘Jesus Family’ (耶穌家庭 Yesu jiating) which began in Ma Zhuang of Taian county in Shandong Province.14 Jing adopted the Christian gospel and transformed it into a new form of Chinese Chris- tianity. The ‘Jesus Family’ was a typically indigenous Christian church which practised the ‘Three-Self ’ ideas, as it was ‘self-propagating’ by running evangelistic meeting in the homes of the families; it was ‘self- governing’ by its running families under the leadership of a jiazhang; and ‘self-financing’ by selling their own houses, sharing property and living together in communal life.15 There was still another form of ‘Three-Self ’ group started in South China. It was founded by Tuosheng Ni (Watchman Nee, 倪柝聲 1903–1972) in Fuzhou in 1922.16 Watchman Nee was the name commonly known by the West. He was also an inspiring preacher and compelling teacher. His Christian group was called by others as ‘Assembly Hall’ (聚會處/聚會所 Juhuichu or Juhuisuo) or ‘Little Flock’ (小群 Xiaoqun).17 However, they were so popular throughout China that there were more than 700 churches, with over 70,000 followers in the 1940s.

12 see George N. Patterson, Christianity in Communist China. (New York: Word Books, 1969), 71–73. 13 see Wing Hung Lam, Wang Ming Dao yu Zhongguo Jiaohui (Wang Mingdao and the Church in China), (Hong Kong: China Graduate School of Theology, 1982), 62–64. 14 see Feiya Tao, Zhongguo de Jidujiao Wutuobang—Jesu jiating (1921–1952) ( Jesus Family—An Utopia in China), ( Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 2004). 15 see ibid., ch. 4. 16 see Shi Jie Cha, “Ni Tuosheng” , in Zhongguo Jidujiao Renwu xiaochuan (Biogra- phies of Christian Characters in China), (Taipei: China Evangelical Seminary Press, 1983), 305–340. 17 see Chung Tao Chan (ed.), Wode koufu Ni Tuocheng (My Uncle Ni Tuosheng), (Hong Kong: The Alliance Press, 1970); and Shun Kin Lee, “Ni Tuosheng shengping jianshu” (A Brief Sketch of Ni Tuosheng), Ching Feng, vol. 61 (1979). 138 chapter six

There are some statistics that are worth citing for reference here. As we can see, during 1910 to 1920, the number of missionaries grew from 5,144 to 6,204, with a roughly 20% increase, whereas the number of Christian believers grew from around 180,000 to 366,524, almost double the number in 1910.18 Since the Anti-Christian Movements had attacked much of the missionary work in the 1920s, the number of missionaries dropped to 4,375 by 1928, yet, on the contrary, the number of Christian believers continued to rise to 446,631 in 1928. And there were 536,089 and 834,909 Christian believers recorded in 1936 and 1949 respectively.19 Obviously, Western missionaries had done much good work and laid a substantial foundation for the subsequent growth of Christianity in China, but the drastic growth in number of Christians in the twentieth century witnesses also the significant effort made by the various indigenous Christian groups and Chinese churches, and the Chinese Christians who had worked so hard for ‘self-propagation’ throughout these years.20 The development of indigenous Christianity in China since the 1950s has turned out to be another ‘mystery’ and a ‘miracle’ to many scholars. ‘Christianity Fever’ was the term used by many scholars in describing the situations in China since the 1980s. How many Chris- tians are there in China today? According to the official statistics, there were ten million Protestants in 1999, fifteen million in 2003, and in the year 2009, the Protestant population rose to sixteen million.21 Though it is difficult to arrive at an exact figure, however, more significant is the fact that there were only 800,000 Protestants in China in 1949, and the growth of the Christian population in communist China has more than quadrupled in 60 years. Who had made such tremendous

18 see the report by Jonathan Chao: Cong Zhongguo Jiaohui kan jiaohui zengchang (See- ing Church Growth from the development of Chinese Church) in Peter Chi Ping Lin, ed., Jidujiao yu xiandai Zhongguo lunwenji (Essays on Christianity and Modern China). Taiwan: Cosmic Light Publication, 1981, 350–362. 19 Ibid. 20 there were also other great evangelists in those years such as John Sung. . . . See Daniel Bays, ed., Christianity in China—The Eighteenth Century to the Present (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996), 308–312. 21 The official figure was sixteen million by 2009. See “White Paper—Freedom of Religious Belief in China”, from http://www.china-embassy.org/Press/wpreligi .htm. The statement was restated by Xiaowen Ye, the Director of the State Bureau of Religious Affairs during his interview by the editor of The Outlook in 1999. See Zhong- guo zongjiao zhuangkuang yu zongjiao zhengce (The Religious Situation and Religious Policy in China: An Interview with Xiaowen Ye, the Director of State Bureau of Religious Affairs), in Liao Wang (The Outlook), Vol. 21, (1999), 18–22. c.y. cheng: the prophet of chinese christianity 139 efforts to push for the growth of Christianity in China in the past 60 years? It was definitely not the work of foreign missionaries, as most of the missionaries had already left China shortly after 1949. Has the Chinese government done anything to promote Christianity in China? Certainly the communist government had no such intention to propagate Christianity by any means. It must be the work of Chi- nese Christians who had truly committed to ‘Three-Self ’, especially ‘self-propagation’ and those who bore witnesses to the Christian gospel even in times of sufferings or under persecution. Hence we need to re-visit the history of Chinese Christianity again and look closer to make better sense of the development of the independent, indigenous Christianity in this second century of Christianity in China.

The Quest for Indigenous Christianity With this understanding of the developments of indigenous Christian- ity in China as background, we would now come back to what C.Y. Cheng had spoken of and did after the Edinburgh Conference in 1910. Cheng made two speeches at the conference. One speech was made at the debate of Commission II on ‘The Church in the Mission Field’ and the other was at the debate of Commission VIII on ‘Co-operation and the Promotion of Unity’.22 In his first speech, he began by saying: ‘The (urgent) problem in China is the independence of the Chinese Church’.23 And he made a strong appeal at the conference for the support of the development of indigenous Churches in China, saying: “I hope with all sincerity that this Conference will recommend and take measures towards helping the Chinese Church movement.”24 In his second speech, Cheng restated: “As a representative of the Chi- nese Church, I speak entirely from the Chinese standpoint . . . Speaking plainly we hope to see, in the near future, a united Christian Church without any denominational distinctions. This may seem somewhat peculiar to some of you, but, friends, do not forget to view us from our stand-point, and if you fail to do that, the Chinese will remain always

22 for reference, see “Report of Commission II” and “Report of Commission VIII”, in World Missionary Conference, Edinburgh 1910 (Edinburgh: Oliphant, Anderson and Ferrier, 1912), vols. 2 & 8, 352–353 & 195–197 respectively. 23 see “Report of Commission II”, vol. 2, 352. 24 Ibid. 140 chapter six as a mysterious people to you.”25 Indeed, while the missionaries were mostly concerned with ‘unity and co-operation among the denominations and various mission boards’, Cheng told the conference that Chinese Christians were more concerned with the development of an indigenous Christianity in China which was free from denominationalism. “. . . denominationalism has never interested the Chinese mind. He finds no delight in it, but sometimes he suffers for it.”26 He made such a statement a century ago. Cheng’s speech was judged to be ‘without question the best speech’ presented at the conference. After the Conference, he returned to China and continued to work for the development of a united Chi- nese Christian church. So, he not only worked to promote inter- denominational co-operation on the national level, which the China Continuation Committee was supposed to do, but also worked to co-ordinate with Chinese Christians and helped independent churches to attain the goals of ‘self-management, self-support and self- propagation’, and promoted the idea of federation among the Chinese Christian churches. To co-operate and to unite, one needs to put aside the spirit of denominationalism. The China Continuation Committee met for the first time in 1913. It was attended by 1100 representatives and one third were Chinese; but when it was held again in 1922, the number of Chinese representatives went up to more than one half of the total attendance.27 At the second meeting, Cheng proposed to broaden the work of the committee and renamed the National Christian Council (NCC, 中國基督教協會Zhongguo Jidujiao xiehui ).28 Hence, the NCC was formed and Cheng was appointed as the General Secretary.

25 see “Report of Commission VIII”, vol. 8, 196. 26 Ibid. 27 the editor of Chinese Recorder hence had the following remarks, saying: “Has the Christian movement in China during 1922 found a new pivot? Yes! The transfer from missions and Western Christians as a pivot to the Chinese Church and Chinese Chris- tians has been made. The Survey and Commission reports are set up mainly in terms of missions and the contributions of Western Christians. The outlook of the National Christian Conference and the National Christian Council, however, together with their programme are painted in colours of the Chinese Church and Chinese Chris- tians”. See “The Christian Movement in China during 1922—the Editor’s Outlook”, in Chinese Recorder, vol. 54 (1923), 8. 28 ncc is like the work of WCC and the Church of Christ in China is joining together of denominational churches. c.y. cheng: the prophet of chinese christianity 141

Besides that, Cheng also worked for the formation of the Church of Christ in China (CCC, 中華基督教會 Zhonghua Jidujiao Hui ) which was set up to draw closer the various Christian denominational groups, especially the Presbyterian and Congregational churches in China. As it was reported, there were 345 Chinese pastors in 1907 and 764 in 1915. The number grew up to 1305 by 1920, whereas there were only 1268 foreign missionaries in China in 1920. Hence, Chinese pastors had already out-numbered the foreign missionaries in 1920.29 By 1927, when the Church of Christ in China was in its operation, it became the largest Protestant Church in China, representing close to a quarter of China’s Protestant churches, including members from both the denominational and independent churches. Missionary delegates once proposed for it the title of ‘Federal Council of Christian Churches in China’, but it was not accepted because it suggested a union of Western denominations rather than setting up a new Chi- nese Church. The Chinese title, Zhonghua Jidujiao Hui, on the other hand expressed more precisely the hope of Chinese Christians, i.e. to be autonomous, independent and their churches being freed from the influence and control of the mission boards. Foreign missionaries were allowed to become members of the Church of Christ in China only on equal basis with their Chinese counterparts (i.e. they were not entitled to any superior status). The Church of Christ in China worked to replace foreign missions and helped its member churches to be independent from foreign funds (‘self-support’), from foreign mission supervision (‘self-government’) and from foreign doctrine and theology (‘self-propagation’). In short, Cheng had successfully worked to expand the work of the China Continuation Committee, not only for the promotion of co- operation and unity among denominational churches, but also for the realization of his vision regarding the accomplishment of ‘Three-Self ’ and the federation of Christian churches in China. The federation of Christian churches in China was formed, not only for the sake of co- operation among the missionaries, but also for the sake of unity among the Christian forces in China, while at the same time maintaining co- operative links with the missionaries. Despite his young age and his being a Manchu working amongst the Han people, Cheng had demonstrated his great leadership in working among foreign missionaries

29 see, for reference, Stauffer, Milton T. ed., op. cit., 35. 142 chapter six and Chinese Christians, and in co-ordinating them towards the unified Christian Church in China. Cheng was indeed a great man and a great prophet of his time. It is no doubt that much of Cheng’s work remained of immediate relevance and the issues he perceived as important in 1910 were still found central to the development of Christianity in China throughout the past century.

Concluding Remarks

Cheng died on November 15, 1939, at Lester Chinese Hospital in Shanghai at the age of fifty-eight. He indeed understood accurately the situation in China and saw the need not only for the pursuit of cooperation among missionary churches, but also for the development of indigenous, three-self churches. In the past century, Chinese Christians have undergone much suffering, and it was with great difficulty and patience that they waited for the development of indigenous Christianity in China. We are reminded of this lovely story, told by Cheng at the 1910 conference: A little girl once was carrying a little boy on her back. Some one said to her, ‘I see you have a big burden, haven’t you?’ ‘No’, replied the little girl, ‘that is not a burden; that is my brother’.30 Indeed, Chinese Christians have been taking the task of indigenization to be ‘(their) privilege, (their) joy, and not (their) burden’.31 And I shall end this chapter by repeating Cheng’s appeal at the same conference a century ago, which says: “I hope with all sincerity that this conference will recommend and take measures towards helping the Chinese Church movement.”32

30 see “Report of Commission II”, vol. 2, 352. 31 see ibid. 32 see ibid., 353. chapter seven

Francis C.M. Wei: Bridging National Culture And World Values

A pioneer in comparative cultural studies, Dr. Francis C.M. Wei became a channel for the cultural exchange between the Western world and China. The famous American historian Kenneth Latourette expressed his high regard for Wei while writing a foreword to Wei’s book, The Spirit of Chinese Culture: We have here a subject of central importance treated by a master . . . Toward the comprehension of the spirit of the Chinese and their culture, Dr. Wei is a superb guide. A Chinese by birth and nurture, he knows his people and the unseen forces which have molded them . . . At the same time, he knows the Occident and so is able to bridge the gulf between that part of the world and China . . . Sympathetic with the deepest insights of the Chinese spirit, he is also a Christian. Few can equal him and none can surpass him as an interpreter of the Soul of China to the English-speaking world.1 Among Chinese Christians in the late 1940s and early 1950s, there was a popular saying, ‘Bei Zhao Nan Wei’, meaning ‘For Protestant theologians in China, we have Zichen Zhao (T.C. Chao) in the north and Zhuomin Wei (Francis Wei) in the south’.2 Behind the achievement of such recognition at home and abroad was a remarkable man, Dr. Francis Wei. Although he lived most of his life in the Wuhan area on the Yangzi (Yangtze) River in central China, Dr. Wei became a citizen of the world through education, work and by travelling abroad. He was not only a dedicated and influential educator, but

1 Francis C.M. Wei, The Spirit of Chinese Culture. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons Press, 1947, vii and viii. Latourette went on to say, “If we are to know the Chinese we must become aware of the systems of thought and the religions which have had so large a share in making them what they are. This insight into the Chinese is of peculiar importance for Americans.” 2 the popular saying was found in the Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui (The Chinese Anglican/Episcopalian Church). See, for reference, my discussion in Peter Tze Ming Ng. “Lecture III: On T.C. Chao” in Wo suo huainian de siwei Shenggong zong shenxuejia (The Four Anglican Theologians I Respected Most). (Kowloon, Hong Kong: All Saints’ Church, 2006), 28–39. 144 chapter seven also a creative philosopher and a theologian. He was an outstanding Chinese intellectual, yet unlike many of his contemporaries, he did not despise Christianity or Western cultures. Early on, he had great interest in the study of Christian religion and Western philosophies, and was baptized into the American Protestant Episcopal Church. He possessed a strong sense of Christian identity yet he did not forsake his own Chinese identity, but kept up a keen interest in the exploration of his national culture. Being a pioneer in comparative cultural studies, Wei became a bridge between Western and Chinese cultures.

Life and Work in International Education

Zhuomin Wei (Francis C.M. Wei, 1888–1976) was born on December 7, 1888, in the village now called Zhongshan, Guangdong Province.3 He received his education from Boone College, a mission school run by the American Protestant Episcopal Church in Wuchang, Hubei Province, where his father had some trading business. Wei gained his Bachelor of Arts degree in 1911, and in the same year he also became a Christian and was baptized in the American Protestant Episcopal Church in Wuchang.4 Wei received a scholarship at Boone College to work on a Master of Arts degree, which he completed in 1915. In September 1918, Wei had a rare opportunity to go abroad through a scholarship offered by his denomination’s school, the American Episcopal Theological School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where he spent one year studying theology and in the following year, he moved to study the ‘history of Western philosophy’ at Harvard University, where he completed a M.A. degree in Philosophy. In July 1920, he returned to China and became a professor of philosophy and theology at Boone College.5

3 ‘Zhongshan’, named for Sun Yat-sen, who also was born there, is now in the Zhu Hai Special Economic Zone. Wei was married to Hui Xiong Dai (戴惠琼), who bore for him a son named Bao E (寶鍔) and a daughter named An Na (安娜). Bao E has been a scientist working for the Wuhan Branch of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. 4 see Winifred E. Hulbert, “Dr. Wei: Builder of the Kingdom in China,” in The Spirit of Missions, 99: 19–23. A Chinese translation was found in Min Ma, ed., Wei Zhuomin Jidujiao Wenji (Francis C.M. Wei’s Writings on Christianity). (Hong Kong: Institute of Sino-Christian Studies, 2000), 185–191. 5 see Howard L. Boorman, ed., Bibliographical Dictionary of Republican China, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1967), 3: 403–406. bridging national culture and world values 145

In 1924, Boone College was renamed and expanded as Huachung (Central China) University, which today is Central China (Huazhong) Normal University.6 Wei was appointed as Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. By 1927 he had another opportunity to travel and study in various countries in Europe. He completed a Ph.D. degree in 1929 at the University of London, after which he returned to China to become the first Chinese President of his alma mater. There he served as president for 23 years until 1952, and thereafter as a professor. Central China University was founded through the joint efforts of various Protestant denominations: the London Missionary Society and the Wesleyan Methodist Mission from England, and the Ameri- can Protestant Episcopal Church, American Reformed Church and Yale-in-China Mission from the United States. The members of the Management Board were representatives from the various denominations, from their respective countries. In this way, the university itself provided a global context for Wei who had to run an internationally linked, Christian university for the benefit of the Chinese students, of whom most were from local regions in China. Hence, Wei had to seek his own ways to integrate the Christian faith with the Chinese social context in order to serve as a Chinese president who could be both truly a Christian and a Chinese educator. He had to be concerned with the realization of the Christian vision and its world values in a localized Chinese context.7 Despite his major administrative responsibilities, Wei was actively involved in the Christian movement, both locally and internationally. American historian, Miner S. Bates, who worked in China for 30 years, listed Wei as one of China’s prominent Christians.8 Francis

6 For a brief history of the university, see John L. Coe, Huachung [Huazhong ] Uni- versity. (New York: United Board for Christian Higher Education in Asia, 1962); and E.D. Burton. Christian Education in China: A Study Made by the Educational Commission Representing the Mission Boards and Societies Conducting Work in China. (New York: The Education Commission, 1922), 129–132. 7 For reference, see Peter Tze Ming Ng. Quanqiu diyuhua shijiaoxia de Zhongguo Jidu- jiao daxue (Christian Higher Education in China—As Seen from the Perspective of Glocalization) (Taiwan: Cosmic Light Publication Ltd., 2006), 139–164; and Xianfa Wan, ed. Wei Zhuomin boshi Jiaoyu Wenhua Zongjiao lunwenji (Dr. Francis C.M. Wei’s Writings on Edu- cation, Culture, and Religion). (Taiwan: Huazhong Da Xue Wei Zhuomin Ji Nian Guan, 1980). 8 Miner S. Bates was a professor of history at the University of Nanking from 1920–1950. Various versions of his “A List of Prominent Chinese Christians” can be found in the Bates Papers in the Special Collections of the Yale Divinity School 146 chapter seven

Wei’s many public activities from the 1920s through the 1940s provided him a worldwide context for comparing Christian movements around the world and exploring how Christianity could help in the development of his own national culture.9 In the first decade after his return to China, Wei was appointed as a delegate of his own church to attend the inaugural conference of China’s National Council of Churches (NCC) held in Shanghai in 1922. At the conference, he was then elected as one of the one hundred members of the National Council of Churches, and thereafter, gave addresses at several of its conferences from 1922–1928. And in 1928, he was appointed as one of the Chinese delegates attending the International Missionary Conference in Jerusalem. While studying in London between 1927 and 1929, Wei kept in close touch with the London Missionary Society and the Wesleyan Methodist Missionary Society, which supported his study and his work at Central China University.10 Throughout the 1930s, after his return again to China, Wei became a Chinese representative in the Christian World Movement, which led to the launch of the World Council of Churches (WCC) in 1938. Here, too, Wei became an active leader as well as representing China.11 In 1946, he was elected as the President of the National Committee of the Chinese Anglican Church. That August, he attended a World Council of Churches Conference held in Cambridge, England, where he served not only as a Chinese delegate, but also one of only three vice-chairs of the conference.12 And in 1948, he was invited to attend another WCC International Conference held in Madras, India.

Library. A Chinese translation of the list(s) is in Kaiyuan Zhang, ed., Christian Colleges and Social Transformation in China, (Hankow: Hubei Educational Press, 1998), 369–486. 9 For a brief biography listing such activities, see Howard L. Boorman (ed.) Bio- graphical Dictionary of Republican China, vol. 3. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 403–405. 10 coe, Huachung [Huazhong] University, p. 56. 11 coe, Huachung [Huazhong] University, p. 129. 12 at the Cambridge Conference of 1946, John Foster Dulles (United States) was appointed as chair, and Marc Boegner (France), Sir Kenneth Grubb (United King- dom) and Francis Wei (China) were appointed as vice-chairs. So it was a great honor of Wei to be one of the vice-chairs there. See John Nurser, For All People and All Nations. (Geneva: WCC Publications, 2005), 133. bridging national culture and world values 147

Being Chinese, Wei did not Reject Western Christianity

Wei was raised in a fairly traditional Chinese family in South China. Wei’s uncles and their family members were mostly bankers and mer- chants. His own father was a tea merchant as well as a Confucian scholar. Wei was brought up with a Confucian education at home, being taught the Chinese Classics at the age of seven. But as a merchant in Hankow, Wei’s father understood the importance of learning the English language, so he sent Wei across the river from Hankow to a mission school in Wuchang at the age of twelve. When leaving home, Wei was told by his parents that the aim of his study in a mission school was to learn as much English as possible from the missionaries, but to close his ears to their religious teachings.13 Wei spent eight years at Boone School in Wuchang and as an obedient child, he dared not proclaim himself to be a Christian until he graduated at the age of twenty-one.14 Despite his parent’s admonition to just learn English, Wei was much enlightened by the holistic education he received from the missionaries. As he recalled later, the mission school had provided him the great opportunity to learn about Christianity by attending worship services, which was required despite his unwillingness. It stimulated his thinking about his own Chinese culture and he started to study the Confucian classics again. Gradually he discovered that the teachings in Chris- tianity and Confucian ethics were not contradictory.15 By then, he had developed a keen interest to study not only the Christian religion, but also Western cultures and philosophy. In 1919, after one year of preparatory study in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Wei moved on to Harvard University where he studied comparative philosophy under Professor William E. Hocking, a renowned philosopher. In 1927, he had another chance to go abroad and this time he went to Europe for more advanced research on comparative studies of Eastern and Western cultures. He was fortunate enough to work under Prof. L.T. Hobhouse at the University of London and with Prof. B.H.

13 Winifred E. Hubert, “Dr. Wei: Builder of the Kingdom in China”, The Spirit of Missions, vol. 99, 19–23. 14 Min Ma, ed., Wei Zhuomin Jidujiao Wenji (Francis C.M. Wei’s Writings on Christianity). (Hong Kong: Institute of Sino-Christian Studies, 2000), 188. 15 Francis C.M. Wei, Jidujiao de jiben xinyang (Basic Elements of the Christian Faith). (Hong Kong: The Council on Christian Literature for Overseas Chinese, 1965), 1. 148 chapter seven

Streeter at Oxford University. While he was pursuing his study in England, Wei was invited to write for the series China Today through Chi- nese Eyes and he contributed a treatise in English entitled ‘Synthesis of Cultures of East and West’.16 Wei stated explicitly his own understanding of cultures, the possible approach to cultural intercommunication and workable ways of ‘synchronizing’ Eastern and Western cultures, providing important insights on modern society. How to synchronize Eastern and Western cultures? Wei proposed that we should adopt a sympathetic and appreciative attitude towards the different cultures, not to conquer one by the other, but rather to conserve the good elements of both cultures and integrate them into an organic whole.17 At that time, there was a rising tide of nationalism in China and most intellectuals in those days were cautious about Western cultures and wanted to guard Chinese culture against possible erosion by the West. On the contrary, Wei advocated instead an open attitude toward Western cultures. He affirmed first of all that a nation could never exist without its own culture; a people could never forsake their own culture totally. A culture was organic by nature; it would grow by absorbing or being transformed when interacting with other cultures.18 The change of culture would not destroy the country as such; it would rather help the growth of a nation. Since culture grows like a living organism, the best way to preserve culture is not to protect it from encountering other cultures, but to help it grow well, by adopting an open attitude to different cultures, by preserving their valuable elements and by seeking ways to help develop their growth into an organic whole.19

16 Francis C.M. Wei, “Synthesis of Cultures of East and West,” China Today Through Chinese Eyes, Second series (London: Student Christian Movement, 1926), 74–85. 17 Wei, “Synthesis of Cultures of East and West,” op. cit., 77. 18 Wei, “Synthesis of Cultures”, op. cit., 75. 19 indeed, Wei suggested that the best way to encounter foreign cultures was not to reject nor to accept all of them, but to seek a higher level, or the global elements of foreign cultures. See also discussions in Wan (ed.), Wei Zhuomin boshi Jiaoyu Wen- hua Zongjiao lunwenji (Dr. Francis C.M. Wei’s Writings on Education, Culture, and Religion), (Taiwan: Huazhong Da Xue Wei Zhuomin Ji Nian Guan, 1980), 53–62. Also see Min Ma, ed., Wei Zhuomin Jidujiao Wenji (Francis C.M. Wei’s Writings on Christianity), xxv. bridging national culture and world values 149

Being Christian, Wei did not Despise Chinese Culture

Wei was educated and baptized at a missionary college, where he had been taught much about Christianity, but he also spent much time studying Chinese classics so as to compare Confucian and Chris- tian teachings. In other words, even though Wei was interested in the Christian religion, he still valued highly his own national culture. He had written an excellent graduation thesis entitled ‘Religious Beliefs of the Ancient Chinese and Their Influence on the National Character of the Chinese People’.20 This was probably the first ever known undergraduate thesis ina Chinese university on the religiosity of the Chinese people. Besides being published in 1911 in the College magazine, The Boone Review, it was quickly reprinted by The Chinese Recorder, an influential magazine printed by the missionary community.21 In his thesis, Wei explored ancient Chinese religious beliefs, especially Chinese conceptions of God and of ancestor worship. He quoted references from The Book of Rites and The Book of Books, and argued that those religious beliefs had long been in the minds of the Chinese and had become part of the national character of the Chinese people. Hence, Wei’s exploration in depth of the religious elements of Chinese culture led him to affirm the significance of such beliefs. Just after Wei began his postgraduate study at Boone in Septem- ber 1911, he witnessed the start of the 1911 Revolution in Wuchang, which was just across the Yangtze (Yangzi ) River.22 The birth of the new

20 Francis C.M. Wei, Gudai Zhongguo ren zhi zongjiao xinyang jiqi dui Zhongguo minzu xing de yingxiang (Religious Belief of the Ancient Chinese and Their Influ- ence on the National Character of the Chinese People), in Xianfa Wan (ed.), Wei Zhuomin boshi Jiaoyu Wenhua Zongjiao lunwenji (Dr. Francis C.M. Wei’s Writings on Educa- tion, Culture, and Religion). (Taiwan: Huazhong Da Xue Wei Zhuomin Ji Nian Guan, 1980), 1–25. 21 It was first published in The Boone Review and immediately appeared in two parts in The Chinese Recorder (Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources) 42:6 (1911), 319–328 and 42:7 (1911), pp. 403–415. It should be noted that The Chinese Recorder covered the heyday of the Protestant Missions in China. Kathleen Lodwick devoted her valuable time to compile The Chinese Recorder Index—A Guide to Christian Missions in Asia, 1867– 1941 in two volumes (The Scholarly Resources, Inc., 1986). John K. Fairbank wrote a Preface saying that she had done “a truly gargantuan task” and “her multi-index . . . is a worthy successor to Prof. Kenneth S. Latourette’s survey (A History of Christian Mis- sions in China, published in 1929) more than half a century ago.” 22 Winifred E. Hubert, “Dr. Wei: Builder of the Kingdom in China”, in The Spirit of Missions, vol. 99 (1935), 19–23. 150 chapter seven

Republic of China had a great impact on Wei, so much so that he chose to write his Master’s thesis on ‘The Political Thoughts of Men- cius’, revealing his keen interest in studying traditional culture with a very specific political dimension. He retained this focus on Chinese tradition even in 1929, while pursuing a doctoral degree at the University of London, England, with a dissertation entitled ‘A Study of the Chinese Moral Tradition and Its Social Values’.23 Thus it can be seen from his academic work that even though Wei was educated in a Christian college and trained in both American and British contexts, his research interests remained focused on a wide range of aspects in Chinese traditional culture, including ethics, politics, philosophy and religions. Thus, his early research already highlighted the mutual interplay between Western and Chinese cultures. Wei was highly respected by foreign academics because of his ability to produce such scholarship on Chinese culture and clearly share his knowledge for Western audiences. He was invited to attend a conference at Yale University in 1934 and give Woodward Lectures at Yale University Divinity School, Schermerhorn Lectures at Columbia Uni- versity, and Haskell Lectures at Oberlin Graduate School of Theol- ogy while he was attending the General Conference of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States. In 1937–38, he was appointed an Adjunct Professor of Ethics at Yale Divinity School, New Haven.24 The appreciation of American scholars became more evident when Wei was appointed as Visiting Professor of Comparative Philosophy at Union Theological Seminary, New York in 1945–1946, and was given the honor to be the first Henry W. Luce Visiting Professor of World Christianity, presenting a series of Hewett Lectures at Andover- Newton Theological School, Newton Centre, and the Episcopal Theo- logical School, Cambridge, Massachusetts and at Union Theological Seminary, New York City in 1946. The series of lectures were then

23 according to Coe, Huachung University, Wei’s doctoral dissertation was “On Confucian Ethics” and his degree was from the School of Economics, University of London, England. However, according to a photocopy of the dissertation’s title page provided by the Senate House Library of the University of London, the exact title was, “A Study of the Chinese Moral Tradition and Its Social Values”, which was completed in 1929. The dissertation is still kept and is available there. 24 see Howard L. Boorman, ed., Bibliographical Dictionary of Republican China, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1967), 3: 403–406. bridging national culture and world values 151 compiled into a book published by Charles Scribner’s Sons Press, New York, entitled: The Spirit of Chinese Culture.25

New Understanding of Christian Mission—a Bridge between East and West

Besides introducing the spirit of Chinese culture to American scholars and religious leaders, Wei took upon himself the challenge of developing an alternative understanding of the Christian mission in China, which he unveiled during his series of lectures in New York in 1945–1946. Wei began with an emphasis on the antiquity of Christianity in China, with which most of his audience was unfamiliar. And while most of his Chinese, as well as Western contemporaries, assumed the coming of Christianity to China from the Western world in recent centuries, Wei pointed out that it had arrived much earlier, from Persia in West Asia, and not from Europe or America. He followed Professor Yuan Chen (陳垣)’s analysis of Christianity’s arrival in China in four distinctive periods.26 Wei explained that according to Chen, Christianity first came to China by the early Tang Dynasty, when Alopen, the first Nestorian missionary, arrived in Changan in A.D. 635, in response to an official court invitation. The Chinese emperor, Tang Taizong had shown great respect for and welcomed Christianity most graciously. But because the Nestorians had identified themselves as one of the Buddhist sects in China, they were suppressed when Tang Emperor Wuzong ordered a ban on Buddhism in A.D. 845. The second period was in the Yuan Dynasty in the 13th century, A.D., when the Mongols favored Nestorian Christianity. Because this time the religion was so closely affiliated with the Mongols, it was quickly dissolved after the destruction of Mongolian rule in A.D. 1368. The Mongolians were indifferent to Chinese culture and there was little Mongolian evangelism among the Chinese, hence there was no

25 Wei, The Spirit of Chinese Culture. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Press, 1947). 26 Yuan Chen, Zhongguo Jidujiao jianshi (A Brief History of Christianity in China), in zhenli yuekan (Truth Magazine Weekly) 2:18 ( July 1924). Yuan Chen was the president of Fu Jen Catholic University in Beijing in 1929. Earlier, as a lecturer at Yenching University, while giving a speech at a Christian students’ summer retreat in Beijing in 1924, Chen was the first to expound on the history of Christianity in China as four distinctive periods. 152 chapter seven broad Christian impact upon Chinese life and thought during Mon- golian rule. The third period was the coming of Roman Catholicism in the Ming Dynasty in the 15th to 16th century. Great Jesuit missionaries such as Matteo Ricci and his successors did have significant influence on the imperial court. But later, the Dominicans and Augustinians quarreled with the Jesuits, which gave rise to the famous Chinese Rites Contro- versies over the practice of veneration of ancestors. The ensuing challenge to such central tenets of Chinese state orthodoxy led to expulsion of Catholic missionaries from China in the early 18th century.27 The fourth, modern period began with the coming of Protestant missionaries in the early 19th century. In re-telling the history of Christianity in China, Wei concluded that as far as Chinese life and thoughts were concerned and at least for the first and second periods, the missionary “had failed to understand the essence of Chinese culture and to make a real impact upon it or to utilize it as a medium for presenting Christianity to the Chinese.”28 In the third and fourth periods, the spread of Christianity became identified with trade and territorial expansion; especially in the 19th and early 20th centuries: the spread of the Christian gospel became associated with the evangelization of a modern system and culture for the whole world. Wei then expounded on the Chinese perspective on modern Chris- tian mission in China, usually conceived of by Westerners as part of the ‘expansion of territorial Christendom’.29 This was especially so during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when Protestant missionaries were consumed with the zeal ‘to evangelize the whole world

27 the Chinese Rites Controversy was a dispute between the Chinese government and the Roman Catholic Church from 1630 to the early 18th century, about whether the Chinese ancestral rites and offerings to the Emperor constituted idolatry or not. Pope Clement XI favored the Dominican view and proclaimed Chinese rites as incompatible with Catholicism, whereupon the Chinese Emperor, Kangxi decided to ban all Christian missions in China in 1692. The Jesuits had taken a more open view regarding the rites issue. For more details, see Mungello, D.E. (ed.) The Chinese Rites Controversy: Its History and Meaning (San Francisco: The Ricci Institute for Chinese- Western Cultural History, 1994). 28 Wei, The Spirit of Chinese Culture, 17. 29 the terms ‘expanding Christendom’ and ‘Colonization’ were seen as identical perhaps even earlier, but were so especially in the Age of Discovery. See Dana L. Robert, “Christianity in the Wider World,” in Howard C. Kee, ed., Christianity: A Social and Cultural History, Second Edition (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1998), Part VI, 525–580. bridging national culture and world values 153 in this generation’.30 The idea was manifested at the World Missionary Conference held in Edinburgh in 1910, during which the world was described as divided into two categories: ‘lands fully missionized’ and ‘lands not yet fully missionized’.31 By the 1920s, there was growing resentment of such thinking in China, which surged after the publication of Milton Stauffer’s book, The Christian Occupation of China, the title of which suggested the idea of conquering China by the Christian powers.32 The Chinese people strongly reacted against such imperialistic conceptions of Christendom, and intellectuals began to criticize the Christian Missions as ‘tools of Western imperialism’, the ‘means of cultural imperialism by Western powers in China’.33 One famous Chinese scholar captured this sentiment when he said, “When Buddha came to China, he was riding on an elephant but Jesus was riding on gunboats.”34 Following widespread incidents during an anti-Christian movement throughout China, culminating in the damage of mission property in Nanjing in 1926, nearly half of the missionaries left China. Shortly after the massive withdrawal of missionaries, Wei was asked to give an address on January 5, 1928, to church leaders at the National Chris- tian Council in Shanghai. He spoke on a very timely topic: ‘Projecting the Future of Mission Policy in China’.35 Wei observed that Chinese Christians did not like to see their conversion into Christianity interpreted as being ‘called into Christendom’ in the way the missionaries had understood this, i.e. merely to be trans- ferred from a ‘heathen’ world into a Christian kingdom. Thus Wei suggested that, rather than seeking to conquer the non-Christian world, Christian missionaries should seek help from the non-Christian peoples

30 Records of the General Conference of the Protestant Missionaries of China Held at Shanghai, May 10–12, 1877 (Shanghai: American Presbyterian Missionary Press, 1878). 31 andrew F. Walls, “The Old Age of the Missionary Movement,” International Review of Mission, 77 ( January 1987), 26–32. 32 stauffer, Milton T., ed., The Christian Occupation of China. (Shanghai: China Con- tinuation Committee, 1922). The title strongly suggested the idea of conquering China by the Christian powers. 33 Francis Wei, “Viewpoints on the Present Situation: Some Aspects of the Rela- tions of the People’s Revolution to the Christian Movement” in The Chinese Recorder, (March 1927), 219–220. 34 Jiang Meng Lin, Xi Chao (Tidings from the West). (Taiwan: China Daily Press, 1957), 3–4. 35 Wei’s speech was later published with the same title, “Projecting the Future of Mission Policy in China,” The Spirit of Missions vol. 93 (1929), 141–144. 154 chapter seven by inviting them to join as partners in the worldwide Christian movement. In order to realize the truth that Christianity is a world religion, she needs to seek expressions in different cultures and to be joined by different peoples of the world. The Chinese people would rather like to be invited to join and share a part in the Christian worldwide movement, without losing their own national identity. Expressing sorrow over the withdrawal of the missionaries in the 1920s, Wei gave three suggestions regarding the future of Christian missions in China, namely to: (1) emphasize Christian nurture rather than ‘Christian occupation’ in China; (2) be more concerned with the training of Christian leaders so that the churches could move ahead towards the better realization of self-governance and self-support; and (3) move beyond Western denominationalism.36 Over a decade later, in 1939, Wei spoke on the similar topic of ‘(World Christian) Missions in This Age’ in an address at the annual conference of the American National Women’s Auxiliary Association.37 He affirmed the work of the missionaries who had devoted their lives to China in the past century, and he stressed that since the Chinese population constituted one quarter of the world’s population, it was really essential and significant to help Chinese people understand the Christian message and revelation. He then expounded on four necessary stages of development in missionary work in China. The first stage occured when the pioneer missionaries came and explored new ways to start work in China. The second stage was when the missionaries consolidated foundational missionary activities and began schools and churches. The third stage was when the missionaries expanded their work by setting up mission stations and management networks throughout China. This was also the time for training local people and building up ‘self-governing’ and ‘self-supporting’ native churches. In the fourth stage, the Chinese churches would stand on their own and become fully autonomous.

36 Wei’s points echoed the views of T.C. Chao, who made an opening address to the NCC in 1922 on “The Strengths and Weaknesses of the Chinese Church”, in which he said firmly that there would not be any future for the Chinese Church unless it could do away with the image of ‘foreign religion’ and discard Western denominationalism. See T.C. Chao. “On the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Chi- nese Church,” Sheng ming yuikan (Life Monthly) 3:5 ( January 1923), 1–8. 37 the address was translated by Prof. Min Ma into Chinese and collected in Min Ma, Wei Zhuomin Jidujiao Wenji (Francis C.M. Wei’s Writings on Christianity), (Hong Kong: Institute of Sino-Christian Studies, 2000), 97–107. bridging national culture and world values 155

Wei explained that mission work in China had reached only the third stage and was just beginning to move into the fourth stage. “The building of the Chinese churches had to be accomplished by the help of the missionaries, with the support from their ‘mother church’ and the ‘universal church’. Yet, the work had to be completed by the Chinese people themselves.” In other words, the missionaries had to prepare to give away their power and domination and hand over authority to the Chinese churches. In his series of Hewett Lectures in 1945–1946, Wei stated his views even more clearly: It is because the Christian believes that the Christian Church needs all people in the world, as much as all people in the world need the Christian faith, that the world wide Christian missionary movement is supported and kept going. When this is explained and understood in China the missionary movement will no longer be regarded as Western arrogance and presumptuousness, and the missionary will not be considered as exercising his prerogative of making known what he has in himself and what others lack, but (rather) as doing his duty in seeking for a more adequate expression for the Faith which is intended for the whole of mankind.38 Wei was suggesting that only in this way could the Chinese (and other non-Western peoples as well) feel respected as people and as individuals, maintaining their own national identities. They could thus feel honored to be part of the Christian worldwide movement by joining as members of the universal church.39 This mutuality is the key to both the appreciation of global values in Christianity and the respect for the spiritual heritage of Chinese culture.

A New Conception of World Christianity

Besides cultivating a new understanding of Christian missions for American scholars and religious leaders, Wei also attempted to develop a new conception of World Christianity. His opening lecture in New

38 Wei, The Spirit of Chinese Culture, 159–160. 39 see further discussion in Peter Tze Ming Ng, Wei Zhuomin Boshi yanzhongde Jidujiao jiqiyu Zhongguo Wenhua zhi guanxi (Christianity and Chinese Culture As Seen from the Eyes of Francis Wei), in Min Ma, ed. Kuayue Zhongxi Wenhuade Juren (A Giant Bridging the Gap between the Chinese and Western Cultures), ( Wuhan: Huazhong Normal University Press, March 1995), 83–98. 156 chapter seven

York in 1945 addressed the issue of ‘Rooting the Christian Church in Chinese Soil’.40 While affirming Christianity as a worldwide movement, Wei believed that only with an in-depth appreciation of the spirit of Chinese culture and rooting the Christian church in Chinese soil could Christianity and Chinese culture be mutually beneficial. In order for Christianity to be properly understood and received by the Chinese, Wei argued that Chinese culture needed to be utilized “as a medium for the presentation of the Christian religion to the Chinese, (and) that Christian teachings must be put, at the initial stage at least, in terms of Chinese thought-forms and according to the Chinese philosophical, religious, artistic and social genius.”41 Wei even suggested that development of a Chinese Christian theology could supplement Western Christianity and enrich the worldwide Christian heritage. Wei also suggested that if one took the idea of World Christ ianity seriously, one should be clear that without Asia or China, Christianity could in no way be a world religion.42 In other words, the ‘local’ (Asia or China) should be seen as an indispensable part of the ‘global’ (World Christianity). For Christianity to be recognized as a world religion, it must find its full expression in all cultures. Thus, when the Chinese accepted and gave expression to their Christian faith in the Chinese culture, they were at the same time bringing about the realization of Christianity as a world religion. This was by no means a rejection of Western Christianity; rather, Christianity would become more welcome in China in so far as its Western form was not presented as the only ‘perfect’ or absolute form of representation. Wei suggested that his approach was a new way of interpreting Christianity in the context of all the various cultures it encountered. In this way the special strength and virtue of all the religious traditions (including the Chinese religions) may be brought into the Christian Church, each as a new emphasis to supplement the ‘empirical’ Christi- anity which we at present recognize as predominantly western, and we may have an entirely fresh vision of the glory of our Faith . . . For we see clearly that not only do those peoples need the Faith of the Christian

40 Xianfa Wan ed., Wei Zhuomin boshi Jiaoyu Wenhua Zongjiao lunwenji (Dr. Francis C.M. Wei’s Writings on Education, Culture, and Religion), (Taiwan: Huazhong Da Xue Wei Zhuomin Ji Nian Guan, 1980), 115–138. 41 Wei, The Spirit of Chinese Culture, 22. 42 Xianfa Wan, ed., Wei Zhuomin boshi Jiaoyu Wenhua Zongjiao lunwenji (Dr. Francis C.M. Wei’s Writings on Education, Culture, and Religion), (Taiwan: Huazhong Da Xue Wei Zhuomin Ji Nian Guan, 1980), 115–138. bridging national culture and world values 157

Church, but also the Christian Church needs their cultures in order to give it a fuller expression that it may become more ecumenical.43 The task of mutual enrichment was not easy to achieve, and indeed it would require a long process of mutual adaptation, maintaining the consistency of each culture and yet working for constructive assimila- tion. Thus, on the one hand, Wei believed that Christianity could help fulfill the spirit of Chinese culture by making it more complete. For example, it brought a more profound understanding of the nature of God and the way human beings could communicate with and relate to God. To the Chinese people, God was a judge, not a father, much less the loving father in Christian teaching. Similarly, the doctrine of grace could enrich the spiritual dimension of Chinese life. On the other hand, Wei argued that Christianity needed China in order to move beyond Western denominationalism to become more inclusive. Wei explained, “We may not have to give up our denominational characteristics, but what we ought to learn is to respect and tolerate one another’s differences.”44 Ever since Protestantism came to China, the various denominations had been fighting against one another for their own territorial dominions. “The astonishing thing to the Chinese is that the Christians do not respect each other . . . It is denominationalism rather than denominations that has been a hindrance to the Christian enterprise in China.”45 Wei pointed out that the Chinese people were peace seeking and practical, with concerns that were predominantly ethical and political rather than metaphysical and epistemological, as in the West.46 Because of this spirit of pragmatism, the Chinese people were more ready to accept a plurality of religious traditions. They were apt to accept that Christianity embraced various denominations, as there was also a divergence of sects among Buddhism and Daoism in China. However, the strong ‘spirit of denominationalism’ in Christianity had been creating great divisiveness and had kept the Chinese people away. Wei once recalled a conversation with an American that went as follows:

43 Wei, The Spirit of Chinese Culture, 27. 44 see e.g. Wei, “Projecting the Future of Mission Policy in China”, 144. See also Wei, The Spirit of Chinese Culture, 158–160. 45 Wei, The Spirit of Chinese Culture, 158. 46 Wei, The Spirit of Chinese Culture, 155. 158 chapter seven

“Are you an Episcopalian?” (Wei was asked.) “No. But I abide by the Episcopalian doctrines and services.” “Are you a Presbyterian then?” “No. But I serve as an elder in my church.” “Are you a Baptist then?” “I was baptized. But I was not baptized by immersion.” “Then, which denomination do you belong to? Are you an Anglican—a member of the Church of England?” “Oh! Dear Brother in Christ. I am a Chinese, how can I be a member of the Church of England?” Wei replied.47 Wei strongly suggested that the Christian churches in China needed to advocate the virtue of tolerance if they wanted to ‘make Christianity live in China’.48 In other words, an attitude of respect would be more congenial to the spirit of Chinese culture than ostracism. This cri- tique of the spirit of denominationalism in Western Christianity from the higher plane of world Christianity was unique. Wei was among the first Chinese Christians to tell Westerners so precisely what the Chi- nese thought of the Christian world mission. Wei’s ideas both reflected and shaped the Christian ecumenical thinking of his times. He had been actively involved in the formu- lation and the early years of the World Council of Churches. Wei attended both the Life and Work Conference at Oxford University and the Faith and Order Conference at Edinburgh University in the summer of 1937, which laid the foundational work. At both conferences, Western Christians were critically re-thinking the old territorial conception of ‘Christendom’ and there was a strong urge to develop a new understanding that could replace the idea of ‘foreign mission’ with ‘world mission’ and to replace sectarianism and denominationalism with Christian ecumenism. The formation of the World Council of Churches in 1938 was viewed as one concrete way to work out a radical reformulation of ‘Christendom’ that was ‘non-territorial’, ‘non- racial’ and ‘non-political’.49 And Wei’s new understanding of Christian

47 Francis Wei, “As China Regards Christianity” in Anderson Wu, ed. The Christian World Mission (Nashville, Tennessee: Parthenon Press, 1946). The Chinese translation can be found in Min Ma, Wei Zhuomin Jidujiao Wenji (Francis C.M. Wei’s Writings on Christianity), 109–114. 48 Wei, The Spirit of Chinese Culture, 158. See also Wei, “Synthesis of Cultures,” 74–85. 49 note that the journal published in the earlier years of WCC was named Chris- tendom (1935–1948) but in the year 1948 the journal entered a new phase and was re-named Ecumenical Review. See e.g. Jurjen A. Zeilstra, European Unity in Ecumenical bridging national culture and world values 159 missions helped to introduce the Chinese point of view into this reformulation, with special relevance to the Chinese understanding of ‘universalism’ (datong shijie) and ‘the spirit of inclusiveness’ (baorong xing) in Christian ecumenism. After World War II, there emerged a new conviction that Christian ecumenism should proceed even further, to define and construct a proper role for Christianity as a world movement and make a Chris- tian contribution to the new international order. These issues shaped the Cambridge WCC Conference in August 1946, where Wei was appointed as one of the conference vice-chairs. Out of the discussions came the creation of the Commission of the Churches on Interna- tional Affairs (CCIA), a working relationship with United Nations on religious liberty and human rights issues, and contributions to the establishment of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.50

Exploring World Values from Christianity

In his Hewett Lectures, Wei proposed a Chinese Christian intellectual’s understanding of ‘World Christianity’. Wei was perhaps the first scholar to attempt something akin to today’s concept of cultural globalization as the interplay among cultures. Though the term ‘globalization’ was not used in his time, Wei was developing his own conception of World Christianity in such a way that required more attention to the interplay between the globalization and localization of Christianity in the Chinese cultural context. As the first Henry Luce Visiting Professor of World Christianity, Wei explained to the Western audience that a good sense of world consciousness would not hinder one from affirming one’s own cultural heritage. As a Chinese, he could as well apply a ‘typically Chinese Christian’ point of view by trying to elaborate this ‘Chinese Christian’ understanding of World Christianity, i.e. the Chinese way of seeking the ‘middle way’ (‘the Mean’ or ‘keeping the balance’) between the ‘global’, universal religion and the ‘local’, specific cultural context in

Thinking 1937–1948 (Zoetermeer: Uitgeverij Boekencentrum, 1995), as reported in John Nurser, For All People and All Nations (Geneva: WCC Publications, 2005), 12. 50 Zi Chen Zhao (T.C. Chao) was the Chinese delegate at the WCC who helped draft a proposal for the UN to consider in creating its Universal Declaration of Human Rights. See John Nurser, For All People and All Nations, 132–134. 160 chapter seven

China. In Wei’s words, “Even when we are taking Christianity as a world religion, the full expression of Christian faith needs to be in congruence with its specific contexts.”51 On another occasion, he was saying that “We are sure of one thing, and that is, if Christianity is to take root in China, it must assume a Chinese form, congenial to the Chinese cultural heritage.”52 Wei understood that as human beings, we are all bound by the localized culture we represent. On the one hand, Chinese culture was the same as Western culture, in that each was but a representation of local cultures. Wei thought that, in order to give itself a fuller expression of the universal Christian Faith, World Christianity needed people from all cultures to give expressions of that faith through their own cultural traditions. This was precisely the global vision found in Chinese Christianity. On the other hand, Wei had the conviction that since World Chris- tianity had survived interaction with a multitude of various cultures in different parts of the world, it could help all local or regional cultures to move forward and become more inclusive if they were to adopt its world values and global vision. Hence, Christianity would be found beneficial to the exploration and enrichment of Chinese culture, in at least the following ways, Wei suggested:

1. as a world religion, Christianity would help the Chinese to open up and learn to embrace people of other cultures, other countries, other races and other religions. 2. christianity was concerned with not only the material world but also the spiritual world, so it would help the Chinese people to care more for their spiritual well being. 3. christianity conceived of a world beyond the present world and the existence of a transcendental world; this perspective would help provide more meaning for life in the existing world. 4. the orientation toward the future opened yet another new perspective on human existence, a new form of expression for any existing culture, including all Chinese and Western cultures.

51 Xianfa Wan, ed., Wei Zhuomin boshi Jiaoyu Wenhua Zongjiao lunwenji (Dr. Francis C.M. Wei’s Writings on Education, Culture, and Religion), (Taiwan: Huazhong Da Xue Wei Zhuomin Ji Nian Guan, 1980), 132. 52 Wei, The Spirit of Chinese Culture, 32. bridging national culture and world values 161

5. as a worldwide culture, Christianity opened up a new sense of communal relationships among world civilizations, especially in an era when different cultures were encountering one another more fully and regularly. 6. christianity paid great respect to both history and present reality, with a strong historical consciousness and an appreciation of cultures worldwide.53

Wei proposed that Chinese culture would benefit by learning from Christianity because Christianity had all these elements. The cultivation of ‘a universal and ecumenical culture’ (shijie datong wenhua) would involve the lifting up of Chinese culture to the spiritual dimensions of human life, to the transcendental elements that go beyond the present world and to the sense of communal relationships that would help the Chinese people to embrace other world cultures.54 Wei recalled many instances from the history of inter-cultural exchanges that demonstrated how the modification of local cultures would often enrich, rather than endanger, one’s local or national characteristics. In his view, this was the fundamental principle underlying all forms of organic life.55 To illustrate the proper interplay between Christianity and Chinese culture, Wei suggested that the best way to preserve Chinese culture was to offer it to God and make it sanctified.56 In other words, Wei believed that Christianity might help to bring Chinese culture to the altar of God and let it be purified and sanctified as it was brought closer to truth. While world ecumenical leader John R. Mott was visiting China in January 1926, Wei was asked to give an address to a group of church and missionary leaders at the National Council of Churches conference held in Shanghai. Wei chose the topic: ‘Making Christianity Live

53 Francis C.M. Wei, Jidujiao de jiben xinyang (Basic Elements of the Christian Faith). (Hong Kong: The Council on Christian Literature for Overseas Chinese, 1965), 4–7. 54 Francis Wei, Jidujiao de jiben xinyang, (Basic Elements of the Christian Faith). (Hong Kong: The Council on Christian Literature for Overseas Chinese, 1965), 4–7, and also the discussion in Peter Tze Ming Ng, Quanqiu diyuhua shijiaoxia de Zhongguo Jidu- jiao daxue (Christian Higher Education in China—As Seen from the Perspective of Glocalization) (Taiwan: Cosmic Light Publication Ltd., 2006), 181–184. 55 Wei, “Synthesis of Cultures of East and West,” China Today Through Chinese Eyes, Second series (London: Student Christian Movement, 1926), 75. 56 “The Post-war Re-development Plan of Huazhong University, 1944”, in UBCHEA Archives, Series IV, Box 170, Folder 3145, at Yale Divinity School Library Special Collections, New Haven, USA. 162 chapter seven in China’. In his speech, while admitting the fact that Chinese culture was not Christian, Wei urged efforts to achieve mutual enrichment in the interplay between Christianity and the Chinese culture, including ‘the Christianization of China’ and ‘the indigenization of Christian- ity in the Chinese soil’. He believed that the Spirit of Christ could transform the Chinese culture by giving it ‘a new soul’; it could be ‘Christianized’.57 The Christian faith, Wei added, could then be given the chance for expression through the lives of Chinese people in their families, their church, their society and even the whole nation.58 And as all good things came from God, Christianity might help reveal all truths and all good deeds within Chinese culture and make them all manifestations of God’s good deeds.59 Wei sought to implement his views within China’s academic world, even setting forth ‘the sanctification of Chinese culture’ as one goal of the re-development plan for his university after World War II. Speak- ing from his own experience as a university president, Wei pointed out that the Christian colleges in China had provided a successful platform for an educational encounter between Eastern and Western cultures. In a speech at Ginling College, he reminded the students that it was their duty to know clearly the roles of Christianity and Chinese culture in the world today.60 As for Central China University, Wei planned to recruit as many missionary educators as he could from overseas, so as to bring about more interaction with local Chinese students. He had set his target to employ one-third of his staff from overseas, and for the rest, to seek as many Christian professors as he could from local sources.61 As professors and students met face to face in the Christian college, they were bound to encounter one another’s different cultures. They thus

57 Francis Wei, “Making Christianity Live in China,” in The Chinese Recorder 57 (February, 1926), 118–121. The speech appeared also in Chinese in The Education Quarterly 2:01 (1926) (Shanghai: National Council of Churches), 27–31. 58 Wei, “Making Christianity Live in China.” in The Chinese Recorder 57 (February, 1926). 59 Wei, “Making Christianity Live in China.” See also the discussions by Jessie G. Lutz, “Dr. Francis Wei: A Christian, A Scholar and A Patriot,” in Min Ma, ed., Kuayue Zhongxi Wenhuade Juren (A Giant Bridging the Gap between the Chinese and Western Cultures) (Wuhan: Huazhong Normal University Press, March 1995), 78–82. 60 Francis Wei, “The Proper Attitude of Young People in Changing Chinese Cul- tures,” Nanjing Theological Review, vol. 14, (1932), 13–17. 61 Francis Wei, “What Makes a College Christian,” The Christian Recorder, (March 1941), 115–124. bridging national culture and world values 163 were given daily opportunities to cross over the barriers that usually divided individuals and groups. Students and faculty were encouraged to get down to the bedrock of their own cultures by careful observation, open discussion and their own serious academic studies. Wei’s vision was that in the Christian colleges, Western missionaries and local Chinese people would work and live together, and by the Christian spirit of appreciation and learning from each other’s cultural peculiarities, the synthesis of Eastern and Western cultures could be more easily achieved. Wei emphasized, “The synthesis of cultures is, therefore, an educational necessity.”62

A Legacy for Bridging Cultures Today

Few could understand fully what Francis Wei was saying in his time, although his appointment as the first Henry Luce Visiting Professor of World Christianity in 1945–1946 affirmed his theoretical contributions. Scholars today are more ready to comprehend that within the process of ‘glocalization’, there involves an interplay between ‘globalization’ and ‘localization’. Wei’s ideas are still relevant more than sixty years later to modern debates about such processes, as well as to our current discussions about World Christianity. Scholars of the 21st century are now in a much better position to understand Wei’s views as precursors of today’s concepts and to appreciate the real meaning and value of Wei’s discovering world values in Christianity while preserving the uniquely Chinese culture. On March 26, 1976, Wei died at the age of eighty-eight. Wei is still remembered and highly respected in China. In 1984, the alumni of Central China University, together with leaders from the Hubei Pro- vincial government and the Provincial Protestant Three-Self Patriotic Movement held a special memorial conference for him and honored him as ‘a great scholar of China’.63 Prof. Kaiyuan Zhang, the former president of Central China Normal University, recalled in 1995 that he had been a friend and a colleague of Francis Wei for thirty years.

62 Wei, “Synthesis of Cultures of East and West,” China Today Through Chinese Eyes, Second series (London: Student Christian Movement, 1926), 79. 63 For the conference proceedings, see Min Ma, ed., Kuayue Zhongxi Wenhuade Juren (A Giant Bridging the Gap between the Chinese and Western Cultures) (Wuhan: Huazhong Normal University Press, March 1995), 289. 164 chapter seven

He greatly appreciated Wei’s service and leadership at Central China University, especially his work in the exploration of, as well as the bridging between, Chinese and Western cultures.64 Zhang stressed that as an educator, Wei taught his students not only by what he said, but more importantly by what he did and how he behaved. Zhang affirmed a description of Francis Wei by Prof. Jessie Lutz, an American historian, who remembered Wei as ‘a Christian, a scholar and a patriot’.65 When asked whether Francis Wei had given up his Christian faith during the Chinese Cultural Revolution, Zhang stated firmly that Wei had not, even though he had been labeled a ‘rightist’ in 1957 and had gone through very difficult times during the years of the cultural revolution.66 Thus, Zhang added his personal testimony that Wei was a true patriot and a sincere Christian, besides being a leading educator and a university president.67 Those alumni living in Taiwan also remembered and honored Pres- ident Wei in 1980 by establishing a memorial hall and by publishing the volume, Dr. Francis C.M. Wei’s Writings on Education, Culture, and Religion for Wei in Taipei. Those in the Mainland compiled The Selected Writings of Francis C.M. Wei, published by the Huazhong Normal Uni- versity Press in 1997 and again with another volume, Essays in Memory of Francis C.M. Wei in 2010. Indeed, Francis Wei is held in such high esteem that the university erected a granite statue in his likeness and held another international conference in honor of his achievements at the 90th anniversary of the founding of the university in 1993. The conference proceedings were published by the university press in 1995, entitled: A Giant Bridging Over the Gap Between the Chinese and Western Cultures—A Collection of Theses at the International Symposium on Dr. Francis C.M. Wei. The university community saw this as the most appropriate

64 Kaiyuan Zhang, “Preface,” Min Ma, ed., Kuayue Zhongxi Wenhuade Juren (A Giant Bridging the Gap between the Chinese and Western Cultures) (Wuhan: Huazhong Normal University Press, March 1995), 1–6. 65 Jessie G. Lutz, “Dr. Francis Wei: A Christian, A Scholar and A Patriot”, in Min Ma, ed., Kuayue Zhongxi Wenhuade Juren (A Giant Bridging the Gap between the Chinese and Western Cultures) (Wuhan: Huazhong Normal University Press, March 1995), 78–82. 66 see the discussions in Kwong Pui Chan, “Huazong Daxue jiaochang—Wei Zhuomin” (Francis Wei, the President of Huazhong University), in Peter Tze Ming Ng, ed., Jidujiao daxue huaren xiaozhang yanjiu (Chinese Presidents of Christian Colleges in China). (Fuzhou: Fujian Educational Press, May 2001), 85. 67 Kaiyuan Zhang, “Preface,” in Min Ma, ed., Kuayue Zhongxi Wenhuade Juren (A Giant Bridging the Gap between the Chinese and Western Cultures) (Wuhan: Huazhong Normal University Press, March 1995), 3. bridging national culture and world values 165 way to show respect and honor to Dr. Francis Wei, their model as a patriot and a Christian educator. As a Chinese intellectual in early 20th century China, Francis Wei had skillfully brought together Christian world values and his own national culture. His contemporaries promoted either ‘complete West- ernization’ (quan pan xi hua) or the use of ‘Chinese culture as the essentials; Western learning as the means’ (zhong ti xi yong) in response to contact with Western cultures. But Wei attempted a new way of syn- thesizing Eastern and Western cultures, by interpreting Christianity in terms of Chinese culture (a process of localization) and by transforming Chinese culture with Christian world values (a process of globalization), hence demonstrating a vivid interplay between Chinese and Western cultures (the process of glocalization) and the construction of ‘an ideal, universal and ecumenical culture’ (shijie datong wenhua.) These concepts, especially regarding the interplay between the global and local perspectives, have yet to be fully explored and developed. Wei was indeed a great scholar who proposed this new way of understanding Christian missions and a more creative interplay between Christianity and Chinese culture.

chapter eight

T.C. Chao: Builder of Chinese Indigenous Christian Theology

T.C. Chao (Zichen Zhao, 趙紫宸 1888–1979) was born on February 14, 1888, in the county of De Qing in Zhejiang Province, China. He enrolled into Sui Ying College (萃英書院) in Suzhou at the age of fifteen and the following year continued his study at the Middle School of Soochow (Dongwu) University. Since then, he had established a life- long link with missionary schools in China. Soochow University was run by the American Methodist Episcopal Church of the South; it was thus natural that Chao would belong to the Methodist Church by denomination, when he was baptized or became a Christian. But it is interesting to know that Chao was later affiliated to the Anglican/ Episcopal Church and was ordained as an Anglican priest by a Hong Kong bishop, R.O. Hall, in 1941. As a member of the Anglican Church in Hong Kong, I am interested to know the Anglican side of the story and to see how T.C. Chao was connected with the Anglican Church and whether the Anglican faith had any impact on Chao’s construction of his indigenous theology. In 1989, I came to know a Chinese historian, Prof. Kaiyuan Zhang in Wuhan and had heard from him that there was a popular saying among the Chinese Christians in the late 1940s and early 1950s, which said, ‘Bei Zhao Nan Wei’, meaning ‘For Protestant theologians in China, we have Zichen Zhao (T.C. Chao) in the north and Zhuomin Wei (Francis C.M. Wei) in the south’.1 Why was it so? I later discovered that the saying was popular within the Anglican/Episcopa- lian Church in China and among the Chinese Christians within the Anglican Church who had respected highly these two professors and theologians—T.C. Chao being the professor of the School of Religion

1 The popular saying was found in the Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui (The Chinese Anglican/Episcopalian Church) in 1940s in China. See, for reference, the discussion in Peter Tze Ming Ng. “Lecture III: On T.C. Chao” in Wo suo huainian de siwei Shenggong zong shenxuejia (The Four Anglican Theologians I Respected Most). (Kowloon, Hong Kong: All Saints’ Church, 2006), 28–39. 168 chapter eight at Yenching University in the North and Francis C.M. Wei being the professor and President of Central China (Huazhong) University in Wuchang (South of Yangtze River). Wei was a student and later a professor at Central China University, and it was natural that he was baptized as a member of the Anglican/Episcopalian Church. But T.C. Chao had studied and was baptized at Soochow University and later received his further education, attaining the Master of Arts and Bachelor of Divinity degrees from Vanderbilt University in Nash- ville, Tennessee, USA. After returning to China, Chao became a professor first at Soochow University (1917–1926) and later at Yenching University (1926–1956, Dean of the School of Religion from 1928– 1956), both of which were strongly associated with the American Meth- odist Episcopalian Mission. Why did Chao then became an Anglican priest in 1941? I began to investigate further T.C. Chao’s relationship with the Anglican Church in China. I discovered that it was in 1925, shortly before Chao became a professor at Yenching University, Chao met the Anglican bishop Ronald O. Hall at Soochow University. It was the last year Chao taught at Soochow, as the professor of theology and philosophy at the age of thirty-seven. Bishop Hall was so impressed by the talent and profound knowledge of Chao that he recommended him to go to Oxford in England for his sabbatical year in 1932–33.2 There, Chao could develop closer contact with his Anglican friends and began to learn more about Anglicanism in England. When the Sino-Japanese war broke out in 1937, Central China (Huazhong) Uni- versity moved its campus to Xizhou, Dali in Yunnan. Bishop Hall was much concerned with student work in the new campus, so he invited T.C. Chao to spend his second sabbatical year (1939–40) to work in Yunnan, assisting another Anglican priest, Rev. Gilbert Baker (who later became R.O. Hall’s successor as Bishop of Hong Kong in the 1960s) and working with refugee students there.3 While working in Yunnan, Chao suggested the name ‘Wen Lin Tang’ (meaning ‘The Church in the Forest of Learning’) to the student church in Kunming, and there he had expressed to Bishop Hall his willingness to join the

2 Bishop Hall remarked the followings about Chao, saying: “The Dean of the Col- lege, a young Chinese theologian, TC Chao, is a great and saintly soul with a first class brain.” See David Paton, The Life and Times of Bishop Ronald Hall of Hong Kong. (Hong Kong: The Diocese of Hong Kong and Macau & the Hong Kong Diocesan Association, 1985), 49. 3 see ibid., 103. builder of chinese indigenous christian theology 169

Anglican Church.4 Then in July 1941, Bishop Hall arranged Chao to come to Hong Kong and officiated for him at three religious ceremonies—the Confirmation (Transferral of Church Membership), the Ordination of Deacon, and the Ordination of Priest, all on the same day at the small chapel of the Bishop’s House in Hong Kong. Chao was at the age of fifty-three when he became an Anglican priest in 1941 and was immediately sent back to Beijing as an Anglican priest of the North China Diocese. When Chao died in Beijing on Novem- ber 21, 1979, there could not be any religious ceremony for his funeral in Beijing, but there was one memorial service conducted for him by Anglican brothers and sisters and his friends at St. John’s Cathedral in Hong Kong on February 10, 1980.5

Indigenous Theology of T.C. Chao

Many have written about T.C. Chao’s indigenous theology, most of them focus on how Chao understood and expounded Christian theology within the Chinese cultural and social contexts.6 To approach Chao’s theology in a different way, I would attempt to look at it from beyond the Chinese context and see how these wider contexts, such as the World Council of Churches and Anglicanism had helped shaped Chao’s indigenous theology. There are three stages of development in T.C. Chao’s indigenous theology, namely: during the years 1922–1937; 1937–1949; and in the years after 1949. Many scholars considered the first period as the golden period of Chao’s theology, as Chao could develop his theology more freely during the 1920s and early 1930s, and he could construct his indigenous theology from a purely philosophical and rational

4 see, ibid., 179. Rev. Gilbert Baker was so impressed by T.C. Chao that while being the Bishop of Hong Kong, he assigned the same name ‘Wen Lin Tang’ (文林堂) to one of the student hostels of Chung Chi College, the Chinese University of Hong Kong in 1972. 5 For reference, see “The Programme for the Memorial Service for the Late Rev. Dr. T.C. Chao”. (Hong Kong: St. John’s Cathedral, 1980). The memorial service was held on February 10, 1980. 6 See, for example, Wing Hung Lam, Qu Gao He Gua- Zhao Zichen shengping yu shenxue (The Life and Theology of T.C. Chao). (Hong Kong: China Graduate School of Theology, 1994); and Hoiming Hui. “A Study of T.C. Chao’s Christology in the Social Context of China 1920 to 1949.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Birmingham, 2007. 170 chapter eight discourse. Along with other colleagues such as Tingfang Liu (Timothy T. Lew), Baoqian Xu (Paoch’ien Hsu), and Leichuan Wu (Lei-ch’uan Wu), Chao worked hard to demonstrate the relevance of Christian faith to Chinese culture and society of his time. Since Chao had graduated from Vanberbilt University, he adopted a more liberal theological perspective and was mostly concerned with the interpretation of Chris- tian faith so that it could be accepted by Chinese intellectuals, especially within the Confucian cultural context. He adopted the words of Jesus, who said, “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them” (Matthew 5:17). He compared the teaching of Jesus with the Confu- cian teaching of ‘xiao’ (honoring one’s parents). And he explained that on the top of honoring one’s parents, Jesus taught us the concept of a God who was also ‘a loving father in heaven’. Since God is the father of all Christians, we Christians become children of the same God and we are brothers and sisters to one another. This gives an even better justification why we can adopt the Chinese saying: ‘For we are brothers and sisters within the four seas’.7 On the other hand, Confucianism sought perfection in humanity and Chao expounded that Christ was the perfect example of humanity. Christ taught us not to repay evil for evil, but to love and forgive our enemies and do good to those who hate us (Luke 6:27). Hence, Jesus Christ would become a perfect model for Chinese humanity.8 Chao was convinced that a truly indigenous theology would be the basis to the social reconstruction of China.9 Chao not only developed his own Chinese theology in theory and doctrines, but also wrote poems and hymns for the practical use of the Chinese Christians. According to one musical scholar, Dr. Wing Hei Huang, it was reported that Chao had written over 5000 poems and hymns, and most of them were burnt or lost during the cultural revolution, except 15 hymns which were kept in a popular hymnal, the ‘Hymns of Universal Praise’, and the two most popular ones are: ‘Golden Breaks the Dawn’ and ‘Great are Thy Mercies, Heavenly

7 for reference, see T.C. Chao, Jidujiao Zhexue (Christian Philosophy). (Soochow: Zhonghua Jidujiao wenshi, 1925). 8 for reference, see T.C. Chao, Jesu Shengping (The Life of Jesus). (Shanghai: Qingnian Xiehui, 1935). 9 See for reference Glüer, Winfried. “The Legacy of T.C. Chao” in International Bulletin of Missionary Research vol. 6, no. 4, (1982), 165–169. builder of chinese indigenous christian theology 171

Father’ which was written by Chao in 1931.10 And it is without doubt that Chao is still remembered among Chinese Christians as being ‘the father of Chinese Hymns’.11 The second period was from 1937 to 1949, especially during the eight years of the Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945). Chao was greatly shocked at seeing the cruelty of Japanese soldiers in raping and kill- ing Chinese people who were without guns or weapons. Chao had learnt much from liberal theology in the United States, which gave him much hope in human nature and optimistic thinking about the future of humanity. But the whole foundation was shaken because of the Sino-Japanese war. Even though he was a liberal theologian and a peaceful Christian intellectual, Chao was still caught by the Japa- nese soldiers and was put to jail for six months. It was in prison that Chao had to think through his basic theological formulations all over again, and he finally had to give up his liberal theology and turn to neo-orthodoxy for help.12 He admired especially the theology of Karl Barth who put more emphasis on the sinful nature of man. In 1935, two years before the broke out of the war, Chao had written a book, The Life of Jesus, where he was very optimistic about human nature and portrayed the life of Jesus as the perfect model for humanity, pointing us to the perfect knowledge of God. But while in prison, Chao wrote another book, In the Prison, where he was not so hopeful about human nature and instead he turned to acceptance of Christ’s divine nature. Rather than pointing to the similarities between Chinese Confucian- ism and Christianity, Chao became more concerned with the uniqueness of Christianity and believing that Christ’s divine nature and the message of the Cross was the key to answer questions about human sufferings.13

10 see for reference, Hymns of Universal Praise. (Hong Kong: Chinese Christian Lit- erature Council Ltd., 1977), #472 & #620. The hymn, “Golden Breaks the Dawn” was included by the American Methodist Church Hymnal since 1964, which was the first Chinese hymn accepted in American hymnals. 11 See Shenyin Wang, “Remembering T.C. Chao as a theologian and a poet” in Jinling Xiehe. Vol. 8, (1988), 49–58. 12 see T.C. Chao, Jiyu Ji (In the Prison). (Shanghai: Qingnian Xiehui, 1948). 13 Readers may be interested to compare his two books. See T.C. Chao, Jesu Sheng- ping (The Life of Jesus). (Shanghai: Qingnian Xiehui, 1935); and T.C. Chao, Jiyu Ji (In the Prison). (Shanghai: Qingnian Xiehui, 1948). See also discussions in Fuk-tsang Ying, Xunsuo Jidujiao de dutexing- Zhao Zichen shenxue lunji (In Search of the Uniqueness of Christianity: Essays on T.C. Chao’s Theology). (Hong Kong: Alliance Bible Semi- nary, 2003), 1–34. 172 chapter eight

Besides the drastic changes he had experienced from the war, Chao had another significant religious experience which had even greater impact upon his whole theological orientation. It was during his work in Yunnan that he expressed to the Bishop his willingness to join the Anglican Church and in the year 1941, Chao was called to travel from Beijing to Hong Kong and was baptized as well as ordained by the Anglican Bishop of Hong Kong. Bishop R.O. Hall had arranged for Chao three different ceremonies—the Confirmation (Transferral of Church Membership), the Ordination of Deacon, and the Ordination of Priest, to be officiated all on the same day at the small chapel in the Bishop’s House in Hong Kong. It must have been a great experience for Chao’s Christian life. He was ordained an Anglican priest in the midst of the Sino-Japanese war, which would mean a total change in his life. During the ordination, Bishop Hall had reminded Chao that he was seeking not only to be ‘in order’, but more significantly to be ‘under order’.14 Obviously, the Anglican Church would have a much stricter order for him which emphasized more obedience to the Church than any other denominations. As for Chao, he had been enjoying much freedom as a theologian and professor at Yenching University in Beijing. Yenching University had been well known for the development of Christian fellowship within the campus, so that professors and students could be ‘open’ and ‘free’ in developing their own Christian way of life away from the local, denominational churches. Chao had indeed been one of the founders of this ‘Life Fellowship’ and had been promoting this kind of Christian freedom within the Yenching campus.15 But now, by becoming an Anglican priest, Chao had to give up his Yenching lifestyle and entered into a very different lifestyle, being ‘under’ the church order which demanded ‘obedience’. That was why Bishop Hall said to him that he was not only ‘in order’, but more significantly to be ‘under (the control of church) order’. One of his students had recalled the incident and remarked that by accepting the authority of the Church, Chao was much relieved as many of his

14 See for reference David M. Paton, The Life and Times of Bishop Ronald Hall of Hong Kong, (Hong Kong: The Diocese of Hong Kong and Macao, 1985), 104. 15 See for reference my discussion in Peter Tze Ming Ng, Cong Shenxue jiaoyu dao zongjiao yanjiu-Yanjing Daxue zongjiao jiaoyu de kaocha (From Theological Education to Religious Studies—An Enquiry into the Development of Religious Education at Yenching University, China), in Jindai Zhongguo Jidujiao shi Yanjiu Jikan ( Journal of the History of Christianity in Modern China). (Hong Kong: Hong Kong Baptist Univer- sity, 1999), vol. 2, 49–66. builder of chinese indigenous christian theology 173 struggles and problems seemed to be resolved by being ‘obedient’ to the church order. It was no wonder Chao began to appreciate Karl Barth’s doctrine of the church, especially in reading his ‘Church Dog- matics’ since then.16 The works of Chao reflected precisely how he was thinking about his indigenous theology. In the first stage, representative works were: Jesus’ Philosophy of Life (1926), The Crucial Faith of Christianity (1934), and The Life of Jesus (1935).17 In these writings, Chao had given high regards to the life of Jesus as the perfect model of humanity and he proposed the promotion of the development of Christian character as a means to national salvation. However, in the second stage, Chao was more concerned with the doctrine of incarnation and the doctrine of justification by faith. He had given more attention to the evil nature of humankind and stressed the fact that man could not be saved by his own right, but must be justified by the grace of God. Plus the fact that Chao began to appreciate the Anglican ‘church order’ and the theological understanding of the divine and human nature of Christ through the Common Prayer Book and the Anglican liturgy. Hence, it was obvious to find that Chao had shifted his concern from theology of culture to theology of the Christian Church. Representative works of the second stage are: In the Prison (1942), The Interpretation of Christian Doctrines (1947), The Life of St. Paul (1947), The Meaning of Chris- tian Church (1948), Christian Ethics (1948), and Four Lectures on Christian Theology (1948).18 The third period came in the years after 1949. It began with the New China era. Chao had encountered a new era of communist rule, which he could not go against. The communist party became the rul- ing party in China and in which the hope of all the people and the nation rested. As a theologian, Chao had to ask: what would Christian

16 For reference, see Lok Chun Fong. “In Memory of T.C. Chao” in Tianfeng vol. 4, (1987), 26; as quoted in Wing Hung Lam, op. cit. 17 see for reference T.C. Chao, Jesu Shengming Zhexue ( Jesus’ Philosophy of Life). (Suzhou: Zhonghua Jidujiao Wenshi, 1926); Jidijiao Jiben Xinyang (The Crucial Faith of Christianity). (Shanghai: Qingnian Xiehui, 1934); and Jesu Shengping (The Life of Jesus). (Shanghai: Qingnian Xiehui, 1935). 18 see for reference T.C. Chao, Jiyu Ji (In the Prison). (Shanghai: Qingnian Xiehui, 1948); Jidujiao jiaoyi jinxie (The Interpretation of Christian Doctrines). (Shanghai: Qingnian Xiehui, 1947); Sheng Baoluo shengping (The Life of St. Paul). (Shanghai: Qingnian Xiehui, 1947); Jiaohui de yiyi (The Meaning of Christian Church). (Shanghai: Qingnian Xiehui, 1948); Jidujiao Lunli (Christian Ethics). (Shanghai: Qingnian Xiehui, 1948); Shenxue Sijiang (Four Lectures on Christian Theology). (Shang- hai: Qingnian Xiehui, 1948). 174 chapter eight faith have to do with the new era? Though at the beginning, Chao could not identify himself with communism and hence the new government, but as a Chinese intellectual, very soon he had to show his loyalty to the new government. He was among the first group of Christian leaders who was assigned the job to expound the religious policy of the new government to the Christian Church, telling her that the coming of the new era would bring liberation and good days to the Chinese people. Yet, at the same time, Chao remained faithful to the Christian faith and kept in mind the same question: What would Christian faith have to do for the Chinese people and the nation? Could the Christian faith help the social reconstruction of the new China? These were the same questions he has had in the years before 1949. But now, instead of asking what China needed to be changed, he called upon the Christian Church to change so as to meet the changing situation in China. In September of 1949, Chao was chosen as one representative of the Christian circle to attend the first Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) in Beijing. There, he was appointed as a member of the first National Committee of CPPCC and was assigned to help with the drafting of new religious policies and to mobilize Christians for the Three-self Patriotic Move- ment among the Protestant churches. He was one of the forty church leaders who signed the ‘Three-Self Manifesto’ in 1950. In 1954, Chao was appointed to be an executive member of the Three-self Patri- otic Movement and in the following year, as a member of the Beijing People’s Political Consultative Conference (BPPCC). These were all voluntary appointments and it was clear that Chao was happy to take part as he could contribute to the building of a new China. One may wonder: why did Chao support the communist government and accept all these appointments from them? We may find some hints if we can look at him from an Anglican/Episcopalian perspective. Indeed, as an Anglican priest, it would seem proper for Chao to behave as he did in taking part in political activities and supporting the government. (It was rather similar to what K.H. Ting did in the later years, as both were Anglican clergy). It was also in accordance with the political stance of the Anglican Church in China, as the Anglican bishops in Shanghai had already made a similar manifesto in Shanghai in July, 1950, declaring that they would welcome and support the new government, in the same tone as what Chao did in Beijing.19 In 1950, dur-

19 See for example the discussion in Wing Hung Lam, op. cit., 282–283. builder of chinese indigenous christian theology 175 ing the outbreak of the Korean War, Chao demonstrated his love for the country by standing out to support the Chinese government and joining the Support Korea Against America Movement.20 Since 1948, Chao was one of the six presidents of the World Council of Churches, which, in the event of a Korean War had openly supported America and condemned North Korea as an invader. Again, it was very Angli- can for Chao to stand in support of the government on such an important issue, and in order to voice his different view, Chao resigned from being a president of the World Council of Churches in 1951. Chao had developed a very different theological position in this third stage. Unfortunately he did not have enough time to formulate and expound this different form of indigenous theology. In the Spring of 1952, Chao suffered from denunciation campaigns within the Prot- estant churches. One of the targets of these denunciation campaigns was to accuse the professors and scholars who were closely linked with American missions and Chao was one of the victims of this political oppression. He was required to go through a series of ‘self-examination exercises’ and ‘education for change of thought’. It was then impossible for Chao to continue and attempt any further his re-construction of indigenous theology. Nevertheless, we still could derive a new form of theology from what Chao had done in the years between 1949 and 1952. We could witness a new Chao who was actively involved in social and political life, and in the building of a new China. Chao continued to commit himself to finding a possible way to show how the Christian faith could be of relevance to Chinese people and the Chinese nation. He was still hopeful for the future of Christianity in serving China, despite the fact that the new China was now under a communist rule. As an Anglican priest, Chao would trust that God was still the Lord of history and the Church could survive and work well in all situations under God’s providence. He believed that he and the Christian Church had to change and adapt himself or herself to the new situation, in full support of the new government. And he trusted that it was the will of God who allowed the Communists to rule over China, and perhaps as a means to punish the Church in China. “Communism is a human challenge to Christianity, and also

20 See for example T.C. Chao, “The Resolution of (Chinese) Christians in support of Korea and standing against America”, in The Truth and Life Magazine. Vol. 16, no. 1, (March 1951), 11–14. 176 chapter eight a tool of God to pass judgment to the Christian Church.”21 Hence, Chao called for the repentance of the Church and the active support of the new government in China. If Chao had had enough time to re-construct his indigenous theology, it would definitely have been a type of patriotic theology resembling William Temple’s Christianity and Social Order.22

A Legacy for the Chinese Indigenous Christian Theology

T.C. Chao was rehabilitated officially in 1979 and died a few months later, at the age of 91. Throughout his life, Chao had experienced the most tragic years that had ever happened in China for centuries. Hav- ing suffered from the corruption of the Qing government, Chao saw some hope from the establishment of the Republic of China by the Kuomingtang government, then suffering again from the eight years of hardship during the Sino-Japanese War, followed immediately by the Civil War in China and the drastic change to a new China under the Communist government. Being a Christian professor and a theologian of the Christian Church in China, Chao had committed himself to the contemplation of a Chinese indigenous Christian theology which could help the social re-construction of China, or even the national salvation of a modern China. Chao first started with the liberal theology he had acquired and learned during his study at Vanderbilt University, USA. Western theology had often been thought of as a ‘global’ faith which is capable of being implemented or indigenized anywhere in the world. However, the local, social and political situations in China had compelled Chao to re-evaluate the validity of such theology. When the war with Japan came and after he was kept in prison for six months, Chao had changed his mind and began to find a way out of the neo- orthodoxy theology. While being ordained as an Anglican priest in 1941, Chao felt a sense of release within the Anglican conviction and submission to the authority of the Church or the Church Order. He

21 See T.C. Chao, “Christian Churches in the Communist China”, in Christianity and Crisis. Vol. 9, no. 11, ( June 27, 1949), 85; and also T.C. Chao. Shangdi shenpan xia de jiaohui gaige (Church Reform under the Judgment of God), (Shanghai: Qingnian Xiehui Shuju, 1950), 23–24. It is interesting to note that his conviction had also convinced another Anglican priest, David Paton who echoed his words and wrote another famous book, Christian Missions and the Judgment of God, (London: SCM Press), First edition in 1953. For the story of David Paton, see chapter 9 of this volume. 22 See William Temple, Christianity and Social Order. (London: SCM Press, 1942). builder of chinese indigenous christian theology 177 had begun to appreciate the Anglican teaching of the dual nature of Christ being fully divine and fully human; the importance of liturgy, in support of the Church and the social order, and of the government for the survival of the Church. The move to Anglican Catholicism could have been a new trend for the re-construction of Chao’s indigenous theology, if he had been given enough time to work it out.23 Unfortunately, Chao did not have sufficient time to in-corporate Anglicanism into his indigenous theology. He was ordained as a priest by Bishop Hall in Hong Kong in July 1941. But soon after his return to Beijing, he was caught by Japanese soldiers in December that same year and was put in prison for six months. From 1942 to 1945, he was under close observation by Japanese soldiers in Beijing and his Church activities could only be kept to the minimum. During that period, Chao spent most of his time on writing and he completed a number of book manuscripts such as: In the Prison (1942), The Interpre- tation of Christian Doctrines (1947), The Life of St. Paul (1947), The Mean- ing of Christian Church (1948), Christian Ethics (1948), and Four Lectures on Christian Theology (1948). The coming of the new China in 1949 could bring some hope for Chao as he could become more freely and actively involved in church and social activities, even with some possibility to serve the government for the social reconstruction and the building of a new China. Hence, by the September of 1949, Chao was appointed as one representative from Christian circles to attend the first Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) in Beijing. He was one of the forty church leaders who signed the ‘Three-Self Manifesto’ in 1950. And he became a member of the first National Committee of CPPCC and was appointed to be a committee member of the Three-self Patriotic Movement and a member of the Beijing People’s Political Consultative Conference. Unfortunately, these years did not last long. Some scholars may say that Chao’s theology had already come to an end in 1949, or they would focus only on the study of his theology up to 1949.24 Some would remark that Chao’s theology was too idealistic, and had to be abandoned when being confronted by

23 See also the discussion in Peter Tze Ming Ng. “Lecture III: On T.C. Chao” in Wo suo huainian de siwei Shenggong zong shenxuejia (The Four Anglican Theologians I Respected Most). (Kowloon, Hong Kong: All Saints’ Church, 2006), 28–39. 24 See for example Hoiming Hui. “A Study of T.C. Chao’s Christology in the Social Context of China 1920 to 1949.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Birmingham, 2007. 178 chapter eight

Chinese communism.25 Nevertheless, if one looks at the development of Chao’s indigenous theology from a broader perspective and exam- ines more closely how his life was changed, one may have discovered more from him. In April 2006, Huzhou Teachers College (湖州師範學院) announced the setting up of a memorial hall for T.C. Chao and his daughter, Luo Rui (蘿蕤) on its campus in Huzhou, Zhejiang, the native county of T.C. Chao. Why set up a memorial hall for the father and daughter together? T.C. Chao was internationally well-known as a Chinese theologian for his construction of Chinese indigenous theology in early 20th century China. His daughter, Luo Rui was a professor who taught for 45 years at Peking University and was famous as an educator of British and American literature. She had not only translated much of British and American literature into Chinese, but also trained many translators and interpreters for the country. Both were great scholars from the county and should deserve this honor from their native people there. But more important was the fact that the people in China could not merely honor a Chinese scholar who was a pastor and a theologian and build a memorial hall exclusively for him. So it would be more natural and acceptable if the people could honor both father and daughter; hence a memorial hall in honor of T.C. Chao together with his daughter. Another well-known scholar, Bing Xin, wrote the following words about T.C. Chao, saying: “Chao the Dean was a gentle and gracious scholar, being knowledgeable in many fields, sharing us with his profound love to his nation and his people. We shall all learn from his good example, as the most appropriate gift to remember him at his 100th birthday.”26 Another Anglican churchman, Bishop K.H. Ting wrote about him, saying: “Mr. Chao was diligent, simple and sincere, true and disciplined. He has set a really good example for us all.”27 In other words, T.C. Chao remains as an honorable and respected philosopher, theologian, educator and scholar in the minds of the Chinese people, whether they are Christians or not.

25 See for example Wing Hung Lam, Qu Gao He Gua—Zhao Zichen shengping yu shenxue (The Life and Theology of T.C. Chao). (Hong Kong: China Graduate School of Theology, 1994). 26 See “Remarks from Bing Xin”, quoted from In Memory of Mr. T.C. Chao. A bulletin distributed at the opening of the Memorial Hall for T.C. & Luo Rui Chao, (April 26, 2006), 1. 27 See “Remarks from Bishop K.H. Ting”, quoted from In Memory of Mr. T.C. Chao. A bulletin distributed at the opening of the Memorial Hall for T.C. & Luo Rui Chao, (April 26, 2006), 2. Chapter Nine

David Paton: Christian Mission Encounters Communism in China

While serving as a visiting fellow of Cambridge University, England in the fall of 2005, I was asked to lead a discussion group with Master of Philosophy students on Christianity in China for the Divinity Faculty. Amongst the reading references, I found David Paton’s book, Christian Mission and the Judgment of God.1 David Paton had been a CMS missionary in China for 10 years and was expelled from China in 1951. So he had experienced the end of the missionary era in China in the early 1950s. The book was first published in 1953 and was reprinted by Wm B. Eerdmans Co. in October 1996 (after Paton’s death in 1992), with the addition of an introduction by Rev. Bob Whyte and a foreword by Bishop K.H. Ting. They both endorsed Paton’s view from the experiences of Chinese Churches in the past forty years. Bob Whyte reported that many of Paton’s reflections remained of immediate relevance today and the issues he had perceived as important in 1953 were still central to any reflections on the future of Christianity in China. Bishop Ting also confirmed that this book was a book of prophetic vision and Paton was a gift from God to the worldwide church. Dr. Gerald H. Anderson, the Emeritus Director of Overseas Ministries Study Center at New Haven (USA) added a remark on the cover- page, saying: “To have this classic available again is timely—even better with the new foreword by Bishop K.H. Ting.”2 So Paton’s work is still worth re-visiting and in this chapter, I shall review how he saw what was happening in the Christian Church in China when Chris- tian missions encountered Communism in 1949 and the early 1950s. Paton’s thesis was that God’s judgment was being executed upon His church by political movements which were anti-Christian, and by this he meant the Chinese Communist government. The arrival of the Communist rule in China in 1949 turned out to be a ‘debacle’

1 see Paton, David. Christian Mission and the Judgment of God. Second Edition, (Cam- bridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996). (First Edition in 1953). 2 remarks on the front page. 180 chapter nine for Christian missions in China and Paton reckoned that “the end of the missionary era was the will (and the judgment) of God”.3 Paton’s book should have become very controversial in the 1950s and 1960s, even today. Unfortunately, it did not receive much attention in Eng- land as he was found too radically critical of the Christian missions of his times.4 There was another Anglican missionary, Roland Allen (1868–1947) who came to China earlier than Paton.5 They were both missionaries in China for some time and have been radically critical of the Christian missions of their times. Allen worked in North China and Paton was working with the YMCA in Fuzhou in South China.6 Their experiences in China, though forty years apart, had prompted them to radically re-assess the missionary methods of the Western churches. In short, Allen called for a return to New Testament principles and to the example of the Apostle Paul who entrusted the new churches into the hands of the Holy Spirit. He was saying that in order to develop native churches in China, the missionaries should leave their mission fields, the sooner the better; and Paton affirmed that the expulsion of missionaries from China in the early 1950s was the judgement from God since they had not done their job well, especially regarding the development of indigenous churches in China. In Paton’s own words, “God’s judgment is being executed upon His Church by political movements which are anti-Christian. Of this almost worldwide movement,

3 see ibid., 82. Paton spoke from his personal experiences in China and his charge against Christian missions was that Christian missions were part of the whole imperialist aggression of the West and this jeopardized the future of the missionary enterprise. (64ff.) There were two sides of the charge. Firstly, Christian missions had been serving as the agents of the imperial West, as carriers and promoters of capitalistic, Western cultures. Secondly, “whatever may have been the formal aim of (Christian) missions, their actual policy was such that it was not to foster, but to preclude, the development of a genuinely dynamic, self-governing, self-supporting, and self-expanding church” (66). 4 paton had edited another book on Roland Allen, Reform of the Ministry: A Study in the Work of Roland Allen in 1968 which came out again in a new edition in June 2003. See David Paton, ed. Reform of the Ministry: A Study in the Work of Roland Allen Second Edition. (London: Lutterworth Press, 2003). 5 see e.g. Roland Allen. Missionary Methods: St. Paul’s or Ours? (London: Robert Scott, 1912). 6 allen had witnessed the Boxer Movement in China in 1900 so he could understand more the charge that Christianity was a foreign religion, which Paton would shared fully. See Roland Allen. The Siege of the Peking Legations. (London: Smith Elder & co., 1901); and David Paton, ed. Reform of the Ministry: A Study in the Work of Roland Allen. (London: Lutterworth Press, 1968), 16f. christian mission encounters communism in china 181 the Communists are the spearhead.”7 Paton was also concerned with the missionary failure to come to terms with Communism in China. Both Allen and Paton were deemed to be too radical in their own country and their ideas were generally dismissed, even before they were discussed. However, after Paton’s death in 1992, his book was reprinted in 1996. Paton had edited another book in 1968, entitled: Reform of the Ministry: A Study in the Work of Roland Allen, which came out again in a new edition in June 2003.8 So there are still markets for Paton’s work. Paton was not only a prophet of his times, he had also provided us a platform for the discussion of the Christian missions in China in the 21st century. In this chapter, I would suggest that if we could investigate more thoroughly the social and political contexts of his times, we would understand better his experiences in China and why he had arrived at the conclusion he did. Hence, I shall approach Paton’s prophetic view of Christian missions from this angle.

The Prophetic Voices of David Paton

David Paton (1913–1992) was the eldest son of Rev. William Paton, a missionary leader of international importance and the founding father of the World Council of Churches. Paton received his proper education at Repton College and Oxford University, both in England and spent three years as secretary of the Student Christian Movement at Birmingham University before he entered into overseas ministry. He met Bishop R.O. Hall of Hong Kong in 1933 when he was still in his second year at Oxford. Since then, he felt a particular call to serve the church in China, and the devotion to China and its people remained a central theme in his life and thought. He went to China in 1939 and started by learning Chinese in Beijing. He then was sent to work in Chongqing (Chungking) from 1941 to 1944. And after his furlough years back in England, he was sent to Fuzhou (Foochow) and taught at Fujian Union Theological College since 1947. Fuzhou was liberated in 1949 and Paton had the first hand experience of the church’s response to Communism. His life in China and his direct contact with the

7 see David Paton, op. cit., 49. 8 see David Paton, ed. Reform of the Ministry: A Study in the Work of Roland Allen Sec- ond Edition. (London: Lutterworth Press, 2003). 182 chapter nine

Chinese were completely terminated. The missionary ‘debacle’ appeared to him as a divine judgment and hence his book, The Chris- tian Missions and the Judgment of God.9 At the back of the Second Edition of Paton’s book, there is a remark saying, “David Paton’s book stands as a major contribution to missiology in our time. It also remains as a prophetic statement about the church and China.” He was speaking to and not for the Church. Rather than telling the Church what she could contribute to China, Paton was saying that the Church must discover what the Chinese experiences had to say to their own situation. So, what did Paton say about Christian missions in China in his book? Paton’s thesis was that God’s judgment was being executed upon His church by political movements which were anti-Christian, and by this he meant the Communists. The arrival of the Communist rule in China in 1949 turned out to be a ‘debacle’ to Christian missions in China and Paton reckoned that ‘the end of the missionary era was the ( Judgment and the) will of God’.10 Why was it the judgment of God? Paton spoke from his personal experiences in China and his charge against Christian missions was that Christian missions were part of the whole imperialist aggression of the West and this jeopardized the future of the missionary enterprise.11 There were two sides of the charge. Firstly, Christian missions had been serving as the agents of the imperial West, as carriers and promoters of capitalistic, West- ern cultures. Secondly, as Paton made it clear, “whatever may have been the formal aim of (Christian) missions, their actual policy was such that it was not to foster, but to preclude, the development of a genuinely dynamic, self-governing, self-supporting, and self-expanding church.”12 People may argue that Paton’s experiences in China were rather limited and the examples he cited were mostly from the British Angli- can mission contexts where he came from. Certainly, what Paton described may not be complete or adequate to the general scene in China. Even if he was, there may still be different ways of interpretation,

9 For a brief description of the life and work of David Paton, see Paton, David. Christian Mission and the Judgment of God. Second Edition, (Cambridge: William B. Eerd- mans Publishing Co., 1996), 1–20. 10 see ibid., 82. 11 see ibid., 64ff. 12 see ibid., 66. christian mission encounters communism in china 183 depending on which side one takes. Hence, in this paper, I shall attempt to report some significant scholarly works in the past fifty years so as to reveal a more comprehensive picture of the historical situations in China. These works, as we shall see, give us a better picture of the situation in China and verify the points Paton was trying to express in his book. I shall start with Jessie Lutz’s book first.

Jessie Lutz’s Christian Missions in China—Evangelists of What? (1971)

Jessie Lutz was a Professor of History at Rutger’s University, New Jersey. Her classical book was China and the Christian Colleges,13 is where I began my research on Christian Colleges in China, before moving on to the history of Christian missions in China. Her other book, Christian Missions in China—Evangelists of What?, was published in 1965. Lutz collected papers from very famous American and Chinese scholars such as Kenneth S. Latourette, Joseph Levenson, Charles P. Fitzgerald, Paul Cohen, Paul A. Varg, Tu-hsiu Chen, Pao-chien Hsu, Yao-tsung Wu (Y.T. Wu) and Fu-san Chao (also known as Fu-san Zhao). The papers were divided into three groups: firstly, how did the missionaries set and revised their goals and methods in their mission fields in China; secondly, how did the Chinese intellectuals responded to Christian missions and thirdly, how did Western scholars attempt to appraise the role of Christian missions in China. In summary, it was found that there were several phases of missionary movements and in order to bring about effective changes in China, the missionaries were trying to broaden their goals from converting individuals to Christianizing the societies, and even to responding to China’s national needs. On the other hands, the Chinese were not slow in recognizing that the missionaries were evangelists of more than the Christian religion. The missionaries were playing a significant role as mediators of Western civilization and they were, and as Paton says, ‘agents of the imperial West, as carriers and promoters of capitalistic, Western cultures’, hence intensified the Western threat to Chinese tradition and culture. As the Chinese soon found it, ‘Christian conversion’ meant turning not only to Christian faith, but also to Western

13 see Jessie Lutz. China and the Christian Colleges 1850–1950. (Ithaca: Cornell Uni- versity Press, 1971). 184 chapter nine cultures; ‘Christianization’ implied Westernization of Chinese civilization too.14 For many years, Christianity has remained a foreign and heterodox religion in the minds of most Chinese; and the thinking of ‘one more Christian, one less Chinese’ still prevailed. Worse still, lots of Chinese scholars had been criticizing a well-known book published by the China Continuation Committee of the Edinburgh Missionary Conference of 1910, entitled The Christian Occupation of China: A General Survey of the Numerical Strength and Geographical Illustration of the Christian Forces in China.15 The book was an attempt to gather all information, including statistical data about the total number of missionaries, mission stations, churches, schools, hospitals and the number of believers, hence a very comprehensive report of the work of missionaries in China. However, the title of the book reflected so clearly the general desires of the missionaries who wanted to conquer China with their missionary zeal and other Western forces. The picture of a military campaign was so real that nationalistic Chinese had to stand up and condemn Christian missions as the cultural arm of Western imperialism.16 Hence, the papers collected in Lutz’s book confirmed what Paton was saying regarding the role of the Christian missionaries as ‘agents of the imperial West’.

George Hood’s Mission Accomplished? The English Presbyterian Mission in Lingtung, South China (1986)

George Hood was a missionary from Presbyterian Church of England and he received his training at Cambridge (probably at Westminster College) in the early 1940s. He served as a missionary in East Guang- dong, China from 1945–1950. He also served as East Asia Secretary of the Council for World Mission from 1972–1977; and as a member of the teaching staff in the Department of Mission at Selly Oak Col- leges, Birmingham.

14 see Jessie Lutz. Christian Missions in China- Evangelists of What? (Boston: D.C. Heath & Co., 1965), vii–xviii. 15 see Stauffer, Milton T., ed. The Christian Occupation of China: A General Survey of the Numerical Strength and Geographical Illustration of the Christian Forces in China. (Shanghai: China Continuation Committee, 1922). 16 see ibid., xii. The accusation of ‘cultural arms’ may be a bit too strong. The Christian mission was not a tool of imperialism; though unfortunately it had been tied to imperialism in China. christian mission encounters communism in china 185

Hood has written a distinguished book entitled: Neither Bang nor Whimper: The End of a Missionary Era in China,17 in which he discussed directly the key issues raised by Paton’s book, especially regarding the words, ‘debacle’, ‘judgment’ and ‘failure’ of Christian missions in China.18 He concluded that though much had been said and written about Paton’s conceptions of ‘judgment’ and ‘failure’ of Christian missions in China, yet there remained the lack of a historical perspective which would take sufficient account of the whole history in China. I shall attempt to explore this historical perspective in the later part of my chapter. Meanwhile, I will turn to another book by Hood, Mis- sion Accomplished? The English Presbyterian Mission in Lingtung, South China which was his doctoral thesis completed in Birmingham University in 1985. In this book, Hood reported that there were three main charges laid against the Christian missionaries in China; the first two of them were identical with the suggestions of Paton. The first was the association with Western imperialism. Hood cited from Fu-san Zhao, saying that there were two groups of missionaries, one who criticised colonialism and imperialism and identified with the revolutionary movements of the oppressed people; the other group who “engaged in political activities in support of their home, colonial imperialistic government and local reactionary government.”19 Yet, in between them, there were the majority, who, whatever their protestations of being ‘non-political’ were de facto supporters of local reactionary forces as the representatives of law and order, and because of their opposition to violence, they turned out to be opposed to revolutionary movements. Hood went on to say that the English Presbyterian missionaries in Lingdong (Lingtung), South China mostly belonged to the middle majority group, but their ‘non-political’ position did not derive from otherworldly pietism so much as missionary pragmatism. “Their

17 see George A. Hood. Neither Bang nor Whimper: The End of a Missionary Era in China. (Singapore: The Presbyterian Church in Singapore, 1991). I am thankful to Rev. Dr. Joyce M. Bennett who kindly offered me a copy of Hood’s book while I was visiting London in January 1992. 18 he referred especially to the discussions by Charles West’s China and the World Mission of the Church—The Lessons of a Failure. Victor Hayward’s The End of a Missionary era in China, Reflections on Lessons to be Learned and M. Searle Bates, “Issues Arising in the I.M.C. Study on the Christian Enterprise in China”. See Hood, op. cit., 213. 19 see e.g. George A. Hood. Mission Accomplished? The English Presbyterian Mission in Lingtung, South China. (Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Peter Lang, 1986), 288. 186 chapter nine preoccupation with the task of establishing and nurturing the Church made them set a high priority on the maintenance of law and order. They were not oblivious of the social dynamic within the Gospel they preached and taught, but trusted it to work through reformist rather than revolutionary movements.”20 The second charge was the failure to establish a truly Chinese, indigenous Church. In his study of the English Presbyterian Mission in Lingdong, Hood reported that it was professedly the objective of the Presbyterian Mission to establish a self-governing, self-supporting and self-propagating Chinese Church. He also reported that the Church in Lingdong had already established itself as the first native, independent Presbytery in 1881.21 The experience in Presbyterian Mission was not the same as that reported by Paton in the Anglican Mission fields, due to their different mission societies’ policies, though Fuzhou was situated not far from Swatow. Nevertheless, though the missionaries in the Presbyterian Mission seemed to be more advanced and had greater confidence in the development of indigenous churches, yet, as Hood reported, the situations in China especially during the 1920s were not so favourable. The anti-Christian and anti-missionary movements had made the missionaries more cautious in keeping their properties and in the transferral of power and responsibilities to the Chinese Christians. So, in 1931, Tom Gibson (the son of John Campbell Gibson) reported that among the eighty-eight congregations of the Presbytery, twenty- eight were self-supporting, hence comprising only one-third of the total in the Presbytery. Why was there a drop of self-supporting churches in this presbytery? Statistics also showed that there were more self- supporting congregations than there were native ministers, in such a way that the churches were still dependent on the foreign missionaries who helped carrying out the work of the Presbytery.22 The truth was that though the missionary presence was only temporary, it would by all means be indispensable to the development of the Christian Churches in China. In other words, Hood’s finding confirmed what Paton had said in his book, namely: “whatever may have been the formal aim of (Christian) missions, their actual policy was such that it was not to foster, but to preclude, the development of a genuinely dynamic, self-governing, self-supporting, and self-expanding church.”23

20 see ibid. 21 see ibid., 138. 22 see ibid., 294ff. 23 see ibid., 66. christian mission encounters communism in china 187

David Cheung’s Christianity in Modern China: the Making of the First Native Protestant Church (2004)

David Cheung (Yi Qiang Chen 陳貽強) published his doctoral dissertation in 2004. It was a research he did at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, under the supervision of Dr. Gary Tiedemann. In his book, Cheung reported on the work of the missionaries in Amoy from 1850s to 1870s. The missionaries were from the Reformed Protestant Dutch Church Mission from America (known as Reformed Church of America) and it was later joined by the English Presbyterian Swatow Mission.24 The principle of ‘Three-Self ’—namely ‘self-governing’, ‘self-supporting’ and ‘self-propagating’—was commonly associated with Henry Venn and Rufus Anderson who made their formal statements around the 1860s.25 However, according to Cheung, the earliest attempt at building an indigenous church in China really happened in 1856, about the same time when Henry Venn and Rufus Anderson were formulating their ‘Three-Self ’ principles. It was the Sinkoe Chapel in Amoy which was run by the missionaries, Talmage and Douglas and others from the Reformed Church of America. By the early spring of 1856, as Cheung reported, the adult church membership at Sinkoe Chapel reached one hundred and ten and the missionaries started in April the first instance of devolution in the church by the election of Chinese Christians as church elders and deacons. It signified a great move as it involved real power transfer and a real attainment of self-government in the Chinese Church.26 The devolution, as Cheung discovered, was neither due to the internal agitation on the part of the Chinese Christians, nor to the external anti-foreign pressures such as those of the 1920s in China. Indeed, it was the missionaries themselves who committed to the first act of devolution as early as in 1856. There was a remarkable

24 see David Cheung. Christianity in Modern China: the Making of the First Native Protes- tant Church. (Leiden: Brill, 2004). 25 see e.g. Max Warren. To Apply the Gospel: Selections from the Writings of Henry Venn. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1971), 26 & 64ff; and R. Pierce Beaver (ed.) To Advance the Gospel: Selections from the Writings of Rufus Anderson. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1967), 97. Though both were speaking of the ‘Three Self Principles’, they were, so to say, ‘mission administrators’. 26 see ibid., 13–14. 188 chapter nine absence of home mission-native church friction, hence demonstrating a peaceful and smooth process of devolution in China.27 Cheung also reported similar cases in other Missions, such as the Amoy Mission of London Missionary Society, which began with partial support of its local preachers in 1866 and ordained its first Chinese pastor in 1872. The English Presbyterian Mission in Swatow formed its self-governing presbytery in 1881 and ordained its first Chinese pastor in 1882. It finally reached its self-supporting status in 1907. So, scholars like George Hood and David Cheung are now reporting more local cases in China, testifying to the fact that despite the limitations and difficulties existing in China, indigenous Chinese churches have already been formed, even as early as in the 1850s. These were real cases, though they were only tiny incidents within the whole missionary enterprise in China. Now we shall turn to Daniel Bays’ book for more cases of the development of indigenous Christianity in China.

Daniel Bays’ Christianity in China—The Eighteenth Century to the Present (1996)

George Hood gave us a report of the English Presbyterian Mission in Swatow, Guangdong province which was different from Paton’s Angli- can Mission in Fuzhou. David Cheung gave us another report of the Reformed Church of America in Amoy. Though the mission fields were not far from one another (Swatow, Amoy and Fuzhou were all in South China), yet we can find that the policies and situations were different due to the different mission societies they belonged to and the different cities in which they were located. On the other hand, Dan- iel Bays has collected general information about the situation in the wider parts of China. His huge volume was the product of a History of Christianity in China Project, funded by the Henry Luce Founda- tion, Inc. Besides the collection of 19 research papers from most recent scholars, Bays has added an excellent chapter of his own, entitled: ‘The Growth of Independent Christianity in China, 1900–1937’.28

27 see ibid., 314. 28 see Daniel Bays, ed. Christianity in China—The Eighteenth Century to the Present (Stan- ford: Stanford University Press, 1996), esp. 307–316. christian mission encounters communism in china 189

In his chapter, Bays reported that throughout the nineteenth century, the Protestant mission movement in China was dominated by organized missionary societies, most of them (with the exception of the China Inland Mission) being agencies of main-line denominational churches in North America and Europe such as the Presbyte- rian, Anglican (Episcopalian), Congregational, Reformed Churches, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist and others. But after 1900, there was a great increase in independent, local missionaries. He cited from the report of the 1907 conference that the number of Protestant church members had grown rapidly from 37,000 in 1889 to 178,000 in 1906 and added a remark, saying: “the most important feature of this period was the growth of the spirit of independence in Chinese Protestant churches.”29 Bays then moved on to report the emergence of some of the independent Christian groups such as: a. the Chinese Christian Independent Church (Zhongguo Yesujiao zilihui), formed by Guozhen Yu (俞國楨) in 1906;30 b. the True Jesus Church (Zhen Yesu Jiaohui) formed between 1917– 1919;31 c. the Jesus Family (Yesu Jiating) formed by Dianying Jing (敬奠瀛 1890–1953) in 1921 in the village of Mazhuang, in Taian county of Shandong Province;32 d. the Assembly Hall ( Juhuichu or Juhuisuo) or ‘Little Flock’ (Xiaoqun) formed in the mid-1920s under the leadership of Tuosheng Ni (Watchman Nee, 倪柝聲 1903–1972); e. the Spiritual Gifts Church (Ling’enhui) formed in the early 1930s after the revival movement in Shandong.33

Bays also drew our attention to some Chinese Protestant reviv- alists with a nationwide reputation such as Limei Ding (丁立美

29 see ibid., 308. 30 Yu was formerly a Presbyterian pastor in Shanghai. The Chinese Christian Union was one of the all-Chinese, independent Christian groups in the early 20th century. It was out of this that a new federation of churches was formed, which later known as the Chinese Christian Independent Church (Zhongguo Yesujiao zilihui). 31 Dan Bays described it as Pentecostal, intense millennialism, highly exclusive and militantly anti-foreign. See Dan Bays, op. cit., 311. 32 see Feiya Tao, Zhongguo de Jidujiao Wutuobang—Jesu jiating (1921–1952) ( Jesus Family—An Utopia in China, 1921–1952), (Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 2004). 33 see Dan Bays, op. cit., 310–313. 190 chapter nine

1871–1936),34 Mingdao Wang (王明道 1900–1991),35 Chonggui Chen (陳崇桂 Marcus Cheng 1884–1964), Shangjie Song (宋尚節 John Song 1901–1944) and Zhiwen Ji (計志文 Andrew Gih). They were powerful native preachers and evangelists and attracted many followers in China. Together with the Chinese churches above-mentioned, their works were of equally significant impact alongside of the work done by the Western missionaries in China. Western missionaries had been discussing for decades about the need and possibility for the formation of Chinese churches which could work towards the ‘Three-Self ’ goals, yet they were astonished to see that they could be realised, not by their missionary policies, but by means of these new forces and independent groups among the Chinese Christians. These local Christian movements became a significant sector of Chinese Christianity which have survived and contributed much to the dynamism of Christianity in China even after the arrival of the Communists in 1949.

The Work of Chinese Christians towards Indigenous Christianity

David Paton was claiming that the end of the missionary era in China was the judgment of God. So far we have seen that though the various mission societies had set as their aims the building of indigenous churches in China since the mid-nineteenth century, the progress was very slow. David Cheung and George Hood have already found out in their research that there had been successful attempts by the missionaries to start indigenous churches in the 1850s and 1880s, but they were only a tiny minority among the churches in China and for some reasons they did not grow much in the later years. Hood was suggesting that the situations in China, especially in 1920s were not found favourable to the development of indigenous churches in the country. Perhaps there were other reasons such as: the missionaries were so much concerned with the number of converts they could make that they could not afford time for the training of local pastors or church leaders to take over the administration of the Church. Or the missionaries still did not have enough confidence to transfer power and

34 Ding was famous as a YMCA evangelist in the 1910s. 35 Wang was one of the best known evangelists in China, put into prison by the government in the 1950s till 1979. christian mission encounters communism in china 191 responsibility to the Chinese leaders, hence became a great hindrance to the development of indigenous churches in China.36 Worse still, few missionaries were aware of the problem of the ‘foreignness’ of the Christianity they had developed in China.37 Paton admitted by saying: “The entire structure and ethos of the Church in China was, with minor much–paraded exceptions, Western. Prayer books are in the main direct, not to say crudely literal, translations of the original. The union hymn book in general use contains 62 original Chinese hymns out of 512, and 72 Chinese tunes. Church architecture is mainly a matter of brick boxes, with odds and ends of embellishment from the Gothic revival . . . The structure of diocesan organization and accounts was based on Western models . . . Missionar- ies, with few exceptions, maintained a Western style and standard of living.”38 Roland Allen had re-called the example of the Apostle Paul, claiming that in order to develop native churches in China, the missionaries should leave their mission fields, the sooner the better. But Paton made it more explicitly by saying that the Anglican mission in China with its overall body of Christian doctrines and traditions were still very foreign.39 That was why he affirmed that the expulsion of missionaries from China in the early 1950s was the judgement from God since they had not done their job well, especially regarding the development of indigenous churches in China. In Paton’s own words, “whatever may have been the formal aim of (Christian) missions, their

36 see e.g. the discussions by David Cheung, op. cit., and also Jessie Lutz, “Mission- ary Attitude toward Indigenization Within an Overall Context” in Peter Chi-ping Lin, ed. Christianity and Indigenization in China. (Taiwan, Cosmic Light Press, 1990), 356–381; and T.C. Chao, “Christian Faith in China’s Struggle” in Chester S. Miao (ed.) Chris- tian Voices in China. (New York: Friendship Press, 1948), 28. 37 philip Wickeri has cautioned us that ‘the foreignness of the Christian gospel is best not compounded by the foreignness of its bearer’ and ‘the universality of the gospel does not mean the universality of Christendom’. See Philip Wickeri. Seeking the Common Ground: Protestant Christianity, The Three-Self Movement and China’s United Front. (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1988), 34ff. 38 see David Paton, op. cit., 67. 39 there were a few missionaries who could voice the issue openly, such as Wil- liam N. Brewster who once remarked: “Protestant Christianity in China has two main sources of weakness: first, the divisions within itself; second, the gulf caused by the fact that each little church owns a foreign allegiance. As long as these churches are foreign in name, origin, control, and resources, they will be looked upon with suspicion by the average Chinese . . . The solution then . . . is the organization of ‘Church of Christ in China’ by a union of all the Protestant bodies . . . All would come in upon an equal footing.” See Brewster, W.N. “A Chinese National Church” in The Chinese Recorder, (February 1907), 63–68. 192 chapter nine actual policy was such that it was not to foster, but to preclude, the development of a genuinely dynamic, self-governing, self-supporting, and self-expanding church.”40 Paton was aware of this problem of ‘foreignness’ of the Christianity in China, which many missionaries had not noticed or did not care to respond.41 There were at least three distinctive groups of Christian movements in the early twentieth century China. The first group was the work of Western missionaries such as the mainline denominational missionary societies and those described by David Cheung and George Hood. The second group was the attempts of indigenous churches by Chi- nese Christians such as the Jesus Family led by Dian Ying Jing and the Assembly Hall and Little Flock led by Tuosheng Ni and others, as described by Daniel Bays. There was also the third group of Chinese Christians who came out of the mainline churches but were expressing a strong desire for the development of independent Chinese Churches. For instance, before formally setting up the Chinese Christian Inde- pendent Church (Zhongguo Yesujiao zilihui ) in 1906, Guozhen Yu and his colleagues published a newspaper called, The Chinese Christian (Zhongguo Jidutubao《中國基督徒報》), advocating missionaries and the Chinese Churches to “give up the unequal treaties which protect the churches… awaken churches in all areas and Christians to work out seriously for the three-self goals”.42 There were already articles expressing their cry for ‘indigenous church’ such as ‘Methods of Promoting Self Support’ (中國教會自立政策 in June 1904); ‘A Native Church for China’ (中國自立會 in March 1905); ‘Why Does the Christian Church in China Not Able to be Self-governing and Self-propagating?’ (中國之基督教會不能自立傳道其故安在 in November 1906); ‘The Good and Bad

40 see ibid., 66. 41 Mission Historians like Dana Robert has also recalled some attempts of the missionaries in the 1920s and 1930s to separate Christianity from Western cultures, which were seen as one important aspect of the internationalization movement by the missionaries. See Dana Robert, “The First Globalization: The Internationalization of the Protestant Missionary Movement Between the World Wars”, in International Bulletin of Missionary Research, vol. 26, no. 2, (2002), 50–67. However, these missionaries did not address to the problem of ‘foreignness’ of Christianity and the issue of ‘identity’ of Chinese Christianity contemporary Chinese Christians were raising. 42 it was noted that the missionaries had long been reckoning the “Unequal Trea- ties” as guarantee and protections for all missionary activities in China. It would be difficult for the missionaries to understanding the feelings of the Chinese Christians who demanded a truly Chinese church independent of the foreign control. When the Chinese were asking for it, the missionaries were afraid that the Chinese were seizing power, hence they could not give up their powers. christian mission encounters communism in china 193

Effects of Self-propagating and Not Doing So’ (自傳教與不自傳教之利害 in September 1907); ‘The Most Important Problem Facing the Chinese Church Today’ (中國教會今日最重要的問題 in September 1907).43 Even the editors of The Chinese Recorder were aware of the issue and had written some reviews in their July issue of 1907. ‘The Chinese have been awakened’. George Hood has already reported the case of the English Presbyterian Mission in Swatow and one of the missionaries, John C. Gibson who reacted responsively by advocating the ideal and practicability of ‘Three-Self ’ model at the Centenary Mis- sionary Conference of 1907.44 Gibson believed that the ‘Three-Self ’ were no longer simply ideals for a distant future, but practical objectives to be immediately worked for and speedily realized. However, Gibson has softened his tone when he became one of the commission chair at the Edinburgh Missionary Conference in 1910.45 C.Y. Cheng, one of the Chinese delegates, spoke also at the Edinburgh Mission- ary Conference. Contrary to the commission report of Gibson, Cheng made explicitly clear that it was an urgent need to develop indigenous Churches in China and Western denominationalism was a big obsta- cle. He said that ‘the China Mission’ should soon become ‘the Chinese Church’ and that ‘the Church in China’ should become ‘the Church of China’.46 However, the missionaries at the conference did not take his points, and there was a consensus among the missionaries that the Chinese Church still needed the ‘correction, suggestion, illumination and guidance’ of the Western missionaries. Hence, the development of indigenous church in China would still be a long way to go. One proposal made by the Edinburgh Conference was to cultivate better co-operation among all of the Protestant denominations, hence the

43 see The Chinese Christian Monthly (Chinese) as kept in Shanghai Municipal Archives, U128–0–11. Even the editors of The Chinese Recorder were aware of the issues and had written some reviews on their July issue of 1907. “The Chinese have been awakened.” 44 At that time a total of 345 Chinese had been ordained, however only 1–2 were invited to the 1907 Conference, including Pastor Sheng Mo Hsi (席勝魔). 45 More study needs to be done here regarding whether and why John Gibson had changed his position. For details, see World Missionary Conference 1910, Report of Com- mission II: The Church in the Mission Field, (Edinburgh: Oliphant, Anderson and Ferrier, 1910). 46 see Ching-yi Cheng. “The Chinese Church in Relation to Its Immediate Task” in International Review of Missions, vol.1, (1912), 383–392. Cheng was later appointed to be a member of the Continuation Committee of the Edinburgh’s International Missionary Council, which aimed to set up an organization emphasizing inter-denominational co- operation on the national level. 194 chapter nine

China Continuation Committee was set up which aimed to promote inter-denominational co-operation on the national level. Yet, there was no proposal to bridge the gap between Chinese churches and foreign missionaries.47 Nevertheless, Dr. Cheng was not frustrated at the result of the Edinburgh Conference. After his return to China, Cheng started co- ordinating with Chinese Christians and planned for the formation of the National Christian Council (NCC) and the Church of Christ in China (CCC). In 1922, the NCC was formed at the National Chris- tian Conference which was attended by representatives from most of the Protestant institutions in China. Half of them were Chinese. Dr. Cheng was appointed as the first President of the National Chris- tian Council and in its Declaration, he proposed the promotion of ‘indigenous theology’ as the primary aim of the National Christian Council which would work out the foundation of the truly indigenous church in China. In the article “Discussing an Indigenous Church of China”, he explained: Christianity has spread to every country in the world and has been influenced by many different national traits. There should be no fear if the same process happens in China . . . All I want to discuss here is how in what age and among what national traits were incorporated into our religion.48 Cheng’s proposal for an indigenous church movement went beyond the kind of anti-Western, exclusivist sentiment. He saw indigenous church more in terms of an adaptation and integration with Chi- nese culture and organization and doctrinal autonomy. He further explained that there was a two-fold emphasis on the construction of ‘indigenous theology’, namely on the negative side, it was a complete autonomy from the West (by being critical of the Westernized Christi- anity), and on the more positive side, it was to develop the indigenous character of Chinese churches by the integration of Christian faith with Asian, Chinese cultures.49 As it was reported, there were 345 Chinese pastors in 1907 and 764 in 1915. The number grew up to 1305 by 1920, whereas there

47 see e.g. World Missionary Conference 1910, Report of Commission I, (Edinburgh: Oli- phant, Anderson and Ferrier, 1910), 326. 48 see Cheng, C.Y. “Discussing an Indigenous Church for China” in Wen She Monthly, vol. 1, no. 1, (October 1925), 8–9. 49 see e.g. the discussion in Sum Fu Yang (楊森富), Zhongguo Jidujiao Shi (History of Chinese Christianity), (Taiwan: Commercial Press, 1968), 293ff. christian mission encounters communism in china 195 were only 1268 foreign missionaries in China in 1920. Hence, Chinese pastors had already out-numbered the foreign missionaries in 1920.50 By 1927, when the Church of Christ in China was in its operation, it claimed to represent close to a quarter of China’s Protestants, making it the largest Protestant church in China, and the most powerful member of National Council of Churches in China. Foreign missionaries were allowed to become members of the Church of Christ in China only on equal basis with their Chinese counterparts (i.e. they were not entitled to any superior status). The Church of Christ in China worked to replace foreign missions and helped its member churches to be independent from foreign funds (‘self-support’), from foreign mission supervision (‘self-government’) and from foreign doctrine and theology (‘self-propagation’). A well-known Chinese theologian, T.C. Chao made an important address at the National Council of Churches conference in Shang- hai. In his speech on ‘The Strengths and Weaknesses of the Chinese Church’, he explained: “The (Chinese) Church is weak because she is still foreign, both in thought and form, and is divided, by Western denominationalism.”51 Chao openly declared that the Western form of church life especially ‘Western denominationalism’ was a continuing embarrassment to the Chinese churches. And he said firmly that there would not be any future for the Chinese Church unless she could do away with her image of ‘foreign religion’ and wipe off her ‘Western denominationalism’.52 Of George Hood’s three main charges against the Protestant missionaries in China, I have reported that the first two charges were identical to those suggested by Paton. What about the third one? The third charge was, in Hood’s words, ‘the perpetuation in China of Western divisions and denominations’.53 And he explained: The force of this charge derived from three factors. In the first place the divisions among Christian missionaries were seen as political and cultural as well as theological, and thereby identified with the competing imperialisms which were all hostile to China’s interests; secondly, their divisive influence was contrary to the demand for national unity and defence of China’s sovereign integrity, and thirdly, in as much as they

50 see for reference Stauffer, Milton T., ed. op. cit., 35. 51 see T.C. Chao. “On the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Chinese Church”, in Life Monthly, vol. 3, no. 5, ( January 1923), 1–8. 52 see ibid. 53 see George Hood, op. cit., 302. 196 chapter nine

were compounded by the liberal-conservative divide they undermined attempts to provide an adequate and united Christian apologetic to the attacks of scientific rationalism. In each of these three ways they under- lined the foreign, un-Chinese character of Christian faith.54 We have discussed the prophetic voice of Timothy Richard in another chapter of this volume. He was indeed a great prophet. He did have something to say on this issue of denominationalism even in the beginning years of the twentieth century. In a paper he read before the Shanghai Missionary Association on November 4, 1902, he made the following points, saying: Last of all, comes the all-important work of co-operation in organization. The Chinese government does not appoint two magistrates for one county, or two prefects for one prefecture, or two governors for one province . . . The same applies to missions. No Episcopal church appoints two bishops over the same district . . . Now that God has bestowed His blessings on Episcopal, Methodist, Presbyterian, Congregational, and Baptist, almost in equal proportion, are we not denying that real unity which God has sealed with His blessing if we do not agree to organize our work as one body would do? Let us, therefore, divide the (mission) field without overlapping and divide our departments without overlapping, then we may naturally expect ten-fold efficiency and economy in our work and the blessing of God be poured out upon us in ten-fold measure . . . . (hence, he calls for) a genuine recognition of the fact that God gives His Spirit to all denominations without partiality, and therefore a determination to divide the (mission) field and divide the work without overlapping, and to have far more co-operation than at present exists in educational, medical and other work.55 This was said by Timothy Richard in 1902. Yet, the situation was not better, but even worse forty years later. This charge of Western denominationalism might have been overlooked by Paton in his book. For Paton might have been so caught up with his own denominational interests, that he was unaware of the problem of denominationalism in China, as other missionaries were. But to many Chinese Christians like T.C. Chao, this was one of the key issues and longstanding yearnings for Chinese churches throughout twentieth century China. Together with other Chinese intellectuals like C.Y.Cheng (誠靜怡), Timothy T. Lew (劉廷芳), David Yu (余日章) and Xing-zhi Tao (陶

54 see ibid. 55 see Timothy Richard, “Of More Than a Thousand Missionaries” in The Chinese Recorder, vol. 34, no. 1, ( January 1903), 7–8. christian mission encounters communism in china 197

行知), Chao worked very hard for the promotion of indigenous theology in China. For instance, they had set up ‘Life Fellowship’ (Sheng Ming She 生命社) in 1919 and published a monthly journal called ‘Life’ (Sheng Ming 生命), which aimed to demonstrate the truth and power of Christianity by Chinese Christians. And in December 1923, they further organized ‘The Chinese Christian Society for Promoting Literary Services’ (中華基督教文字事業促進會), which was renamed ‘Wen She’ (文社 = National Literature Association) in July 1925. They published ‘Wen She Monthly’ (文社月刊) which aimed to promote the construction of indigenous theology and to introduce Christian culture through a Chinese style of writing. They discussed issues on the theology and liturgy of the Church and were attempting to integrate Christian faith with Chinese culture.56 One of its prominent writers, Zhi-xin Wang (王治心), stated explicitly: Christianity has existed in China for over one hundred years now, but it has not been able to grow and develop together with Chinese society, mainly due to the dominance of foreign missionaries. It is for this reason that we as Chinese writers have to change the direction and begin bringing out in a positive manner what is good about Chinese culture. We must begin adopting the culture of Christianity with discriminating minds and in mutual harmony with our native culture, thus making it an integral part of our indigenous customs and behavior. Only in this way can Christianity progress within the process of social life.57 It is interesting to know that all these things had happened long before the coming of Communist rule in China. Even before the arrival of the communists, Chinese intellectuals had already started the Anti- Christian movement and the Restore Educational Rights movement in the early 1920s, and again after the May 30th Shanghai incident in 1925. During the anti-Christian movements, Chinese students and intellectuals openly condemned Christian missions as the cultural arms of Western imperialism. Even for the Chinese Christians, they had to ask themselves these simple questions: ‘What is Christianity?’, ‘In what way can it be truly a universal faith that can be separated from Western civilization?’, or ‘Was Chinese Christian a self-contradictory

56 see e.g. the discussion in Peter C.M. Wang, Wenshe yuekan yu Zhongguo Jidujiao benshihua (Wen She Monthly, 1925–1928 and the Indigenization of Christianity in China), in Peter C.P. Lin (ed.) Jidujiao yu Zhongguo Benshihua (Christianity and Indigeni- zation in China), (Taiwan: Cosmic Light Press, 1990), 527–543. 57 see Wang, Zhi-xin. “How to Make Christian Writing Conquer the Heart of Society” in Wen She Monthly, vol. 1, no. 2, (November 1925). 198 chapter nine term?’ In response to the popular saying, namely: ‘One more Chris- tian, one less Chinese’, the Chinese Christians had to ask themselves: “Can we become Christians without being Westernized, i.e. keeping our identity as ‘Chinese’ Christians?” These were serious questions Chinese Christians have to encounter, even today. That was why Chi- nese Christians were crying out for the indigenization of Christian faith, not so much as an expression of anti-foreignism, but rather to affirm their own identity as ‘Chinese Christians’, and to see that Chris- tianity could be more easily acceptable to their Chinese friends as a truly Universal faith. T.C. Chao has indeed exclaimed in the Spring of 1949, saying: “Christianity as represented by the churches often appears as a twisted thing, a thing connected with foreign imperialism… No wonder so many Christians go over to the Communists. Yet the churches have not awakened.”58

Concept of ‘De-Westernization’ Re-visited

Before I conclude, I may elaborate more on this concept of ‘de- Westernization’. As I have said, the missionaries had under-estimated the growing tide of the anti-Christian, anti-foreignism and the anti- imperialist movements in China and failed to address adequately the longstanding yearnings of Chinese Christians which went beyond the anti-foreign sentiments, regarding the simple question as ‘Whether Christianization can be separated from Westernization?’. This is still a relevant question, even for Christianity in our 21st century when we are encountering the new concept of ‘World Christianity’ today. Christians in the non-Western world today are still asking: Can we have a ‘de-Westernized’ Christianity? I shall come back to this in the chapter on ‘Bishop K.H. Ting and the Three-Self Movement in China’. Though this concept of ‘de-Westernization’ is not a new one, we are certainly in a much better position now to address the issue in this new era of ‘Christendom’. Philip Jenkins’ book, The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity,59 has helped us to come to understand that the centre of

58 as quoted from Philip Wickeri, op. cit., p. 120. 59 it is interesting to note that Jenkins also remarked: “Since Christianity has been used as an ideological arm of Western imperialism, the dominance of Western European christian mission encounters communism in china 199

Christianity has been shifting from ‘North to South’ and from ‘White to non-White’. That is why scholars now are using the phrase ‘World Christianity’ in many academic departments. Historians of Christian- ity today are concerned with how the ‘universal’ Christian faith interacts with a diversity of cultures and societies, and as Professor Andrew Walls remarked some years ago, saying: ‘. . . by cross-cultural diffusion it [the Christian movement] becomes a progressively rich entity’.60 At the annual conference of the American Academy of Religion 2006 held at Washington, DC, there were two sessions on World Christianity. One was on ‘World Christianity in General’, and the other on ‘World Christianity in Local Contexts’. There, scholars were astonished to find that only when the universal Christian faith was separated from Western civilization, could we then talk about Western and non-Western Christianities. And we needed to accept the fact that Western Christianity is just another form of localized Christianity. It is interesting to note that at the Divinity Faculty of Cambridge Uni- versity, people began to talk about ‘Christian culture in the Western world’, admitting that Western Christianity is only one form of expression of the World Christianity.61 Is this precisely another way of ‘de- Westernizing’ Christianity?

Concluding Remarks

David Paton suggested that the end of missionary era in the early 1950s in China was the judgment of God. The coming of Commu- nism was but God’s judgment upon the Christian missions in the past century. Paton did not say much on how Christianity should encounter or work with Communism. We shall come to see the situations more closely in the chapters on the life and work of T.C. Chao and Bishop K.H. Ting in this volume. As for Paton’s suggestion, we cannot say definitely that it was God’s judgment. However, when we re-visit the history of Christianity in

Christianity in the world lasts only for 4 centuries.” See Philip Jenkins, The Next Chris- tendom: The Coming of Global Christianity. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002). 60 see Andrew F. Walls. The Cross-cultural Process in Christian History. (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 2002), 9–10. 61 there is a course entitled, ‘Christian Culture in the Western World’ offered by the Divinity Faculty at Cambridge. See the course description of the Faculty of Divin- ity, University of Cambridge. 200 chapter nine

China in the past hundred years, we did find out that the Christian missions in China had not provided a viable platform or fulfilled its mission in building up an adequate form of indigenous Christianity in China. The two charges Paton recalled, or more accurately, the three main charges suggested by George Hood were all valid. Of course, we should not deny the fact that most if not all missionaries were sent to China primarily to preach the Christian gospel of love and serve the needs of the Chinese people, nor should we totally disregard all the achievements made by the missionaries in the last two centuries in China.62 However, so far from the work of the scholars I have cited and from our re-visiting of the historical situations in China, we may conclude that David Paton was not wrong when he echoed with T.C. Chao in saying that ‘it was the judgment of God’.63 It also explained why 400,000 Chinese Christians stood up together and signed the Christian Manifesto in 1950 and they joined the Communist government in fighting against imperialism.64 Chinese Christians led by Yao- zong Wu finally resolved to seek political help for the realization of ‘Three-Self ’ movement in China. What the missionaries failed to do, the communist had helped to accomplish, or offered a breakthrough. And the words of Paton could at least help us to think again more seriously, not only about our mission strategy and our understanding of Christian missions, but also our conception of World Christianity and Western theology today.

62 Scholars have been producing some fine works in this area such as Chi-Kwong Lee. Jidujiao yu jindai Zhongguo Wenhua lunwenji (Essays on Christianity and Modern Chinese Culture). Vols. 1 & 2. (Taiwan, Cosmic Light Press, 1992); Peter Chi-ping Lin (ed.) Jidujiao yu Zhongguo xiandaihua (Christianity and Modernization in China). (Taiwan, Cosmic Light Press, 1994); and Peter Tze Ming Ng. Jiduzongjiao yu Zhongguo Daxue jiaoyu (Christianity and University Education in China). (Beijing, China Social Sciences Press, 2003). 63 paton may have heard of the same concept from T.C. Chao who wrote an article: “Church Reform under the judgement of God” in 1950. Chao explained to the Chinese Church leaders that the Church was under the judgement of God and that they should repent and work out reforms for a fully indigenous church in China. See e.g. T.C. Chao. Shangdi shenpan xia de jiaohui gaige (Church Reform under the Judgment of God), (Shanghai: Qingnian Xiehui Shuju, 1950), 23–24. 64 For further references, see also e.g. George Hood. Neither Bang or Whimper, the End of a Missionary Era in China (1991); Oi Ki Ling. The Changing Role of the British Protestant Missionaries in China, 1945–1952. (London: Associated University Presses, 1999); Far East Office of Division of Foreign Missions, Documents of the Three-Self Movement. (New York: National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA, 1963), p. 19; and T.C. Chao. “Days of Rejoicing in China” in Christianity and Crisis, vol.66, no. 1, (March 2, 1949), 265–267. Chapter ten

Y.T. Wu: A New Understanding of ‘Three-Self ’ Development in Chinese Christianity

As I was attempting research on ‘The Development of Indigenous Christianity in China Before and After the 1910 Edinburgh Confer- ence’, I was excited to know that the Chinese University of Hong Kong was organizing another conference on Yaozong Wu. So I decided to write another paper, hence this chapter on ‘Yaozong Wu and the Three-Self Movement in China’ and elaborate to a greater extent my understanding of the development of indigenous Christian- ity throughout nineteenth and twentieth century China. In the past decade, I have been working hard to explore the Chinese ingredients of Christianity in China—the Chinese response to the spread of Christianity in China, the concerns of Chinese Christians, especially regarding the development of indigenous Christianity in China. In this chapter, I shall attempt to re-tell the story of Yaozong Wu and review his work on the Three-Self Patriotic Movement in the 1950s. I shall evaluate his work in the wider context of the development of indigenous Christian movements in China which began almost a century ago, and explore how and what Chinese Christians were struggling with for their ‘Three-Self ’. Indeed, ‘Three-Self ’ was not merely a political matter (or could be completed by political means), but rather a religious one in the beginning, and has to be seen from Chinese Christians’ point of view. I shall also attempt to evaluate Wu’s work by reviewing what his successor, Bishop K.H. Ting, had done after the death of Wu, hence giving a fairer judgment to what Wu had done for the Christian Church in China. Meanwhile, I have also been concerned with the issue of ‘Glo- calization’. It is a new concept derived from that of globalization in recent years. Whereas ‘globalization’ is focused on a top-down, uni- dimensional approach, the concept of glocalization emphasizes the interactive relationship between the processes of globalization and localization, the interplay and the mutual influences between them. Hence, ‘glocalization’ not only emphasizes the ‘global’, but also the ‘local’ and brings together a more comprehensive view between the 202 chapter ten global and local considerations.1 In this study of the indigenous movement of Chinese Christianity, the ‘global’ may perhaps be understood as the concept of ‘Three-Self principles’ derived from Henry Venn and others in the 1860s,2 and the ‘local’ would be the local Chinese situations. However, if I may push it a bit further, I would suggest that the ‘global’ perspective could also be seen as the official view from the Chinese government, or what was represented by Y.T. Wu’s proposal; and the ‘local’ perspective could be the view of the Chinese Christians or their leaders which may not be identical or in full accordance to the top-down, official view, yet there may exist an active interplay between the ‘global’ and the ‘local’ views. Bishop Ting’s revisionist view after 1980s may perhaps be a more articulated consideration balancing the global and local views. It is in such an interactive relationship that the two perspectives would complement one another and result in a richer and a more comprehensive picture of both. Hence, the development of indigenous Christianity in China can be seen more fully and vividly.

The Three-Self Protestant Movement before the 1950s

1. The Three-Self Movement Initiated by the Missionaries The indigenous Chinese churches had already been formed around the same time when Henry Venn and Rufus Anderson were formulating their ‘Three-Self ’ principles in the mid-19th century. The earliest Chinese indigenous church should be the First Amoy Church (Sinkoe Chapel) in Xiamen, which was founded by the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Mission in 1848.3 By the early spring of 1856, the adult church membership had reached one hundred and

1 for the basic ideas of ‘glocalization’, see Roland Robertson, Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture, (London, Sage Publications, 1992); Francisco Entrena (ed.), Local Reactions to Globalization Processes, (New York: Nova Science Publishers Inc., 2003), and Ninan Koshy, “The Present Phase of Globalization,” Quest, vol. 2, No. 2, (November 2003), 75–84. 2 see, for example, Max Warren, To Apply the Gospel: Selections from the Writings of Henry Venn. (Grand Rapid, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971), 26 & 64ff. 3 see, for reference, David Cheung. Christianity in Modern China: the Making of the First Native Protestant Church. (Leiden: Brill, 2004). a new understanding of ‘three-self’ development 203 ten, so the missionaries started in April of that year the first instance of devolution in the church by the election of Chinese Christians as church elders and deacons.4 And by the year of 1907, the number of Presbyterian independent churches within the Province of Fujian had increased to 34, with 4,013 church members. This signified a great move, as it involved real power transfer and a real attainment of self- government in the Chinese churches.5 Another successful case was the English Presbyterian Mission in Swatow. The Mission began its work in Lingtung in 1856 and it was so successful that a self-governing presbytery was formed in 1881 and its first Chinese pastor was ordained in 1882.6 According to the reports of the Protestant Missionary Conferences in Shanghai in 1877 and 1890, it was recorded that in 1876, there were a total of 312 ‘independent self-governing’ churches within the various Protestant denominations in China, of which 18 were fully self-supporting and 243 were partially self-supporting. And by the year of 1889, there were a total of 522 independent, self-governing churches within the various Protestant denominations in China, of which 94 were fully self-supporting, 22 were 50% self-supporting and 27 were reaching 25% self-supporting.7 These were successful cases found in China in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.8

2. Indigenous Movements between 1910s and 1940s The year 1900 marked a turning point for the development of indigenous Christianity in China. It was the outbreak of the Boxer Upris- ing in 1900 that had brought a very strong, immediate desire among

4 see ibid., 13–14 & 314. Also in De Jong, Gerard F. The Reformed Church in China 1842–1951, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 69–70. 5 see ibid. Also the report by Jonathan Chao: Cong Zhongguo Jiaohui kan jiaohui zengchang (Seeing Church Growth from the development of Chinese Church) in Peter Chi Ping Lin, ed., Jidujiao yu xiandai Zhongguo lunwenji (Essays on Christianity and Mod- ern China). (Taiwan: Cosmic Light Publication, 1981), 350–362. 6 see George A. Hood. Mission Accomplished? The English Presbyterian Mission in Ling- tung, South China. (Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Peter Lang, 1986), pp. 138 & 288; and Joseph Tae Hei Lee, The Bible and Gun: Christianity in South China, 1860–1900. (New York & London: Routledge, 2003). 7 see also Gibson, J.C. Mission Problems and Mission Method in South China. (London: Young People’s Missionary Movement, 1901); and Records of the Centenary Missionary Held at Shanghai, 1907. (Shanghai, Methodist Publishing House, 1907), p. 18. 8 unfortunately, Gibson’s report was toned down by the Shanghai conference as being too optimistic to describe the whole picture of Chinese Churches. 204 chapter ten

Chinese Christians for their independence. As in 1902, two years after the Boxer incident, pastor Guozhen Yu and some leading Chinese Christians, such as Hongji Xie, Fengchi Gao, Hengchun Li, Zimei Fan, Yaoru Song held a meeting in Shanghai and reflected deeply upon the significance of the Boxer incident. They began to realize that Chinese Christians have been accused of believing in a Christi- anity which was a ‘foreign’ religion, and admitted a popular saying: ‘one more Christian implies one less Chinese’. In order to get rid of those accusations, Chinese Christians were seeking a new form of Christianity which could free themselves from the dominance of the foreign missionaries.9 In the same year, they formed an all-Chinese Christian organization called the ‘Chinese Christian Union’ (中華基督徒會 zhonghua jidutuhui ) and started, in 1903, a quarterly magazine, The Chinese Christian (中國基督徒報 Zhongguo Jidutubao).10 Again in 1906, Yu formed another independent, all-Chinese organisation, called ‘Chinese Christian Independent Church’ (中華耶穌教自立會 Zhonghua Yesujiao zilihui ). By 1915, there were over 10,000 Christians from nearly 100 Chinese churches registered as member branches of the Zhonghua Yesujiao zilihui. And in 1920, the number grew to 189 branches and there was for the first time a national conference held by the Zhonghua Yesujiao zilihui.11 By 1924, there were already more than 330 member branches registered to zhonghua Yesujiao zilihui, with over 20,000 Christians joining the movement.12 In 1910, another notable movement was started and a comparable federation of independent churches was formed in North China, again called the ‘Chinese Christian Independent Church’ (with a different Chinese name—中國基督教自立會 zhongguo Jidujiao zilihui ).13 The

9 see also C.Y. Cheng’s remarks in his “The Development of an Indigenous Church in China”, in International Review of Missions, vol. 12, (1923), 371. 10 there were much discussion among Chinese Christians and their opinions were all expressed in this magazine. Fortunately, a full set of the magazine (nos. 2–60, from 1904–1915) are kept in the Shanghai Municipal Archives for reference. 11 see “The National Assembly of Zhonghua Yesujiao zilihui” in “The Dictionary of Christianity” found in the following website: http://wmarxism.fudan.edu.cn/Christ- Dic/ChristMain.asp. 12 see Qi Duan: Ershi shiji chu Zhongguo Jidujiao Bensehua yundong de fazhan (The Devel- opment of Christianity and Independence Movement in the Early 20th Century), in Zhongguo Jidujiao Bensehua shigao (Historical Documents of the Indigenization of Chinese Christianity), (Taiwan: Cosmic Light Publication Press, 2005), 127–132. 13 see Cheng, C.Y. “What Federation can Accomplish for the Chinese Church”, in Chinese Recorder, vol. 41, no. 2 (February 1910), 160. a new understanding of ‘three-self’ development 205 federation was composed of Chinese Christians from five denominational churches who did not give up their allegiance to the churches of which they were already members, but they associated themselves merely to demonstrate their commitment to ‘Three-Self ’ and for the purpose of presenting the gospel message to ‘many who were otherwise unreached’.14 The federation centred in Beijing and Tianjin, and was soon joined by independent Chinese churches from all over Shandong and Shanxi provinces, including the establishment of various branches in Tsingdao (1911), Jinan (1912), and Yantai (1919). A Provincial Assembly of Shandong Christian Independent Church was established in 1924, which was later joined by independent churches in the southern provinces including Kwangtung and Fujian, and Hong Kong.15 Such movements of independent churches had laid a substantial groundwork for the series of regional conferences throughout China and hence the first national conference of China Continuation Com- mittee in Shanghai between 1912–1913, and the later development of the National Church of Christ in China, which was also formed by Jingyi Cheng in Shanghai in1927. Besides, individual denominations had been influenced by indigenous movements too, so much so that many of them had added the title ‘Chung Hua Jidujiao’ (‘Chinese Chris- tianity’) to their denominational names, such as ‘Chinese Anglican Church (Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui)’ (1912), ‘Chinese Young Men’s Christian Association’ (1915), ‘Chinese Lutheran Church’ (1917), ‘Chinese Presbyterian Church’ (1918) and ‘Min-nan Chinese Chris- tian Church’ (1919). And finally came the National Church of Christ in China in 1927.16 There were also numerous Christian movements prevailing in the 1920s in China, such as the True Jesus Church Movements, the Jesus Family, the Christian Tabernacle, the Little Flock and others, of which I have already reported in other chapters of this same volume. From the phenomena above-mentioned, there were at least three distinctive types of Christian movements we can identify. The first group of indigenous movements was those initiated by the Western missionaries, especially

14 see Ewing, Charles E. “The Chinese Christian Church in Tientsin (Tianjin)”, in The Chinese Recorder, vol. 43, no. 5 (May 1912), 282–285. 15 see Zhixin Wang, Zhongguo Jidujiao Shigang (Concise History of Chinese Christi- anity), (Hong Kong: Chinese Christian Literature Council, 1959), 255–257; also Qi Duan, op.cit., 127–132. 16 see also Bolan Gao, Jidujiao hui de heyi yundong (Ecumenical Movement of the Christian Church) in China Church Year Book, vol. 11a, (1929–1930), 6. 206 chapter ten the Presbyterians and those from other denominations. They were much concerned with local churches being ‘financially self-supported’ in order to realize the devolution of church governance. The second group of indigenous movements were those from Chinese Christians led by Guozhen Yu, Po Ling Cheung and others who worked their ways to form the Chinese Christian Union and the setting up of Chi- nese Christian Independent Churches which were separated from those denominational churches run by Western missionaries. What they were after was the realization of ‘self-government’ by Chinese Christians, and that Christian churches would no longer be accused of being under the foreign rule. Besides, there was also the third group of indigenous movements which were led by individual Chinese Chris- tians, such as the True Jesus Church Movement led by Paul Wei, the Christian Tabernacle led by Mingdao Wang, the Jesus Family led by Dianying Jing and the Little Flock Movement led by Tuosheng Ni. Besides advocating their separation from Western denominationalism, they were more concerned with the aspect of ‘self-propagation’. It was by self-propagation that the Chinese churches would grow naturally and the believers would join together to support and run their own churches. The different groups or movements reflected a great variety of resolutions, many attempted by Chinese Christians throughout China, all working towards the same aim of developing indigenous Christian churches in China.17 If we are looking at this whole picture from the perspective of glocalization, we would find that the first group of indigenous movements represents those who attend more to the ‘global’ aspect—the Christian traditions from and the connections with Western Christianity, whereas the second and third groups represent those who would focus more on the ‘local’ aspect of development, hence the separation and independence from the West. However, there should be another approach which could handle the ‘global’ and the ‘local’ aspects in a more dialectic way—striking a balance between the ‘global’ and the ‘local’ aspects. For this, we shall come to the formation of Chinese National Christian Council (NCC) in the year 1922.

17 daniel Bays has the following remarks, saying: “the number of Protestant Chris- tian church members grew rapidly, from 37,000 in 1889 to 178,000 in 1906. Yet, in retrospect, the most important feature of this period was the growth of the spirit of independence in Chinese Protestant churches. This had hardly begun in the nineteenth century, but it was a prominent theme after 1900.” See Daniel Bays, Christian- ity in China—The Eighteenth Century to the Present. (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996), 308. a new understanding of ‘three-self’ development 207

What C.Y. Cheng had done in China after his return from the 1910 Edinburgh Conference was precisely an attempt trying to meet both ends of the ‘global’ and ‘local’ aspects. He was assigned by the Continuation Committee of the Edinburgh Conference to help work for inter-denominational co-operation in China, and besides that, he also worked to co-ordinate with Chinese Christians and helped independent churches to attain the goals of ‘self-management, self-support and self-propagation’. In working with the missionaries, he attempted to draw Chinese delegates into the meetings and conferences, so that the missionaries and the Chinese Christians could work together for inter-denominational co-operation. And in working with the Chinese Christian churches, he convinced them to seek co-operation with the denominational churches. Rather than seeking a total separation from Western denominations, Cheng proposed that the formation of National Christian Council (中國基督教協會 Zhongguo Jidujiao xiehui ), which would help to incorporate both the denominational and the independent churches.18 Cheng could be distinguished from the three groups of indigenous movements by the fact that he did not go to either of their extremes. To him, ‘church independence’ did not imply a total separation from the Western churches. ‘Indigenous Christian- ity’ could exhibit a harmonious interplay and embrace both the Chi- nese and Western cultural elements. Hence, the search for indigenous Christianity needs not be a matter of either or, it can also be a skillful act of keeping the balance between ‘Western Christianity’ and ‘Chi- nese culture’.

The Three-Self Protestant Movement from 1949–1979

Yaozong Wu’s Three-Self Patriotic Movement We have noticed that indigenous movements in China already prevailed in the mid-19th century. However, it wasn’t until the coming of the new China era in 1949 that brought about drastic changes in the development of indigenous movements in the country. Wu Yaozong (1893–1979) was well-known as the founder and the first chairman of

18 see “The Christian Movement in China during 1922—the Editor’s Outlook”, in Chinese Recorder, vol. 54 (1923), 8; also Ching-yi Cheng, “The Chinese Church in Rela- tion to Its Immediate Task,” in International Review of Missions, vol. 1 (1912), 383–392. 208 chapter ten the Three-Self Patriotic Movement in China, and had brought the indigenous movement up to a new horizon. Wu was indeed a very controversial figure for the time. Though he had the full support of the Chinese Communist government, he did not receive much blessing from the Protestant churches. Nevertheless, he was still convinced that he had been accomplishing an important historical mission for the Protestant Church in China. Wu was baptized as a Christian in 1918. As a Chinese Christian, Wu had already committed himself to the Christian mission for national salvation since 1920s. He served at the Chinese Young Men’s Christian Association and worked for the ‘Saving China through the creation of Christian Characters’ (『人格救國』), and he followed the Christian path of ‘Love’ (『唯愛主義救國』).19 He also worked closely with some Yenching professors by joining their Peking Apologetic Group and contributed articles to their Life Magazine.20 In 1946, he founded another Christian magazine Tian Feng (《天風》), and set up the study group on ‘Christian Democracy’ immediately after the Sino-Japanese War. Yet, he soon found that the path of Communism could be more hopeful and an even better solution for national salvation. That was why he gave up the path of ‘Love’ (Wei Ai or ‘pacifism’) and turned to Communism. Meanwhile, he was also concerned with the possible way forward for the future of Christian (Protestant) Church in Com- munist China.21 During the Easter of 1948, Wu published his article in Tian Feng, entitled: ‘The Present-Day Tragedy of Christianity’ (『基督教的時代悲劇』), declaring that the Christian Church in China had failed in the last century (the first hundred years after Morrison). Christianity in China had lost its prophetic function in the country and had become an anti-revolutionary and mostly conservative, reactionary force in China; and worst still, it was tied with Western imperialism. Hence, Wu was proposing that the Christian Church in China should undergo drastic reformation by cutting herself off from the control of Western Powers. This, for Wu, was

19 see Lee Ming Ng, Jidujiao yu Zhongguo shehui bianqian (Christianity and Social Changes in China). (Hong Kong: Chinese Christian Literature Council, 1981). 20 see, “Zhengdao tuan xuanyan” (The Declaration of Apologetic Group), Shengming (Life Magazine). 1:1 ( June 1920), 3.; and Y.T. Wu, “Xuanquo Jidujiao xuesheng yundong de shangque” (Remarks on the National Student Christian Movement), Shengming (Life Magazine). 2:7 (March 1922), 6–8. 21 see ibid., 118; also Francis Price Jones, The Church in Communist China—A Protestant Appraisal. (New York: Friendship Press, 1962). a new understanding of ‘three-self’ development 209 precisely what he described to be ‘the historical mission of the Chinese Christian Church’.22 As the leader of the Three-Self Patriotic Move- ment in China, he commissioned himself to launch for church reform and the accomplishment of ‘Three-Self ’. And he added: “The Three- Self Patriotic Movement does not merely aim at ‘Three-Self ’ which the Church needs to work towards being reformed internally, more still if the Church wants to survive in New China, she needs to follow and support the Communist government, and help the new government to work out an independent, democratic, strong and modern China.”23 Hence, Wu’s idea of ‘Three-Self ’ was evolved within such distinctive, historical and political situations.24 In July 1950, Wu drafted a document, entitled: ‘Direction of Endeavor for Chinese Christianity in the Construction of New China’, which was later known as ‘The Christian Manifesto’. There were three main points expounded as a political treatise for Christian churches in China. They were:

1. the Christian Church should obey the leadership of the new government and assume her responsibility to help with the construction of new China; 2. the Christian Church should cut herself off from any ties with Western imperialism, not to be used as reactionary forces within China; 3. the Christian Church must work toward the establishment of a truly indigenous Christianity in China, working to realize the ‘Three-Self Principles’, namely ‘self-government’, ‘self-support’ and ‘self-propagation’.25

22 see e.g. Yaozong Wu, Jidujiao de gexin yundong (The Reform Movement in Prot- estantism) in Xiejin yuekan, vol. 9, no. 4, (December 1950), 5–6; and Ralph Lapwood, “Report on Wu Yaozong’s Speech at Yenching University”, in In Memory of Mr. Wu Yaozong, edited by The Committee of Three-Self Patriotic Movement. (Beijing: The TSPM Committee, 1982), 214–215. 23 see Yaozong Wu, Jidujiao gaige yundong de xin jieduan (A New Stage of the Reform Movement of Christianity), in Guangzong Luo, ed., Zhongguo Jidujiao Sanzi Aiguo Yun- dong Weiyuanhui wenxuan (Selected Documents of the Chinese Christian Three-self Patriotic Movement Committee: 1950–1992). (Shanghai: Committee of the Three- Self Patriotic Movement, 1993), 23. 24 see Philip Wickeri. Seeking the Common Ground: Protestant Christianity, the Three-Self Movement and China’s United Front. (New York: Orbis Books, 1988), 124. 25 see Yaozong Wu, ed., Jidujiao gaige yundong yandu shouce (A Study Manuel of the Christian Reform Movement). (Shanghai: YMCA Bookstore, 1952), 1–2. 210 chapter ten

Obviously, the Christian Manifesto was not a theological treatise, but a mainly political one to urge Chinese Christians to purge Western imperialism from within the Christian Church. It was reported that the Christian Manifesto was endorsed by about 400,000 Christians in the country, which signified that almost half of the Chinese Protestant population did not agree with the manifesto as suggested.26 Wen-han Jiang has remarked that the Christian Manifesto could be concluded in two fundamental directions, that is:

1. the manifesto was meant to direct Chinese Christians to realize the fact that in the past the Christian Church in China had been closely tied to Western imperialism which had made use of Chris- tianity as tools of reactionary forces. And it was the duty of the Christian Church to purge all imperialistic influences from within Christianity itself; 2. the Christian Church should also re-educate Christian believers with a sense of patriotism, to stand against imperialism, feudalism, and bureaucratic capitalism, and to take part in the effort to build an independent, democratic, peaceable, unified, prosperous, and powerful New China.27

The Korean War broke out in 1950 and in the next year, Wu started to push forward his plan of leading the Christian Church to join the ‘Support Korea Against America Movement’. In standing against America, Wu again re-interpreted the idea of ‘Three-Self ’ within the social and political context of the time. Hence, by ‘self-government’ and ‘self-support’, it was meant to be independent and free from all overseas support and control, especially from the United States. The Christian churches were criticized for their dependence on foreign funds and personnel and were asked to cut off all overseas connections, including American funding and personnel. And by ‘self-propagation’, the Christian churches were asked to remove all teachings which were

26 on ‘the Christian Manifesto,’ see also Philip Wickeri, Seeking the Common Ground: Protestant Christianity, the Three-Self Movement and China’s United Front (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1988), 127–133. 27 Quoted from Wenhan Jiang, Wu Yaozong Zhongguo Jidujiao de xianzhi (Wu Yao- zong—the prophet of Chinese Christianity), Huiyi Wu Yaozong xiansheng (In Memory of Mr. Yaozong Wu), edited by The Committee of Three-Self Patriotic Movement. (Beijing: The TSPM Committee, 1982), 51–52. a new understanding of ‘three-self’ development 211 infiltrated with Western capitalistic ideas.28 In a meeting of the ‘Three- Self Reform Movement’ of the Chinese Protestants held in July 1954, Wu changed the official name to ‘Three-Self Patriotic Movement’ and there he set up the Committee for Three-Self Patriotic Movement and was elected as the first President of the Committee, the office of which he has kept till his death in 1979. The idea of ‘Three-Self ’ as expounded by Yaozong Wu was obviously not the same as that which prevailed in the 19th century or the early 20th century. Wu may not have investigated thoroughly the experiences of Chinese Christians throughout the past century, or he would simply consider them all but failures. The best and most efficient way to achieve a truly ‘Three-Self ’ Christian Church in China was, to Wu, simply by means of political power. Hence, Wu has turned what was primarily a religious matter into a political matter. Wu might have been right in seeing that the issue of ‘Three-Self ’ was not a merely a religious issue, but one that could only be handled by political means. And, as Wu saw it, the movement for indigenous Christianity was not purely a religious movement, but might as well be a political movement, hence the Three-Self Patriotic Movement in China. That was a brand new concept to his contemporaries, even to many Christian churches inside or outside China. As we have discussed before, the indigenous movement in the past century in China had been multifari- ous and varied. But in order to bring about his own way of achiev- ing ‘Three-Self ’, Wu had to forbid and sacrifice all other possible attempts, whether they were trying to start from ‘self-government’, ‘self-support’, or ‘self-propagation’. And as Wu had explicitly said, he had a more important historical mission to accomplish in the 1950s, and that was to help the Christian Church to survive under Commu- nist rule in China. To this specific task, he had succeeded and he had gained substantial trust and support from the new government.29 But whether Wu could succeed in bringing about the truly ‘Three-Self ’ to the Christian Church in China, it was still in great doubt. And for this, we have to move on to see what has happened since 1980s.

28 Quoted from Guanzong Luo, Aiguo, Aijiao, Mingbian shifei—Daonian Wu Yaozong xiansheng (In memory of Wu Yaozong—Love Country Love Religion, Clarify Right and Wrong), Huiyi Wu Yaozong xiansheng (In Memory of Mr. Wu Yaozong), edited by The Committee of Three-Self Patriotic Movement. (Beijing: The TSPM Committee, 1982), 169. 29 see K.H. Ting, Sixiang buduan gengxin de Wu Yaozong xiansheng (Mr. Wu Yaozong— His Mind Always Anew), in Jinling Shenxue zhi (Nanjing Theological Review), vol. 11, (February, 1990), 6–12. 212 chapter ten

The Three-Self Protestant Movement since the 1980s

Yaozong Wu died on September 17, 1979, at the age of eighty-six. His presidency at the Committee for the Three-Self Patriotic Move- ment was succeeded by Bishop K.H. Ting (Guangxun Ding). Bishop Ting, in his memorial article for Yaozong Wu, praised Wu as ‘Mr. Forerunner’. Ting re-called his interview with Wu at the World Peace Council in Prague in Czechoslovakia in May, 1949. During the meeting, Ting raised a question to Wu, asking: “Will you support the new government in China even if it would abolish religion in the country?” Wu replied with confidence, saying: “Even in the eventuality that religion will be harassed by the new government, I will still love my country (and the government).”30 This shows clearly how Wu had understood communism and the new government in China on the eve of the new era. And he knew his priority when he had to choose between church and state (or the government), and between religion and politics, hence the vision of his important historical mission for the Protestant Church in New China. After thirty years of his work for the Protestant Church in new China (1949–1979), he seemed to have accomplished the historical mission he had so designed for the Church, but for the work of the ‘Three-Self Movement’, the road seemed to be still long and far. As in the same article mentioned above, Ting explicitly stated (in 1980): “Today, the mission of our Three-Self Movement had still not yet been accomplished.”31 In fact, Wu had not done much for the Chinese Christian (Protestant) Church, except in the mission of cutting it off from foreign connections; it then became an important task for Ting to complete the work yet undone for ‘Three-Self ’ when he took up the presidency of Three-Self Patriotic Movement in 1980. When the Three-Self Patriotic Movement was celebrating its 50th anniversary in 2000, Ting classified the past 50 years in three distinctive stages, namely: (a) The stage of ‘anti-imperialistic patriotism’ and the ‘Support Korea against America Movement’, with the aim of ‘Three-Self ’ referring to the cutting off from all Western

30 see K.H. Ting, Xianjin de Wu Yaozong xiansheng (The Forerunner—Y.T. Wu), Huiyi Wu Yaozong xiansheng (In Memory of Mr. Wu Yaozong), edited by The committee of Three-Self Patriotic Movement. (Beijing: The TSPM Committee, 1982), 91–92. 31 see K.H. Ting, Love Never Ends: Papers by K.H. Ting, ed. Janice K. Wickeri. (Nan- jing: Yilin Press, 2000), 76–77. a new understanding of ‘three-self’ development 213 connections; (b) The stage of moving from ‘Three-Self ’ to ‘Three- Well’, hence doing the ‘Three-Self ’ well by caring more about the internal affairs within the Christian church and ‘running the church well’; and (c) The stage of ‘Reconstruction of Christian Theology’.32 In other words, there was still a long way for the continual development of the ‘Three-Self movement’ and there were at least the following directions needed to be completed since the 1980s:

The Setting Up of Lianghui (兩會) In order to realize the ideals of the ‘Three-Self ’ and to embrace ‘the love for religion’ and ‘patriotism’, Bishop Ting set up a new organization, namely the ‘China Christian Council (CCC)’, a church-affairs organization with the aim ‘to unite all Protestant Christians who believe in the one Heavenly Father and confess Jesus Christ as Lord . . . with one mind and in co-operative efforts, seek to further the cause of a self-governing, self-supporting and self-propagating church in the country’.33 As Philip Wickeri remarked, the Three-Self Patriotic Movement since the 1980s had taken up a dual function—with both a religious and a political function. The work of the Committee of the Three-Self Patriotic Movement was primarily concerned with means of social control, maintaining the ‘Three-Self ’ principles, and the insurance of patriotism among Chinese Christians, hence performing its political function; whereas the China Christian Council was more concerned with church affairs and to encourage the renewal of church activities and the running of churches well, hence performing its religious function. The setting up of these two organizations—‘lianghui’ fulfilled the two functions in such a way that the Three-Self Patriotic Movement became a political movement—to ensure patriotism among Chinese Christians, as well as a religious movement—to ensure that Christians could run their churches well and love their religion too.34 In regard to the three stages suggested by Ting, the first stage was one which emphasized more ‘the love of country’ and the second stage was one

32 see K.H. Ting, Wo zenyang kan zhe wushi nian (How I See These 50 Years?), in Tian Feng no. 7, (August 1, 2000), 4–5. 33 see Zhongguo Jidujiao Xiehui zhangcheng (The Constitution of the China Christian Council), in Tian Feng. Vol. 1, (1981), 15. 34 see Philip Wickeri. Seeking the Common Ground: Protestant Christianity, the Three-Self Movement and China’s United Front. (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1988), 124. 214 chapter ten which kept more balance between ‘the love of country’ and ‘the love for one’s religion’. And indeed, the years since the establishment of the Three-Self Patriotic Movement could be seen as focusing on its political function, and it was the establishment of China Christian Council in 1980 that the work of Three-Self Patriotic Movement was expanded to cater for the dual functions—embracing both ‘the love for country’ and ‘the love for one’s religion’. As Bishop Ting had said, “To run the Church well, we have to do our pastoral work well and re-claim the time we have lost in the past years . . . We need to print more Bibles, re-start the publication of Tian Feng, correspondence courses materials for seminary, and the newly revised Hymns for Universal Praises.”35 It was clear that the Christian (Protestant) Church had to maintain a balance between the dual functions of ‘loving the country’ and ‘loving the religion’, and the establishment of lianghui was a real success towards the realization of these dual functions.

Reconstruction of Christian Theology Another way to achieve the realization of these dual functions was the reconstruction of Christian theology. Since Ting had assumed his presidency in 1980, he reckoned that he needed to pay more attention to ‘running the Church well’, and he added by saying: “The most crucial work to realize ‘running the Church well’ was the ‘reconstruction of Christian theology’.”36 By the ‘reconstruction of Christian theology’, Ting meant the return to the Bible, to recover the teachings of Jesus and use them as means to make critiques on the Western Christian- ity. Hence, Biblical teachings are fundamental to the reconstruction of Chinese Christian theology. Zemin Chen, a professor at the Nanjing Theological Seminary once said: “In the past 20 years, the academics studied much about Christianity in their universities and their understanding of Christian theology had gone far ahead of our work in the seminary. And now we are much behind the Chinese intellectuals

35 see K.H. Ting, Women de kanfa—Ding zhujiao yijiu baling nian shieryue ershisanri tong xianggang mushi tanhua jilu (Our Views—Bishop Ting’s Address to Pastors in Hong Kong, on December 23, 1980), in Ching Feng (Chinese Edition), vol. 66, (March 1981), 4–5. 36 see K.H. Ting, Wo zenyang kan zhe wushi nian (How I See These 50 Years?), in Tian Feng no. 7, (August 1, 2000), 4–5. a new understanding of ‘three-self’ development 215 even though they are not Christians.”37 And it was in December 1998 that a resolution was made at the meeting of Lianghui at Jinan that more emphases should be added to strengthen the work on the reconstruction of Christian theology, such as to offer more seminary courses on Theological Reconstruction, and to strengthen and raise the quality of seminary trainings of clergy as well as lay people.

Reconciliation with House Churches In one of the sub-committee meetings of the Political Consultative Council held in September 1980, Bishop Ting stated: One important task of our committee of the Three-Self Patriotic Move- ment is to seek solidarity with all the Protestant groups in the country. We cannot push aside those who belong to the house churches and say that they are illegal. As a leader of the Three-Self Patriotic Movement, I really cannot say that. Our Three-Self Patriotic Movement is not just for a small group of Protestants, and we have to unite and liason with millions of Protestants in the country and seek solidarity with all of them.38 Hence, Ting was re-affirming the legal status of and was attempting to seek solidarity with the house churches in China. Ting re-assured this in another speech, made in Hong Kong, saying: Houses or church buildings are just different places of worship . . . now, inside China, the great majority of Protestant believers are patriotic and are working hard for ‘Three-Self ’ and are ‘running their churches well’, whether they are gathering in house churches or in the church buildings registered with the local governments. Indeed, we need to move ahead with haste, to restore the time we have lost in the past years.39 It had already been stated explicitly in the constitution of the China Christian Council that its aim was ‘to unite all Protestant Christians who believe in the one Heavenly Father and confess Jesus as Lord, . . . and to unite all Protestant churches for the furtherance of the cause of Christian gospel and the building up of the Body of Christ, to serve

37 see Zemin Chen, Zhongguo Jidujiao yingyi zenyang de mainmao jinru ershiyi shiji (How Chinese Christianity Should March onto the 21st Century?), in Tian Feng, ( July 1999), 17. 38 see The People’s Daily, (September 9, 1980). 39 see K.H. Ting, Women de kanfa—Ding zhujiao yijiu baling nian shieryue ershisanri tong xianggang mushi tanhua jilu (Our Views—Bishop Ting’s Address to Pastors in Hong Kong, on December 23, 1980), in Ching Feng (Chinese Edition), vol. 66, (March 1981), 4–5. 216 chapter ten all Protestant churches in the country’.40 Indeed, the year 1980 had marked a great change in the history of Chinese Christianity in the country, especially regarding the move to reconcile with the house churches. Since the 1980s, Bishop Ting and the China Christian Council have been making much effort to unite all Protestant Chris- tians, including those from the house churches, the ‘non-Three-Self ’ and the un-registered groups, to enter positive dialogue and seek a possible act of reconciliation with them.

Reconciliation with Religious Organizations Overseas Since the 1980s, the Chinese government under Xiaoping Deng’s Open Door Policy, began to re-establishing normal and friendly relationships with the outside world. At the third meeting of the China Christian Council, it was further confirmed that the Chinese Protes- tant Church would uphold the principles of the three-self patriotic movement, yet at the same time it would explore the possibilities of establishing friendly relationships with religious institutions overseas, observing the principle of mutual respect.41 Bishop Ting had already started writing letters to his old friends in other parts of the world in 1978 and had led a Chinese delegation to attend the Third World Conference on Religion and Peace held at Princeton Theological Sem- inary, and visited the National Council of Churches of Christ in USA in New York City immediately after the conference in August 1979.42 Since then, to demonstrate their openness to the outside world, the Lianghui—both the Three-Self Patriotic Movement and China Chris- tian Council sent out their leaders to many countries and other parts of the world to establish friendly international relationships, including Canada, Europe, Africa, Australia, New Zealand, India, Philippines, the United Kingdom and the USA. And as for mutual friendship, their delegations were welcome to visit the country of China too. When the policy of cutting off any association with overseas religious organizations was enforced in the early 1950s, it was meant as a measure

40 see Zhongguo Jidujiao Xiehui zhangcheng (The Constitution of the China Christian Council), Article 2 & 3, in Tian Feng. Vol. 1, (1981), 15. 41 see Ming-sui Shen, Yici juyou lishi yiyi de huiyi (A Meeting of Historical Signifi- cance). Tian Feng. vol. 1, (October 20, 1980), 9. 42 see the reports in God is Love: Collected Writings of Bishop K.H. Ting. (Colorado Springs: Cook Communications, 2004). a new understanding of ‘three-self’ development 217 to secure the independence of the Protestant Church in China. But Bishop Ting made it clear that “the Chinese Protestant Church is independent, but not in isolation with other religious organizations overseas”.43 Hence, the re-establishment of relationships with religious organizations overseas does not mean to forsake the principle of ‘Three-Self ’. Indeed, Bishop Ting and other religious leaders had gained much respect and reputation among the international community and with the country through what they had done during the past thirty years. It had proven to be a great breakthrough of the Three- Self Patriotic Movement in China.

The Legacy of Wu: Reflections from a Glocalization Perspective

At the beginning of this chapter, I said that I was also concerned with the issue of ‘glocalization’. I shall offer this conception of glocalization as one possible way of understanding Wu’s life, rather than simply affirming or rejecting what Wu had done to the Chinese Christian Church at his time.44 In this study of indigenous movements of Chi- nese Christianity, we have discovered not only an interplay between ‘global’ and ‘local’ considerations of Christian indigenization in China; we can also witness another distinctive and mutually enriching interplay between the Chinese government’s view of indigenization which was enforced by Yaozong Wu in the early 1950s and the revisionist’s view which was expounded by Bishop Ting in the 1980s. Wu’s official view was a uni-dimensional, top-down approach to ‘Three-Self ’, whereas Ting’s revisionist view reflected a response to the ‘local’ needs from Chinese Christian leaders, which helped to further expand and explore possible new approaches. It was within such an active interplay between the two views that the development of indigenous Chris- tianity in China can be seen more vividly.

43 see the report in Ming Pao (a Chinese Newspaper), (December 15, 1983). 44 see, for example, Huiyi Wu Yaozong xiansheng (In Memory of Yaozong Wu), (Shanghai: The Chinese Christian Three-self Patriotic Movement Committee, 1982); Derong Shen, Wu Yaozong Xiaozhuan (Brief Biography of Yaozong Wu), (Shanghai: The Chinese Christian Three-self Patriotic Movement Committee, 1989); Wu Yaozong Shengping yu Sixiang yantao (Essays on the Life and Thought of Yaozong Wu), (Shang- hai: The Chinese Christian Three-self Patriotic Movement Committee, 1995); and Ka Lun Leung, Wu Yaozong San Lun (Three Essays on Yaozong Wu), (Hong Kong: Alliance Bible Seminary, 1998). 218 chapter ten

Looking from the perspective of glocalization, there are a few points worth considering:

1. When Yaozong Wu became the president of the committee of the Three-Self Patriotic Movement in early 1950s, he pushed forward his complete conception of ‘Three-Self ’ by emphasizing the importance of ‘independence from foreign assistance or control’. Hence, he launched campaigns to criticize Chinese churches for their dependence on foreign funds and personnel and demanded them to cut off all overseas connections, especially from overseas support and control. This was what he called ‘the historical mission to reform Chinese churches of his time’. However, when Bishop Ting became the president of the same committee, the conception of ‘Three-Self ’ was then revised. Bishop Ting understood clearly that ‘the Chinese Protestant Church is independent, but not in isolation with other religious organizations overseas’.45 Hence, the re- establishment of relationships with religious organizations overseas was meant, not to forsake but to fulfill the principle of ‘Three-Self ’. Indeed, the interplay between Yaozong Wu’s official view of 1950s and Bishop Ting’s view of 1980s resulted in a complete revision and enrichment of the conception of the ‘Three-Self ’. 2. By enforcing his ‘official’ conception of ‘Three-Self ’, Yaozong Wu had to cut himself and the Christian churches off from all alternate attempts by other Protestant groups in China, including those led by Mingdao Wang, Dianying Jing, Tuosheng Ni and Paul Wei, all of which were later marginalized or classified as ‘the un-registered house churches’. Since these ‘other Christian groups’ did not follow the way suggested by Wu and his ‘Three-Self ’ registered churches, they were oppressed by the government and were forced to become ‘underground churches’ in China. However, when Bishop Ting became the leader, he wanted to re-cognize and unite with these ‘other Christian groups’. Hence, he set up a new organization, the China Christian Council to look after the religious activities of the Chinese Church including the task to unite all Protestant Chris- tians and those from the house churches, the ‘non-Three-Self ’ and the un-registered groups, to enter positive dialogue and seek possible act of reconciliation with them. Indeed, the interplay between

45 see the report in Ming Pao (a Chinese Newspaper), (December 15, 1983). a new understanding of ‘three-self’ development 219

Wu’s original view and Ting’s revisionist view resulted in a more open conception which would unite and embrace the differences between Wu’s ‘Three-Self churches’ and ‘the underground/house churches’. 3. thirdly, when Yaozong Wu launched his Three-Self Patriotic Movement in the early 1950s, he had an historical mission in mind which was to promote patriotism throughout all Chinese churches, to such an extent that the normal religious activities of the Christian churches were interrupted or put to a stop. It wasn’t until Bishop Ting became the president in 1980 that he deliberately set up the China Christian Council, allowing more space and freedom for the Protestant churches to ‘run their churches well’ and better develop their normal religious activities, including the printing of more Bibles and the newly revised Hymns for Universal Praises, re- starting the publication of Tian Feng and correspondence course materials for seminaries. Hence, Protestant churches in China could now embrace both ‘loving the country’ and ‘loving their religion’ (Aiguo Aijiao). It was indeed working through the interplay between Wu’s and Ting’s conceptions that made available the realization of the practice of, not necessarily ‘either/or’ but to a fuller and greater extent of “both/and” of the slogan, ‘Aiguo Aijiao’.

In conclusion, the concept of ‘glocalization’ reminds us precisely that there should be an interplay between the processes of ‘globalization’ and ‘localization’. And in this study of indigenous Christianity in China and the work of Yaozong Wu, we discovered not only an interplay between the ‘global’ and the ‘local’ understandings of Chinese Chris- tianity; we can also witness another distinctive interplay between the Chinese official view of indigenization which was enforced by Yaozong Wu in the early 1950s and the revisionist’s view which was expounded by Bishop Ting in the 1980s. There could have been various ways of attaining indigenous Christianity in China, and the development of Chinese Christianity in the late 19th and early 20th centuries witness to this scene of ‘blossoming of hundred flowers’.46 It had demonstrated precisely that in the processes of glocalization, the principle of ‘Three- Self ’ could be implemented in a variety of ways. However, it was

46 one may of course turn to investigate also the views represented by other Chi- nese Christians such as Mingdao Wang, Dianying Jing, and Tuosheng Ni. They together could add up to a richer and fuller picture too. 220 chapter ten

Yaozong Wu’s great attempt and his historical mission which brought about radical changes in the 1950s. In such a way, the conception of ‘Three-Self ’ became uni-dimensional and dogmatic in practice. The variety and dialectic dimension of ‘Three-Self ’ were somehow lost or suppressed by the top-down official view. It was only by the work of Bishop Ting and other leaders of the Three-Self Patriotic Movement committee after the 1980s that the more open and vital aspects of ‘Three-Self ’ were re-discovered and explored. The later development of Chinese Christianity witnessed to the possibility of greater openness and inclusiveness, by its mission to unite all Protestant Christians in China, including those belonging to the underground and house churches; by its attempt to embrace both ‘loving the country’ and ‘loving one’s religion’ in a sensible and compatible way; and by its extension of friendship to overseas religious organizations in other parts of the world. In short, there was a vivid interplay working between ‘global’ and ‘local’ perspectives, and the changes brought by Yao- zong Wu’s official view and Bishop Ting’s revisionist view had both made significant contribution to the understanding of the principle of ‘Three-Self ’ and the dramatic development of indigenous Christianity in China throughout the 20th century. Chapter eleven

K.H. Ting and the Three-Self Movement in China: Global Christianity and Local Contexts

In the American Academy of Religion’s Annual Conference held at Washington, DC in 2006, there were two special sessions on World Christianity. One session was on ‘World Christianity in General’, and the other on ‘World Christianity in Local Contexts’. In the first session, there were four papers discussing the general concept of World Christianity, with examples drawn from European and American Christianities; whereas in the second session, there were four other papers reporting the situations in the third world, namely: Africa, China, Japan and Korea. Some scholars attended the two sessions could not stop but raise a crucial question, of whether we were con- scious of the fact that we had confined ourselves to European and American Christianities when we were talking about World Christian- ity in general and, consciously or unconsciously, we had referred to the third world when we were describing World Christianity in local contexts, as ‘Localized Christianities’. Why were European and Amer- ican Christianities not seen as World Christianity in local contexts too? How could we justify our act of distinction? In my presentation at the second session there, I suggested that the term ‘local contexts’ should, indeed, be reckoned with as a qualifier of global Christianity.1 Now we are talking about Christianity of the East and West, North and South, and no matter whether or not we agree that global Chris- tianity has been moving from West to East or North to South, we are still affirming the particular locality where Christianity is situated. We encounter Christians from all over the world and are struck by the fact that the Christianity we represented is indeed ‘localized Christianity’. Hence, there are European Christians, American Christians, African Christians, Indian Christians, Japanese Christians, Korean Christians as well as Chinese Christians, they are all representing where they are

1 See “The Necessity of the Particular in the Globalization of Christianity: the case of Christian Higher Education in China”, paper presented at the American Academy of Religion Annual Conference 2006, Washington, DC on November 18–21, 2006. 222 chapter eleven located or originated from. Hence, this is the way we should talk about global Christianity—‘the global must become localized’.2 Peter Beyer, a Canadian sociologist of religion has reminded us of ‘the factor of cultural otherness’ as one crucial element in the process of globalization of Christianity.3 While Christianity was brought to Far East Asia by Western missionaries in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, it encountered cultural otherness in the East. It was then qualified as ‘Western Christianity’—i.e. ‘Christianity came from the West’, hence ‘a localized Christianity’.4 This also reminds us of another terminology invented by Roland Robertson, namely: ‘the particularization of universalism’.5 Global Christianity must be realized in local contexts, even when we are speaking of ‘Western Christianity’, ‘European Christianity’, or ‘American Christianity’. The process of contextualization of Christianity in non-Christian countries used to be described in terms of ‘accommodation’, ‘inculturation’, or ‘indigenization’. In this way, it was affirming precisely that ‘the global must become localized’ and there must be an interplay between the ‘global’ and the ‘local’ in the process of globalization.6 It has also been a common experience for most of the missionaries in Africa and Asia in the past centuries to identify non-Christian cultures and religions as ‘pagan and superstition’, but nowadays we are more ready to respect and appreciate non-Christian cultures and religions, hence the concern for ‘cross-cultural theology’ or ‘inter-cultural theology’. Here I may recall the words of Dr. Francis Wei who, in his inaugural lectures at Union Theological Seminary in New York in 1945, already proposed that in order for Christianity to be recognized as a world religion, it must find its full expressions in all cultures around the globe, including Asian and Chinese cultures.7 If we translate his message into

2 Ibid. 3 See e.g. Peter Beyer. “De-centring Religious Singularity: the Globalization of Christianity as a Case in Point”, Numen, 50/4 (2003), 357–386. 4 See also the discussion in Peter Tze Ming Ng, “The Necessity of the Particular in the Globalization of Christianity, the Case of China”, Studies in World Christianity, 12/2 (2006), 164–182. 5 See Roland Robertson. Globalization: Sacred Theory and Global Culture. (London: Sage Publication, 1992), 64–81. 6 See e.g. the discussions in Peter Chen Main Wang, ed., Contextualization of Chris- tianity in China: An Evaluation in Modern Perspectives. (Monumenta Serica Institue, St. Augustine, Nettetal: Steyler Verlag, 2008). 7 See e.g. Francis C.M. Wei. The Spirit of Chinese Culture. (New York: Scribner Press, 1947). His inaugural lecture was entitled, ‘Rooting the Christian Church in Chinese k.h. ting and the three-self movement in china 223 modern terminology, Wei was suggesting that in the process of globalization, the ‘local’ (the Chinese culture or Chinese Christianity in this case) should be seen as an indispensable part of the ‘global’ (i.e. World Christianity). Hence, we are now more open to appreciate the interplay between global Christianity and local contexts where Christi- anity finds its expressions. As Prof. Andrew Walls affirmed us with the saying: “. . . by cross-cultural diffusion, it (Christianity) would become a progressively rich entity.”8 Daniel Bays and others have also suggested that the transformation of Christianity in China could be seen as a successful example of cross-cultural transmission of (World) Christianity.9 In the case of China, we need to consider especially the socio-political situations and the cultural factors which are of particular relevance to the emergence of a new understanding of global Christianity today.10 In this chapter, I shall review the case of Bishop K.H. Ting and the Three-Self Movement in China for possible illustration.

K.H.Ting as Bishop in China

Bishop K.H. Ting (Guangxun Ding)11 was born in Shanghai on Sep- tember 20, 1915. A grandson of an Anglican priest, he received his education and gained a Bachelor degree in Arts in 1937 from St. John’s University, Shanghai which was run by the American Episcopal Mis- sion. He worked at the Chinese Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) for some years. Having completed his theological training at

Soil’, the Chinese translation appeared in Xianfa Wan, ed. Wei Zhuomin boshi Jiaoyu Wenhua Zongjiao lunwenji (Dr. Francis C.M. Wei’s Writings on Education, Culture, and Religion). (Taiwan: Huazhong Da Xue Wei Zhuomin Ji Nian Guan, 1980), 115–138. A more recent discussion is found in Peter Tze Ming Ng, “Globalization as a Key to the Interplay between Christianity and Asian Cultures: The Vision of Francis Wei in Early Twentieth Century China”, International Journal of Public Theology, (Leiden: Brill Publishing Co., 2007), 1, 104–115. 8 See Andrew Walls. The Cross-cultural Process in Christian History. (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 2002), 9–10. 9 See Daniel Bays and E. Widmer (eds.) Cross-Cultural Connections: China’s Christian Colleges, 1900–1950. (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2009). 10 See Peter Tze Ming Ng, “The Necessity of the Particular in the Globalization of Christianity, the Case of China”, in Studies in World Christianity, (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2006), vol. 12, pt. 2, 164–182. 11 this is a more popularly known name than the pinyin system, ‘Ding Guangxun’. In this paper, I shall use ‘K.H. Ting’ rather than ‘Ding Guangxun’ for our general readers. 224 chapter eleven

St. John’s in 1942, he was ordained priest by the Zhonghua Sheng Kung Hui (Anglican Church of China) and worked as an Anglican priest at the Saviour’s Church and International Community Church in Shanghai. In 1946, he went to serve as the Mission Secretary of the Student Christian Movement in Canada and in the next year he studied a Masters Degree in Theology at Union Theological Seminary and Columbia University, New York. He had worked also as the Secretary of World Student Christian Federation in Geneva, Switzerland. Ting returned to China in 1951 and hence joined the Three-Self Patriotic Movement in China. By 1952, he became the President of Jinling Xiehe Shenxueyuan (Union Theological Seminary in Nanjing) and was conse- crated as the Bishop of the Diocese of Zhejiang, his native province south of Shanghai in 1955.12 His being ordained as an Anglican priest and bishop signified his total commitment to the Christian Church. Yet as a Chinese and as a bishop in China, Ting was well aware of the socio-political realities and his mission was to work out ways to keep alive the Christian faith even in Communist China. He was committed to serve the Church as a whole and all the Christians in China, and eventually to work out a new form of ‘Chinese Christianity’, or in his own words, ‘Christianity with Chinese socialist characteristics’.13

President of NCC and TSPM

In 1980, Ting became the President of both the National Christian Council (NCC) and the Three-Self Patriotic Movement (TSPM) in China, hence playing a major role as the key Protestant church leader in China. Bishop Ting’s contribution was that he had helped the Three-Self Patriotic Movement of the Protestant Churches continued to survive and grow, even under the Communist regime. He had indeed helped greatly in developing a functional working relationship between Marxism and Chinese Christianity, and if we can adopt Philip Wickeri’s methodology, we should apply the Chinese lens and

12 there is also a brief introduction on Bishop Ting, entitled “The Life and Work of a Chinese Christian” in Raymond Whitehead (ed.) No Longer Strangers: Selected Writ- ings of Bishop K.H. Ting. (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1989), 1–23. For a recent and more update discussion on Ting, please consult Philip Wickeri, Reconstructing Christianity in China: K.H. Ting and the Chinese Church, (New York: Orbis Books, 2007). 13 See K.H. Ting, “Retrospect and Prospect”, International Review of Mission, 70 (April 1981), 25–39. k.h. ting and the three-self movement in china 225 look at the Three-Self Patriotic Movement in China as a bi-characteristic movement, namely: ‘the Three-Self movement as both a Chinese and a Christian movement’.14 In other words, there was an interplay between the ‘local’ (Chinese) and the ‘global’ (Christian) characteristic movements. The Three-Self Patriotic Movement signified both the political and religious functions and, as we shall see more clearly, the former was more dominant than the latter. Succeeding Y.T. Wu (Yao Zong Wu) as the leader of Three-Self Patriotic Movement, Ting realized that the Church needed to seek official recognition in order to survive in China. Although thenew constitution had already granted religious freedom to all, it was still a Communist government. And the Communist Party had made clear that no religions could take any contradictory stand against the interests of the Party: they were obliged to be ‘patriotic’. This was the most fundamental guiding principle for any religious group in Com- munist China. Hence, Christianity in China had to strive hard for a balance between political and religious demands—to develop a sense of self-respect under the Communist rule, and at the same time, leave as much space as possible for Christian churches to attain the goals of self-governing, self-supporting and self-propagation. In the Third National Christian Conference held in October 1980, Ting gave an opening address on: ‘What should the Chinese Church be doing in the days to come?’15 He re-affirmed the work of Three-Self Patriotic Movement by declaring that the movement had succeeded in doing three things in the past decades, namely: (a) it had made Chinese Christians more patriotic; (b) it had made Christianity more Chinese; and (c) it had helped change people’s attitudes towards Chinese Chris- tians and Christianity.16 Besides demonstrating the nation-wide unity of Chinese churches in support of the new government, Three-Self Patriotic Movement had realized its political role to legitimate the existence of Protestant churches under the Communist regime. Ting then moved on to say that the mission of the Three-Self Patriotic Movement was not over, and the Church must not only be ‘self-run’,

14 See Philip Wickeri. Seeking the Common Ground: Protestant Christianity, the Three-Self Movement and China’s United Front. (New York: Orbis Books, 1988). Parts Three & Four. 15 the address was translated into English and printed as an article, entitled: “Ret- rospect and Prospect”. See Ting, “Retrospect and Prospect”, op. cit., 25–39. 16 See Ting, op. cit., 28–32. 226 chapter eleven but also ‘well-run’ (i.e. managing the church in the ‘Three-well’ directions—‘well-govern’, ‘well-support’ and ‘well-propagate’).17 So, on the top of the work done by Three-Self Patriotic Movement, Ting began to set up another religious organization in China, the ‘National Chris- tian Council’, which was commonly known as the ‘China Christian Council’ (CCC) for the better management of church business. As Ting explained it, One (i.e. the Three-Self Patriotic Movement) is the people’s organization made up of Chinese Christians as ‘Chinese’, the other (i.e. the China Christian Council) is a Christian organization made up of Chi- nese Christians as ‘Christians’. If the Three-Self Movement is a patriotic movement on the part of Chinese Christians, then the church affairs organization will represent a Three-Self Patriotic Chinese Church Chris- tian movement on the part of Christians who uphold patriotism and the Three-Self principle. Both organizations cherish the church and the motherland.18 This was a significant move in the history of Three-Self Patriotic Movement in China. The setting up of China Christian Council was a clever move by Ting. Though some may not agree that the Three- Self Patriotic Movement was a government creation,19 no one would deny that Three-Self Patriotic Movement had in its constitution clearly stated its political agenda to bridge the gap between the government and the Protestant churches, so that the Church could be under the leadership of the Chinese government and upholding the ‘Three-Self ’ principles in the country.20 The political significance of the Three-Self Movement was that it was a ‘Chinese’ movement and was primarily concerned with patriotism—‘Loving the Country’ (Aiguo). On the other hand, the China Christian Council was a religious organization which intended to be a church organization to handle the internal, religious business among the Protestant churches. Its primary concern

17 See Ting, op. cit., 26. ‘Self-run’ refers to the goals of ‘Three-Self ’, namely: ‘self- govern’, ‘self-support’ and ‘self-propagation’; whereas ‘well-run’ refers to the well- management of the church, hence the ‘Three-good’. See also the discussion followed. 18 See Ting, op. cit., 36. 19 For example, Leaders of TSM openly declared that TSM was not a government organization. See K.H. Ting, Women de kanfa- Ding zhujiao yijiu baling nian shieryue ershisanri tong xianggang mushi tanhua jilu (Our Views—Bishop Ting’s Address to Pastors in Hong Kong, on December 23, 1980), in Ching Feng (Chinese Edition), vol. 66, (March 1981), 1–7. 20 See The Constitution of National Committee of Three-Self Patriotic Movement of the Protes- tant Churches in China. ( January 2, 1997), Article 3. k.h. ting and the three-self movement in china 227 was ‘religious’, in which it called for ‘Loving the Church’ (Aijiao). It was clearly stated in its constitution that China Christian Council would help build up the Chinese churches with better services, such as the provision of theological education, the wider publication of the Bible, hymns and other Christian literatures and the cultivation of wider contacts with other Christian churches overseas; hence, to provide more space for the ecclesiastical renewal of Chinese Protestantism.21 With the setting up of this new organization, Bishop Ting also managed to start a new movement from ‘Three-Self ’ to ‘Three-Good’, or the ‘Three-Well’, namely: to lead the Christian churches up towards a new horizon, heading towards ‘well-government’, ‘well-support’ and ‘well-propagation’. Being the president of both, Ting could now move more freely when dealing with religious affairs as internal matters. The Three-Self Patriotic Movement & China Christian Council exhibited perfectly the bi-characteristic nature of Chinese Christianity, one that served the political needs, while the other served the religious needs of Chinese churches. This is a very good example of the interplay between the ‘global’ and the ‘local’ considerations in China, hence Global Christianity becomes contextualized and localized. As Wickeri remarked, the Three-Self Patriotic Movement has sought to develop ‘a functional working relationship between Marxism and Chinese Chris- tianity’, which is essential for the unity and stability of the Chinese nation.22 Besides fulfilling the pastoral and ecclesiastical needs of Chinese churches, Bishop Ting had done much to bring the Church to this new view by the creation of the China Christian Council. Most significant of all was the renewal of fellowship with other Christian churches overseas, thus reaffirming the global characteristics of Christianity in China. Since the setting up of the China Christian Council, Ting began contacts with Bishop Gilbert Baker of the Hong Kong Angli- can Diocese, the Right Honourable Robert Runcie, the Archbishop of Canterbury in England, and other Christian friends from Canada, the United States and Australia. He paid several visits in the following years to various countries including the United Kingdom (1982), Swit- zerland (1983), Australia (1984), Japan (1984), India (1985), Canada

21 See Zhongguo Jidujiao Xiehui zhangcheng (The Constitution of the China Christian Council), in Tian Feng. Vol. 1, (1981), 15. 22 See Philip Wickeri. Seeking the Common Ground: Protestant Christianity, the Three-Self Movement and China’s United Front. (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1988), 282. 228 chapter eleven

(1985), and Hungary (1986). In re-establishing international fellowship with other Christian churches overseas, Bishop Ting restored their recognition and their respect and affirmed the legitimate status of Chi- nese Churches under his leadership and the China Christian Council. As a result, the worldwide Christian community began to recognize and respect the work of the Three-Self Patriotic Movement which had been done in China over the past thirty years. This was definitely a great achievement for Bishop Ting, as in his own capacity he could help not only the Chinese Church but also the Communist government to restore their recognition and friendship from the countries he visited. This was a very valuable gift to the Chinese Communist government and in return the Chinese Church was duly respected by the government.

Issue of Church Registration

One crucial problem encountering the Three-Self Patriotic Movement was the existence of ‘house churches’ or ‘family churches’ throughout the country. House churches are those that did not want to be under the supervision of the government and so instead of being registered with the Three-Self Patriotic Movement, these Christians met in their own houses. House churches had been growing rapidly during the time of increasing political and social pressure against religious belief.23 The Chinese churches had become ‘post-denominational’ when they joined in the Three-Self Patriotic Movement, but what about these house churches? Could they be recognized as part of the whole of Christian churches in China? What would be their status in China if they were not registered with the National Committee of the Three- Self Patriotic Movement? How would Bishop Ting look at these unregistered house churches? Why did the ‘house church’ Christians not join the Three-Self Move- ment? Ting suggested the following reasons: (a) Some Christians may be living too far from the ‘Three-Self ’ registered churches and they could not afford going to church for worship, so they worship at home;

23 See e.g. reports from Samuel Chao et al. Dangdai Zhongguo Jidujiao fazhanshi (Development of Contemporary Christianity in China, 1949–1997). (Taiwan: China Gospel Press, 1997). k.h. ting and the three-self movement in china 229

(b) They may not like the sermons or the liturgy of the church there; (c) They may want to have more religious activities other than Sunday worship, that’s why they had bible study groups at homes during the week; (d) They may not like the pastors; (e) The church may have been too leftist; (f ) They may not trust the ‘Three-Self ’ or the government; or, (g) There may be some who were supported by anti-Three-Self organizations overseas.24 Nevertheless, Bishop Ting affirmed that ‘house churches’ are part of Protestant churches in China, claiming that “all those who honour Jesus as Christ and Lord are our brothers and sisters in Christ”.25 And when Ting was preparing for the Third National Christian Council in Nanjing in 1980, he invited the leaders from House Churches and listened to their views.26 In one of the Nanjing regional meeting of the People’s Political Consultative Committee, Ting made clear to the members that it was the task of Three-Self Movement to unite all Protestant Christians in the country including the house churches members. Ting defended that it was not proper to say that house churches were illegal.27 He went even further to affirm that the China Christian Council would help to unite members of these house churches and serve them as brothers and sisters.28 Here is one report from an American Chinese pastor who had interviewed Bishop Ting in 1988. Rev. Jing Wei Guo (郭經緯), the pastor of the American Baptist Calvary Church at New Haven, Con- necticut, USA, interviewed Bishop Ting in Nanjing in October 1988.29 In that year, the Chinese government had issued three important documents: (1) Regulation to Govern the Administration of Places for

24 See Dangdai Zhongguo jidujiao fayanren: Ding Guanxun wenji (The Spokesman of Con- temporary Chinese Christianity: Collection of Bishop K.H. Ting’s Essays), edited by Frances Fang. (Hong Kong: Chinese Christian Literature Council Ltd., 1999), 373. 25 See ibid. When being asked by a delegation of Baptist World Alliance who visited China in 1986 on whether there was any tension in China between the house churches and the ‘Three-Self ’ registered churches, Ting answered, saying: “I should not say tension, because Christians in both places are worshipping the same God, and are faithful to the same Christ, and many Christians who are meeting in homes are also attending (‘Three-Self ’) church services. Our China Christian Council tries to serve them all.” In Denton Lotz (ed.) Spring Has Returned . . . Listening to the Church in China. (Virginia: Baptist World Alliance, 1987), 25. 26 See Samuel Chao et al. op. cit., 313. 27 See ibid., 317. 28 See Dangdai Zhongguo jidujiao fayanren: Ding Guanxun wenji (The Spokesman of Con- temporary Chinese Christianity: Collection of Bishop K.H. Ting’s Essays), 370–377. 29 the report was published in Bridge (Chinese) vol. 33, ( January–February, 1989), 2–6. 230 chapter eleven

Religious Activities in Guangdong Province; (2) Regulation to Gov- ern the Administration of Religious Affairs in the City of Guangzhou; and (3) Suggestions Regarding How to Ensure Proper Registration of Places for Religious Activities in Guangzhou. The main ideas were to enforce stricter measures, especially to those House Church Chris- tians. Rev. Guo knew that Bishop Ting had written a letter to the State Religious Affairs Bureau and he wanted to know directly Ting’s opinion on these issues. Surprisingly, Ting allowed Rev. Guo to look at his original handwritten manuscripts (his letters to the government officials) which were four pages in total. From Rev. Guo’s summary report, there are a few points worth noting here:

(a) Ting was convicted that most of the house church Christians were good members; (b) Ting affirmed that all Christians should enjoy religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution, whether they worshipped in a church or at home. He also affirmed that the majority of house church Christians did not constitute any threat to the government. “So far if they are not doing any illegal business or being detri- mental to the well-being of other Christians or to the public order, their activities should not be interfered.”30 (c) Ting even defended the existence of unregistered house churches by saying that their existence would produce positive effects, i.e. to encourage the pastors and religious leaders of the ‘Three-Self ’ registered churches to run their churches well, so that Christians may come back to the official churches. (d) if the house churches had not been registered, Bishop Ting said that he would not force them by any means, but keep waiting for them to join. Ting would not agree to any strict measures or pressures made to the house churches, or they would become ‘underground churches’. (e) Ting even argued that the enforcement of control should be targeted at illegal activities or reactionary forces from overseas, but not normal Christians, including the house church Christians. “They were not the objects of the enforcement.”31

30 See ibid., 4. 31 See ibid., 5. k.h. ting and the three-self movement in china 231

In short, despite of the conflicts and tensions existing between the house churches and the ‘Three-Self ’ registered churches, Bishop Ting committed to protect all Christians in China, regardless of their being registered or unregistered church-goers. He would always be ready to speak to the government officials and criticize their transgressions against the rights of religious believers and protect the rights of citizens to believe, no matter whether they were ‘Three-Self ’ or house churches Christians. In the celebration of the golden jubilee of the Three-Self Patriotic Movement in 2000, Bishop Ting had given a speech on ‘How do I see the past 50 years?’.32 He divided the fifty years into three stages. The first stage was from 1950–1980. Ting said it was the most difficult time because the Three-Self Churches had to suffer together with all the people in China, plus the fact that the Chinese churches had to go through the process of ‘de-Westernization’ in order to seek realization of self-government, self-support and self-propagation. The second stage was from 1980 to 2000. It was the setting up of China Christian Council and the beginning of a new movement of pastoral renewal, namely from the ‘Three-Self ’ to the ‘Three-Well’. In Ting’s words, “we must move forward. The Church must be well-governed, well-supported and well-propagated.”33 The ‘Three-Well’ included the restoration of many churches and places of worship, the opening of new churches, theological seminaries, the ordination of priests and an extensive publication of bibles, hymns and other Christian literatures.34 Moving toward the third stage was the call for theological reconstruction. The three stages were in a sequence, but the new one did not deny or erase the old one, rather it was to enrich and strengthen the preceding process.35 As Chinese churches needed to continue the three- self movement, to manage the church better and attaining the ‘Three- Well’, it was necessary for them to move to a higher level by engaging

32 See K.H. Ting, Wo zenyang kan zhe wushi nian (How I see These 50 Years?), in Tian Feng no. 7, (August 1, 2000), 4–5. 33 See ibid., 5. 34 While celebrating the 45th anniversary of the TSM in Shanghai in 1995, Bishop Ting added a remarks, saying “Running the Church well implies also that the Church is being loved and supported by all Christians and is being recognized and sympa- thized by all people of the country”. See Dangdai Zhongguo jidujiao fayanren: Ding Guanxun wenji (The Spokesman of Contemporary Chinese Christianity: Collection of Bishop K.H. Ting’s Essays), 385. 35 See ibid. 232 chapter eleven in the work of theological re-construction. Now we shall move forward to see the development of theological re-construction in China.

Construction of Chinese Theology

A Chinese theologian, T.C. Chao (Zi-chen Zhao) had already made a remark on Chinese theology in 1948, saying: “Not many intellectual Chinese Christians think much of theology . . . This constitutes a great weakness of the Body of Christ in China, which has thus far not produced a real theologian.”36 The theology that Chinese churches had throughout the past centuries was borrowed mostly from West- ern Christianity. Worse still, most of it belonged to the conservative, fundamentalist type. And under colonialism, Chinese Churches did not have the chance to develop their own theology. It was only in the 1980s that Bishop Ting started a new movement of the theological re-construction in China. At the opening address of the Third National Christian Conference in 1980, Ting expressively said: While affirming the universality of Christianity, we understand that Chi- nese Christianity cannot talk of making contributions to World Chris- tianity unless it rids itself of its colonial nature, ceases to be a replica of foreign Christianity, does not . . . dissociate or alienate itself from the cause of the Chinese people, joins them in that cause, plants its roots in Chinese culture, forms a Chinese self, and becomes a Chinese entity.37 Indeed, Chinese Christianity needed its own theology. Despite the fact that Ting had received resistance from many fundamentalists in and outside China, it should be noted that Ting was not anti-traditional. Ting had reminded the Chinese Churches that ‘theological reconstruction’ was not to start something new within the Chinese Church; it wasn’t as though such a theology had never been appeared before in Judeo-Christian history. The Chinese Christians’ effort to renew their theological thinking was in full accordance with the biblical, theological and historical traditions of the universal Church. However, there were still some who criticized Ting’s theology as not Calvinistic or

36 See T.C. Chao, “Christian Faith and China’s Struggle”, Chester S. Miao (ed.) Christian Voices in China, (New York: Friendship Press, 1948), 28. For a brief introduction on T.C. Chao, see Winfried Gluer, “T.C. Chao 1888–1979”, Gerald H. Ander- son et al. (eds.), Mission Legacies, (New York: Orbis Books, 1994), 225–231. 37 See Ting, “Retrospect and Prospect”, op. cit., 30. k.h. ting and the three-self movement in china 233

Lutheran enough. To them, Ting would say precisely that we should not be reproducing Western theology on Chinese soil, nor repeating the liberal-fundamentalist debate in China, but should rather work out their own Chinese theology. Chinese theology should be contextualized and should find its own way of expression in a Communist country. What should the Chinese Christians be doing? They should construct an indigenous, Chinese theology which could address the Chinese cultural, social and political contexts. They must keep their minds open and let their theological thinking be under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, considering seriously possible ways to better safeguard their basic Christian faith and the Church’s witness in Communist China. As Bishop Ting often said, “For the good of the nation, as well as for the survival and witness of the church, it is both natural and proper to adapt ourselves to the socialist society. It is indeed proper for every responsible citizen and responsible believer to do.”38 To achieve this aim, Ting suggested the following:

1. the process of theological reconstruction should enable Christian believers to gain more confidence and a better understanding of their own faith; 2. That the non-believers should become more willing to hear the good news, which was found to be really the good news for them; 3. theological reconstruction must aim to promote the adaptation of Christian faith to socialist society, and one of its significant tasks, as Ting saw it, was to ‘remove theological obstacles to patriotism and socialism’.39 4. Ting affirmed the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party and often referred to the call of Zemin Jiang, the former leader of the Chinese government who gave the direction for an active ‘adaptation

38 For Bishop Ting, the socialist revolution and socialist construction in China could be in line with the will of God and he would seek the unity of purpose and spirit between Christianity and Socialism. See K.H. Ting. Tiaozheng shenxue sixiang de nanmian he biran (Adjustments of Theological Thinking Are Unavoidable and Inevi- table), in Tian Feng, (1 March, 2000), 4–5; also in Hua Jun Liu, ed., Heavenly Wind and Sweet Showers. (Nanjing: University of Nanjing Press, 2001), 283–287. 39 See K.H. Ting. Sanzi Aiguo yundong de fazhan he chongshi (Development and Enrichment of the Three-Self Patriotic Movement), in Tian Feng, (1 January, 2000), 4–5. 234 chapter eleven

of religions to socialist society in China’.40 But he would expound it more clearly that: “Adaptation to socialist society is not just a matter of formal identification, it is also to help Chinese Christianity become a constituent part of the socialist family . . . hence, it has to raise the level to that of our culture and intellectual circles.”41

These are especially relevant if we are concerned with the development of Christian theology on Chinese soil, especially in present day China. Chinese Christianity must take roots in Chinese soil and as a result of the interplay between global Christianity and Chinese cultures, it must turn out to be ‘doing Christian theology with Chinese characteristics’. To help our better understanding, I may cite three examples for illustration here:

Justification by Faith Ting quoted the doctrine of ‘justification by faith’, which had been one of the key concepts in the theological thinking of the Church since St. Paul. Rather than stressing its importance as Protestant Christianity had done since the Reformation, Ting wanted to see such theological concepts being ‘watered down’ in the Chinese social and cultural contexts, for the reason that it would easily create conflicts between believers and non-believers in China.42 I said this because it (the doctrine of justification by faith alone) has been overemphasized in China, as if it is the all in all of Christian faith. The idea is that anyone who believes will go to heaven after death, and those who do not believe will go to hell. (It was faith that matters—justification by faith alone). This is an idea that denies morality. By extension, Hit- ler and Mussolini, as Christians, would be in heaven, while Confucius, Laozi, Mozi and Enlai Zhou, non-believers, would be in hell . . . Such

40 See K.H. Ting. Tiaozheng shenxue sixiang de nanmian he biran (Adjustments of Theo- logical Thinking Are Unavoidable and Inevitable), in Tian Feng, (1 March, 2000), 4–5. 41 ting also remarked: “If we do not do this, intellectuals will look down on us and pay no attention to us and we will be left behind.” See K.H. Ting. “Theology and Context”, Chinese Theological Review, 17/2 (2003), 123–130. 42 See e.g. discussion in K.H. Ting. “Some Thoughts on the Subject of Theological Reconstruction”, Chinese Theological Review, 17/2 (2003), 110–117. This was a typically Chinese way of constructing theology. Even when Chinese Christians are developing their theology, they are concerned with their consequential relationship with others, whether it would create conflicts between believers and non-believers. k.h. ting and the three-self movement in china 235

kind of Christianity may appeal to some, but can we really imagine that most Chinese would be willing to accept it over the long run? Some people say, I really love my parents, but as non-believers they will be in hell while I, as a believer, will enjoy heaven. I really cannot bear such thinking . . .43 Such a simplistic connection with heaven and hell, entailed by the doctrine of justification by faith, had been prevailing in the mindof most Chinese throughout the century. The ‘watering down’ of theological concepts was not an act against Western theology as many had interpreted; it was rather a step to help Chinese Christians being freed from their fundamentalist mentality. Ting reasoned that in the Chinese context this doctrine had created an unnecessary distance between the ethical actions of Christians and non-Christians and it went against a true Christian humanism, so Ting wanted to ‘water it down’. Ting explained that “to play down does not mean to eradi- cate. Playing down simply means not making this the all in all of Christianity . . .”44 In other words, the doctrine of justification by faith needs to be seen alongside other Christian teachings, including God’s creation, God’s redemptive and loving acts to the world, too. Ting would prefer to talk more about the love of God in China Today.

God is Love Playing down of the idea of justification by faith, Ting suggested, would allow a better understanding of God. It enables people to approach the Christian God as a God of love. If the Christian God were to send people to hell simply because of their non-belief, how could this Chris- tian God be a God of love? Christians would argue that their God is a God of love who “makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matthew 5:45). This was precisely what Jesus had taught us about God and he said also, “For if you love those who love you, what rewards have you . . . And if you salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? . . . You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:46–48). So Ting was following the steps of Jesus and

43 See K.H. Ting. “Theology and Context”, op. cit., 125. Again, the Chinese emphasize the ethical aspects of Christian faith. This would signify also the kind of Chinese theology which sprouts from the Chinese soil. 44 See K.H. Ting. “Theology and Context”, op. cit., 127. 236 chapter eleven advocated that Love was the very nature of God which was especially relevant to a socialist country like China. He argued that since Chris- tians are people who understand God’s great love, they should take the initiative to love and reconcile with other people, including the non- Christians in China. ‘To love our enemy and loving our neighbour as ourselves’ are precisely the Christian gospel we need to preach in China, as well as in other parts of the world, because God is love.45

Cosmic Christ Ting also emphasized the concept of a Cosmic Christ as a significant basic Christian faith, ‘in whom all things are created in heaven and on earth’ (Colossians 1:15–17). The significance is threefold: (a) Its concern and care were universal; this cosmic dimension would allow an affirmation of the good things in contemporary Chinese culture and experiences, including socialism which worked for freedom and social justice in China; (b) It corresponded to the belief that God is Love, the work in Christ may extend to all things in the whole of creation, including social reconstruction in China; and (c) It entailed the Chris- tian attitude of harmony, hence Christians must care and work for the good of the wider world, to build up positive relationships between Christians and non-Christians and between Church and State. When I was a freshmen in college some forty years ago, I was struck by the book of J.B. Phillips who asked a simple question: ‘How Big is Your God?’46 Now Bishop Ting was raising the same question about Christ, “Is Christ’s love only for the small circle of Christians inside the four walls of the church? Or is it for the whole of God’s creation, the whole cosmos?”47 Christians may look at the gospel in two ways. One aspect of the Christian gospel is centred on personal salvation, emphasizing the distinction between believers and non-believers, the saved and the unsaved, the spiritual and the worldly. Another aspect of the Chris- tian gospel is centred on God’s love and care for Christ’s reconciliation brought to all humankind and the whole creation. Bishop Ting’s

45 For reference, see K.H. Ting. “God is Love” and “Understanding the Heart of God”, Love Never Ends: Papers by K.H. Ting. (Nanjing: Jiangsu Translation Press, 2000). 46 See for reference J.B. Phillips, Your God is Too Small. (New York: Macmillan, 1953). 47 See K.H. Ting. “The Cosmic Christ”, Love Never Ends: Papers by K.H. Ting. (Nan- jing: Jiangsu Translation Press, 2000), 90–99. k.h. ting and the three-self movement in china 237 theology emphasized the belief in the love of God and in the cosmic Christ, both reflecting God’s care for all humankind and the whole world, and addressing substantially the living contexts of the Church in China today. The belief in a cosmic Christ, as Ting expounded, points also to the basic Christian faith, i.e. the reconciliation of God and humanity in Jesus Christ.48

Concluding Remarks

In 2000, when the Three-Self Patriotic Movement of the Protestant Churches in China was celebrating its 50th anniversary, Bishop Ting stated ‘four high points’ to mark the work of Three-Self Patriotic Movement in the last fifty years. The first was in the beginning years when the leaders of the Three-Self Patriotic Movement were working to remove Western imperialist thinking in the mind of Chinese Chris- tians. The second high point was the affirmation of the Three-Self Patriotic Movement in China, namely working for ‘self-government, self-support and self-propagation’. The third high point was the movement of ‘running the Church well’, i.e. to enable Chinese churches to be ‘well-run, well-supported and well-propagated’. Under the rubric of running the church well, the China Christian Council was established as an independent religious entity. The fourth high point was advocating theological reconstruction. These four high points were, as Ting remarked, all a part of the development and enrichment of the Three-Self Movement of Protestant churches in China.49 The case of Bishop Ting has well demonstrated that global Chris- tianity has to become localized. The process of contextualization of Christianity in China must include its taking roots in Chinese soil; and, the interplay between global Christianity and Chinese culture must turn out to be ‘doing Christian theology with Chinese characteristics’. As we have seen from the work of the Three-Self Patriotic Movement and the National Christian Council, Chinese Christianity must fulfil its bi-characteristic functions, namely both the ‘Chinese’ (‘Love the Country’) and the ‘Christian’ (‘Love the Church’) functions.

48 See K.H. Ting. “The Cosmic Christ”, op. cit., 90–99. 49 See K.H. Ting. Sanzi Aiguo yundong de fazhan he chongshi (Development and Enrich- ment of the Three-Self Patriotic Movement), in Tian Feng, (1 January, 2000), 4–5; also in Chinese Theological Review, vol. 17, no. 2, (2003), 131–135. 238 chapter eleven

Regarding the construction of Chinese theology, Chinese theologians must address to the socio-political realities and cultural contexts, to the needs of the Chinese Christians, as well as to bear witness and bring relevance of the Christian faith within the living contexts of the Christian Church in China. Global Christianity has turned out to be an all-embracing religion in China—it not only can survive in a Com- munist state, but also works well with the Chinese Communist government. Chinese Christians can both ‘love their country and love the Church’ at the same time, hence upholding both their ‘Christian’ and their ‘Chinese’ identities. The rapid growth of Christian population in China confirms that God and the Holy Spirit are still working in China. Besides producing Christians and good citizens for the country, they can also contribute positively to society, and work towards a more harmonious society in China. Indeed, Bishop Ting has done a great job in China since the 1980s. To conclude, it would be good to note some of the important remarks contemporary church leaders and scholars have had said about the work of Bishop Ting, affirming that Ting has done a remarkably successful job in developing a new form of ‘Chinese Christianity’, which is ‘Christianity Made in China with the Chinese characteristics’. Their remarks are as follows:

Guanzong Luo (羅冠宗), a co-worker of Bishop Ting for more than sixty years, had the following to say: (Bishop Ting was) a man who, from start to finish, has been concerned with building up the Church . . . He deepened his knowledge of the Three- Self principles and the building up of the Chinese Church: he saw that this (Three-Self Patriotic) movement, a Chinese patriotic movement, was essential to building up the indigenous Church in China; . . . He has clari- fied for us the belief that the Three-Self Patriotic Movement has always been under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and that it represents a new and living path opened for the Chinese Church by God.50 Prof. Raymond Whitehead, a Canadian scholar, had the following remarks, saying: Bishop Ting has lived his eighty years in the context of a Chinese Church that for the most part has been small and weak. In that setting, however,

50 See Guanzong Luo. “A Man with the Church at Heart” in Chinese Theological Review, vol. 10, (1985), 68–74. k.h. ting and the three-self movement in china 239

he and his co-workers developed a perspective not marked by despair and depression but by faithfulness and commitment to the church’s mission of justice and healing and peace. Christians in China hold little power, but the Church . . . remains grounded in its faith stance and in its theological self-understanding, and maintains the Christian integrity in the midst of a changing and complex society.51 The Rt. Rev. Dr. Peter K.K. Kwong (鄺廣傑), the first Archbishop of the Anglican Province of Hong Kong, had these remarks on Ting: He (Bishop Ting) understands God in the context of Chinese culture without forgetting the universal and international dimensions of Chris- tian faith. He has . . . work(ed) through all the complications of the situation he has been presented with, and has come out with a clear vision, a good sense of direction, and an acceptable and agreeable course for the Church. It is in this respect that I would call him ‘a bishop with charisma’ . . . He has a charisma which commands respect from all who know him.52 The World Council of Churches delegation, led by its general secretary Rev. Dr Samuel Kobia, met Bishop Ting at his residence in Nanjing on November 17, 2006. Dr. Kobia paid tribute to what Ting has meant to Christianity in China and for his contribution to the World Council of Churches and the ecumenical movement as a whole, saying: These are a few, rare individuals in the history of the ecumenical movement to whom we can go, and simply by being with them, begin to discern on a deeper level what ecumenism really means. You are one of these—revered, respected and loved within the wider ecumenical movement . . . (he also said) You have certainly been the pioneer of Christian ecumenism in China. As theologian, scholar, pastor and leader, you have challenged the thinking of the broader ecumenical family, particularly in the area of ecumenical social thought. We acknowledge you not just as a great leader, but also as ‘patriarch of post-denominationalism’.53 That can be another prophetic voice in our Western Christianity too. Christianity not only survived in a Communist state, but also work

51 See Raymond Whitehead. “The Love, the Light and the Language of Christian Mission” in Chinese Theological Review, vol. 10, (1985), 94–99. 52 See Peter K.K. Kwong. “A Bishop with Charisma”, Chinese Theological Review, 10 (1985), 55–58. 53 See “WCC UPDATE: Kobia praises Bishop Ting” at http://www.wfn .org/2006/11/msg00235.html. The general secretary also referred to Ting as a “living ecumenical ancestor”, borrowing an expression from Ghanaian Methodist theologian Dr. Mercy Amba Oduyoye. 240 chapter eleven well with the Communist government. Chinese Christians can both ‘love their country and love the Church’ at the same time. The rapid growth of Christian population in China confirms that God and the Holy Spirit are still working in China. Besides producing Christians and good citizens for the country, they can also contribute positively to society and work towards a more harmonious society in China. To the ecumenical church, Ting has confronted us with a new understanding of ecumenism and denominationalism. Dr. Kobia has also affirmed the World Council of Churches’ commitment to being in solidarity with the Christian Council of China, saying: We are here to say that the World Council of Churches is prepared to accompany the continuing process of theological reconstruction that you have already so well begun to articulate in China.54 And in summing up, let us look at the words of Philip Wicheri, a contemporary theologian who has produced two great volumes on Bishop Ting, Seeking the Common Ground: Protestant Christianity, the Three- Self Movement and China’s United Front (1988) and Reconstructing Christian- ity in China: K.H. Ting and the Chinese Church, (2007) gave the following remarks on him: The theology of K.H. Ting has tended to be suggestive rather than definitive. Yet by being suggestive, Ting is in some way able tohave something to say to all people. To theological conservatives, he offers the expansive vision of the Cosmic Christ. To political critics at home and abroad, he says that the Church of China has a ‘certain amount of space’ for religious freedom, and that it should not speak of martyrdom so easily. To liberal and progressive church men and women he insists that theology should be for people in the pew, and that theologians should neither advance positions which are beyond the average Chris- tian or exaggerate what they as theologians have to contribute. To the extremists of the left and the right, he urges tolerance, ‘seeking truth from facts’ and working together for the common good. And to people everywhere, his theology embraces a message of God’s love which both liberates men and women for creative action and binds them together as part of a common human family . . . For all these reasons, K.H. Ting is an ecumenical theologian who makes a continuing contribution to Church and world for the times in which we live.55

54 Ibid. 55 See Philip L. Wickeri. “An Ecumenical Theologian”, Chinese Theological Review, 10 (1985), 107–118. k.h. ting and the three-self movement in china 241

Wickeri also added: Ting was the most important Chinese Christian leader of the twentieth century . . . He has been a controversial figure, criticized for his support of Chinese Communists and praised for his leadership and faithful Christian witness . . . Ting has been a strong mountain for the Chinese church . . . In retirement, Ting became an institution, unshakable in his loyalty to church and country. He casts a long shadow.56

56 See Philip L. Wickeri, Reconstructing Christianity in China: K.H. Ting and the Chinese Church, (New York: Orbis Books, 2007), xxiii–xxv.

Conclusion

Readers have already seen my intellectual journey in the introductory chapter of this volume. As Daniel Bays has said, I was not trained as a China specialist or as a historian, but my natural curiosity and entrepreneurial spirit had led me to the growing field of modern Chi- nese history, especially in the topics of Christian higher education in China and Chinese Christianity. In the past thirty years, I managed to attempt an integrative approach to my research in an interdisciplinary way, crossing over the fields of history, education, religious studies, sociology and others. And I finally arrived at the concept of ‘Glocaliza- tion’ as a clue for the study of Christian higher education in China and Chinese Christianity. The present volume bears good witness to it.

Factors Shaping the Study of Chinese Christianity

As we have seen in this volume, there were several developmental trends in the last three decades which have shaped the shifting paradigms in the study of the history of Christian higher education in China and Chinese Christianity. They are, namely:

1. The More Extensive Use of Archival Materials Found in China and More Emphasis on Cross-cultural and Multi-Archival Research It was under the open door policy in the People’s Republic of China that China became a member of the International Council of Archives in 1980. Since then, China’s State Archives Bureau (Guojia dangan ju) has issued a number of orders for the re-opening of archival records to the public and overseas scholars, including the archives of Chris- tian churches and Christian colleges stored before the Communist era.1 Because of the re-opening of archival materials in China, Chi- nese and Western scholars were able to gain better access to the vast

1 see e.g. Dangan sishinain lunwenji (Essays on the Development of Archives in the Past Forty Years). (Beijing: State Archives Bureau, 1991), and my discussion in Peter Tze Ming Ng, “Historical Archives of Pre-1949 Chinese Christian Colleges” in Inter- national Bulletin of Missionary Research, 20: 3, ( July 1996), 106–108. 244 conclusion resources of archival materials in China and there were greater desires to conduct more in-depth, cross-cultural and multi-archival research, especially among scholars in Christian higher education in China and Chinese Christianity.2

2. The Broadening Scope of Studies—From Mission History to Church History I was honored to have given a response to Prof. Lamin Sanneh’s paper on “The Imperative of a Global Christian Historiography”, at the Consultation Conference at Fuller Theological Seminary in 1998. There, Prof. Sanneh articulated a shift in the emphasis on history of World Christianity which he described as a move from Western, denominational history (such as Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant histories) to regional, national or local histories (such as African and Chinese church histories).3 The old historiography, according to San- neh, was confined to an understanding of history as part of the mission board of the mother church, with the agendas wholly dictated by it. Thus, the history of African Christianity was the history of the work of missionaries in Africa. The African response to (White) Christianity was the quest for independence. The same has been true of all other non-White cultures. In my response, I have added in saying that the new historiography should be such that individual churches, whether African, Chinese, or Indian, are ‘free from’ missionary domination and ‘free to’ develop local agendas in their own social contexts. This was especially true in the case of China.4

2 One good example was the work by Philip Yuen Sang Leung, “Zhongxi shuyuan lishi di zhuixun: yige kua wenhua kua dangan de jingyan” (In Search of the Anglo-Chinese College: A Cross-cultural and Multi-archival Endeavor), in Peter Tze Ming Ng (ed.), Zhongguo jiaohui daxue lishi wenxian yantaohui lunwenji (Essays on Historical Archives of Christian Higher Education in China). (Hong Kong: Chung Chi College, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, 1995), 555–570. 3 See Lamin Sanneh, “The Imperative of a Global Christian Historiography,” paper read at the Consultation on A Global Christian Historiography, held at Fuller Theological Seminary, April 30–May 2, 1998. 4 See Peter Tze Ming Ng, “Local History and Beyond—An Asian Response to the New Global Christian Historiography,” A response paper read at the Consultation on A Global Christian Historiography, held at Fuller Theological Seminary, April 30–May 2, 1998. Also, Peter Tze Ming Ng, “Paradigm Shift and the State of the Field in the Study of Christian Higher Education in China”, in Cahiecs d’Extreme-Asie (Bilingual Journal of the Ecole Francaise d’Extreme-Orient), 12 (2001), 127–140. conclusion 245

3. More Concern with Local Contexts Prof. Sanneh’s proposal was indeed repeating what Paul Cohen had said fourteen years ago. In his book, Discovering History in China (1984), Cohen proposed a ‘China-centred approach’ which had already given great impetus to the development of the study of Christian mission in China ‘free from’ solely Western-based agendas. Since the early 1990s, Jessie Lutz and Daniel Bays had already given much of their attention to the Chinese social contexts, such as Lutz’s study of Hakka Chinese who became the first Chinese evangelists working for the Basel Mis- sion, and Bays’ study of the growth of Independent Christianity in China, 1900–1937, especially the work done by the Chinese Chris- tians.5 Getting closer to the Chinese social contexts, Richard Madsen even suggested scholars to look at Chinese Catholicism from a Chi- nese perspective. In his rather provocative paper, ‘Beyond Orthodoxy: Catholicism as Chinese Folk Religion’, Madsen explained that since Chinese Catholicism had taken on much of the characteristics of heterodox folk Chinese religions in China, it might better be seen “from the bottom up as part of China’s heritage of folk religions”.6 As a matter of fact, there were indeed many insights found in the exploration of local contexts, as we have found in the previous chapters.

4. More Focus on the Study of Chinese Christians and Search for Chinese Perspectives There has also been a gradual shift of focus from missionary- oriented studies to a more Chinese Christian-oriented approach. One of the earliest works of this kind was the Th.D. dissertation of my dear professor, Dr. Lee Ming Ng, who wrote on five outstanding Chinese Christians, namely: T.C. Chao, Yaozong Wu, Mingdao Wang, P.C. Hsu and Leichuan Wu.7 Daniel Bays, in his History of Christianity in China project, also made clear his intention to study the history of

5 See e.g. Jessie & Roland Lutz, “The Invisible China Missionaries: The Basel Mission’s Chinese Evangelists, 1847–1866,” in Mission History, 12 (October 1995), 204–227; and Daniel Bays, “The Growth of Independent Christianity in China, 1900–1937,” in Daniel Bays (ed.), Christianity in China—From the Eighteen Century to the Present, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996, 307–316. 6 See Richard Madsen, “Beyond Orthodoxy: Catholicism as Chinese Folk Reli- gion,” paper presented at the International Conference on China and Christianity: Burdened Past, Hopeful Future, held at Ricci Institute, University of San Francisco, on October 14–16, 1999, 3. 7 The dissertation entitled, “Christianity and Social Change: The Case of China, 1920–1950,” was completed at Princeton Theological Seminary in 1971. See also the 246 conclusion

Chinese Christianity with a high priority given to the use of Chinese materials and the study of Chinese Christians as a central part of the story.8 Indeed, since the late 1980s, scholars have been researching Chinese Christians and exploring hidden Chinese elements, such as Chinese Christians’ experiences and their viewpoints.9 Philip Leung reported at Fuller Theological Seminary in 1998, saying: “It is interesting to note that, in most of the missionary archives, Chinese Chris- tians were either ‘nameless’ or recorded as ‘Ah Wong’, ‘Ah Leung’ etc. They were ‘the lost brothers’ in Chinese church history. These Chinese pastors, lay leaders and colporteurs were an important part of the early Chinese Christianity, but they have not been given due credit for this in mission history or in the mission records.”10 The study of Chinese Christians would help to recover, not only ‘the lost brothers’, but also the Chinese agendas and Chinese perspectives in the search for Chinese Christianity. Indeed, there were more stories to report, especially regarding questions and issues such as: How the Chi- nese people became Christians? Why did the Chinese often say: ‘One more Christian, one less Chinese’? What issues did they face? And how did the Chinese work out their ways to embrace both Christianity and Chinese culture? How could they maintain their double identities, both as ‘Christian’ and as ‘Chinese’ at the same time? Amongst my doctoral students, some were keen to study the life of Chinese Christians and explore issues such as conflicting identities, problems of embracing both Christianity and Chinese culture, developing proper attitudes towards non-Christian religions, and their efforts in working

Chinese translation in Lee Ming Ng, Jidujiao yu shehui bianqian (Christianity and Social Change in China), (Hong Kong: Chinese Christian Literature Council Ltd., 1981). 8 see Daniel Bays (ed.), Christianity in China: From the Eighteenth Century to the Present, (Stanford: Stanford University Press,1996), ix. 9 See e.g. Peter Tze Ming Ng, “Chenshaobai- Lingnandaxue diyiguo xuesheng” (Chan Shiu Paak—The First Student of Lingnan University, Canton), in Journal of The Chi- nese Historical Society, 23 (1991), 139–148; Wing Hung Lam, Qugao buogua—Zhou Zichen de shengping yu shenxue, (The Life and Theology of T.C. Chao), (Hong Kong: China Graduate School of Theology,1994); Wing Hung Lam, W Wing Hung Lam, Qugao buogua—Zhou Zichen de shengping yu shenxue, (The Life and Theology of T.C. Chao), (Hong Kong: China Graduate School of Theology, 1994); and Sin Jan Chu, Wu Leichuan—A Confucian-Christian in Republican China, (New York: Peter Lang, 1995). 10 See Philip Yuen Sang Leung, “Mission History vs. Church History—The Case of China Historiography,” paper read at the Consultation on A Global Christian Historiography, held at Fuller Theological Seminary, April 30–May 2, 1998. See also discussions in Jessie & Roland Lutz, “The Invisible China Missionaries: The Basel Mission’s Chinese Evangelists, 1847–1866,” in Mission History, 12 (October 1995), 204–227. conclusion 247 out ways for truly indigenized Chinese Christianity.11 There is definitely a need to re-tell and reformulate the proper history of Christi- anity in China by acknowledging more accurately the roles played by Chinese Christians. All these various trends of development suggested that there were changing paradigms and changing perspectives coming up in the study of Chinese Christianity.

The Concept of Glocalization

The proposal of Lamin Sanneh was a paradigm shift from a Western- dominated Christian mission history to a regional/local African church history. It was indeed a natural move from the ‘global’ to the ‘local’ perspectives. However, the change was not merely a matter of ‘either or’, the crucial issue was rather how to strike a balance between the different perspectives. The paradigm shift was not drastic enough unless it was seen from the perspective of glocalization. The concept of ‘Glocalization’ is one which attempts to embrace both the global and local perspectives, not to play down either of the perspectives, but to keep both of them in a more balanced way. The perspective of glocalization affirms both the global and local perspectives, paying due respect to them and transcending them by exploring the inter- connectedness within the processes of globalization and localization.

11 See e.g. Feiya Tao, “Zhongguo de yige Jidujiao Wutuobang: Yesu jiating de lishi yanjiu, 1921–1952” (A Christian Utopian in Modern China—A Study of Jesus Family Movement, 1921–1952), Ph.D. Thesis, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2001; Chang Shing Wu, “Lew Tingfang zongjiao jiaoyu linian zhi shijian yu Zhongguo shehui bianqian, 1891–1947” (Timothy Lew’s Idea and Practice of Religious Education and Social Changes in China, 1891–1947), Ph.D. Thesis, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2001; Wai Keung Chan, “Jidujiao yu Zhongguo zongjiao de xiangyu: Xu Dishan ge’an yanjiu” (Christianity meets Chinese Religions: A Case of Xu Dishan), Ph.D. Thesis, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2002; Wing Hon Ho, “Tao Xingzhi: Yiwei jidutu jiaoyujia de zai faxian” (Tao Xinzhi: The Re-discovery of a Christian Educator), Ph.D. Thesis, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2002; Feng Zhu, “Jidujiao yu haiwai huaren de wenhua shiying: Shalayue huaren Meiyimei hui shequ de ge’an yanjiu” (Christianity and Culture Accommodation of Chinese Overseas: The Case Study on Chinese Method- ist Community in Sarawak, 1901–1951), Ph.D. Thesis, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2004; Xian Liu, “Chen Yuan zhi zongjiao yanjiu” (Chen Yuan’s Study of Religions), Ph.D. Thesis, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2005; Koon Ting Leung, “Liumei qingnian yu Shangdi guodu de zhuixun- Beimei Jidujiao Zhongguo xueshenghui ge’an yanjiu, 1909–1951” (Overseas Chinese Students in the United States and their Search for the Kingdom of God, 1909–1951), Ph.D. Thesis, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2008. 248 conclusion

The perspective of glocalization was significant in the study of Chi- nese Christianity as it was a positive response to China’s open door policy and the re-opening of Chinese Archives in the 1980s. As scholars were able to gain better access to much of the archival materials available in China, it was natural that they had greater desires to conduct more in-depth research on Chinese archives and compare them with corresponding resources kept in Western Archives. The perspective of glocalization has indeed provided a smooth shift of paradigms for cross-cultural and multi-archival study in this field of Chinese Christianity. It also helps to supplement Paul Cohen’s China-centred approach and Lamin Sanneh’s conception of new historiography. The concept of glocalization emphasizes the significance of local contexts in the study of regional Christianity, and in the case of China, the move from the Western-centred, missionary-oriented study to the China-centred native church-oriented study of Chinese Christianity. Hence, more attention will be given to the Chinese side of the story, by paying due respect to Chinese Christians as subjects and re-discovering their own agendas and perspectives in re-telling the story of Chinese Christian- ity. The affirmation of local contexts is also important as it reminds us to pay due respect to the Chinese culture and Chinese religions, not looking down upon them as superstitious or pagan. The conception of glocalization helps to seek more positive approaches towards an inter- cultural or cross-cultural theology of World Christianity. It reminds us also that Chinese Christianity is but an independent, yet indispensable part of World Christianity. The Chinese response to Western Christianity was not merely a quest for independence, but also the search for a uniquely ‘Chinese Christianity’ which could not be realized without the part played by Chinese Christians. It was only in the vivid interplay between the Western and Chinese perspectives that the uniqueness of Chinese Christianity could be found both fascinating and enlightening. It was also in the re-discovery of interactive relationships between the global and the local perspectives that a richer and a more comprehensive picture of the development of Chinese Christian- ity could be revealed. Moreover, as I have explained in this volume, Global Christianity has to become localized. The Christianities we all find in this world are but ‘local Christianities’, or partial representations of Global Chris- tianity. They are, in Roland Robertson’s term, ‘the particularization of universalism’. And it is this concept of glocalization which would help conclusion 249 scholars to move beyond the ‘Euro-centric’ or ‘Sino-centric’ research paradigms in the study of World Christianity, and would eventually guarantee and enrich the study with a more vivid interplay between the Western and Chinese perspectives. In short, the concept of glocalization not only points to the inter- connected relationship between the global and the local perspectives, it is also safeguard from the domination of any one perspective as norms, whether it is ‘Euro-centric’ or ‘Sino-centric’, and creates a new form of inter-dependence or inter-cultural relationship by encouraging active dialogues among the various perspectives. The China case is definitely a significant one. To apply a Biblical imagery, it is like the ‘Body of Christ’.12 Local Christianities are many, such as Chinese Christianity, Asian Christianity, European Christianity and Western Christianity, but they all are ‘One Body in Christ’. As the Bible says: For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot should say, ‘Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body’, that would not make it less a part of the body . . . If the whole body were an eye, where should be the hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? . . . If all were a single organ, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.13 The inter-connectedness of different parts of the one body is precisely what this concept of glocalization is pointing to. Hence, this global- local perspective is the key to our study of World Christianity, and Chinese Christianity in particular.

12 see Romans 12:4–5. 13 see I Corinthians 12:14–20 (RSV).

Index of Proper Names

Allen, Hubert 113 Bates, Miner S. 145 Allen, Roland 113, 180f, 191 Bays, Daniel H. 23f, 35, 72, 135, 188f, Allen, Young J. 26 192, 223, 243, 245 Alopen 151 Beach, Harlan Page 57 American Academy of Religion 39, Bei Zhao Nan Wei 143, 167 199, 221 Beijing 6, 15, 25, 31f, 44, 48, 60, 65, American Baptist Mission 102 74f, 83, 93, 103, 124, 133f, 136, 169, American Board of Commission for 172, 174, 177, 181, 205 Foreign Mission 48, 56, 58, 68, Beijing Normal University 4, 25f, 29 102f, 202 Beijing People’s Political Consultative American Congregationalists 61, 102 Conference (BPPCC) 174, 177 American Episcopal Theological School Beyer, Peter 92, 94f, 109, 222 (Cambridge, Mass.) 144 Bible Training Institute (Glasgow) 134 American Methodist Episcopal Church, Bing Xin 178 South 102, 167f Birmingham 184 American Methodist Mission 47 Birmingham University 185 American Presbyterian Mission 47f, Bitton, Nelson 81f, 89 61ff, 64, 102f Bondfield G.H. 83 American Protestant Episcopal Church Bonk, Jonathan 133 102, 105, 144f, 150, 223 Book of Books 149 American Reformed Church 102, 133, Book of Rites 149 145, 187 Boone College 144f, 147 Amoy 187f Boone Review 149 Amoy Church 35, 69, 134, 187f, 202 Boxer Indemnity 50, 61, 103, 126f Anderson, Gerald H. 179 Boxer Movement (Uprising) 16, 35, Anderson, Rufus 1, 11, 68f, 187, 202 43ff, 49f, 55, 60ff, 65f, 69, 72f, 103f, Andover Newton Theological School 124, 126, 133ff, 203f 150 British Educational Society for Eastern Anglican Church of England 47 Women 47 Anglo-Chinese College (Beijing) 133 Buck, David 43 Anglo-Chinese College (Malacca) 46 Buck, Pearl 128 Anglo-Chinese College (Shanghai) 26 Buddha 119, 153 Anti-Christian Movement 77, 100, Buddhism 97ff, 118f, 151, 157 138, 197 Anti-Footbinding Society 125 Cambridge 9f, 16, 67, 146, 184 Anwei 83 Cambridge University 9, 179, 199 Assembly Hall ( Juhuichu/Juhuisuo) 36, Calvin College 133 76, 137, 189, 192 Canton 48, 83, 93 Augustinians 152 Canton Christian College 48 Aurora University (See Zhendan Xueyuan) Cen Chun-xuan 50ff Centenary Missionary Conference Baker, Gilbert 168, 227 (Shanghai 1907) 11ff, 35, 64, 70, 73, Bao-ding Fu 56 83, 112, 193 Baorong xing 159 Centenary World Missionary Barber, W.T.A. 47 Conference (Edinburgh 2010) 10f, Barth, Karl 171, 173 17, 33, 35, 68 Basel Mission 245 Centre for Historical Research on Bashford, J.W. 65 China Christian Colleges 25 252 index of proper names

Centre for the Study of Christianity 6, Chinese Christian Independent Church 31 (Zhongguo Jidujiao zilihui ) 74, 77, 204, Centre for the Study of Religion and 206 Chinese Society 4, 25 Chinese Christian Independent Church Central China Normal University (See (Zhonghua Yesujiao zilihui ) 36, 73, 77, Huazhong Normal University) 136, 189, 192, 204, 206 Central China University (See Huazhong Chinese Christian Society for Promoting University) Literary Services 197 Chang Po Ling 74 Chinese Christian Union 36, 73, 136, Changan 151 204, 206 Changsha 58 Chinese Lutheran Church 205 Chao, Fu-san 183, 185 Chinese National Christian Council Chao, Luo Rui 178 37 Chao, T.C. 7, 14, 16, 37, 87, 109, Chinese People’s Political Consultative 143, 167ff, 195f, 198ff, 232, 245 Conference (CPPCC) 174, 177 Charles Scribner’s Sons Press 151 Chinese Presbyterian Church 205 Cheeloo 64, 93 Chinese Recorder 47f, 60, 74, 102, 128, Cheeloo University (See Shangtung 149, 193 Christian University) Chinese Revolution (1911) 149 Chefoo (See Yantai) Chinese Union (See Fu Han Hui ) Chekiang 83 Chinese University of Hong Kong 4, Chen Chonggui 190 7, 11, 24f, 29, 33 Chen Tu-hsiu 183 Chinese Young Men’s Christian Chen, Yi Qiang (See David Cheung) Association 205, 208, 223 Chen Yuan 151 Chongqing 181 Chen Zemin 214 Christian Church in China (Zhonghua Cheng, C.Y. 11, 14, 16, 33, 36f, 67, Jidujiaohui ) 85, 134 72, 74f, 79ff, 89f, 133ff, 193f, 196, Christian Higher Education in Asia 207 40 Cheng, Marcus (See Chen Chonggui) Christian Higher Education in China Chengdu 93 16, 24, 31f, 45, 60, 91ff, 96ff, 105 Cheung, David 11, 35, 69, 187f, 190, Christian Manifesto (See Three-Self 192 Manifesto) Cheung Po Ling 206 Christian Occupation of China 153, 184 China Centenary Missionary Christian Tabernacle ( Jidutu huitang) 36, Conference (See Centenary 75, 137, 205f Missionary Conference—Shanghai Christianity and Social Order 176 1907) Christianity Fever 78, 138 China-centred Approach 5, 22, 24, 28, Chung Chi College 4, 7, 24f, 39 245, 248 Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui 146, 205, China Christian Council (CCC) 213f, 224 216, 219, 224, 226ff, 229, 240 Chungking (See Chongqing) China Christian Education Association Church Missionary Society 68, 99, 132 102 China Church Year Book 85 Church of Christ in China (Zhonghua China Inland Mission 71, 115, 135, 189 Jidujiao linhui ) 37, 75, 86, 141, 194f, China Today through Chinese Eyes 148 205 Chinese Academy of Social Sciences 6, Cochrane, T. 65 31f Cohen, Paul 5, 17, 22f, 129, 183, 245, Chinese Anglican Church (See Chung 248 Hua Sheng Kung Hui) Columbia University 150, 224 Chinese Christian (Zhangguo jidutubao) 73, Commission of Churches on 136, 192, 204 International Affairs (CCIA) 159 index of proper names 253

Communist/Communism 20, 79, Friend’s Foreign Mission Association of 127f, 130f, 138, 173, 175, 181f, 190, Great Britain and Ireland 99, 102 198, 208, 224f, 228, 233, 238ff, 243 Fu Han Hui 12, 68 Confucianism 30, 97ff, 118 Fu Jen (Catholic) University 25, 44 Continuation Committee of Edinburgh Fudan Academy 44 Conference 37, 74, 83ff, 140, 184, Fudan University 4, 29 194, 205, 207 Fujian 69, 203, 205 Corbett, Hunter 118 Fujian Union Theological College 181 Cornell University 56 Fukien Christian University/Fukien Couling, Samuel 64 Christian Union College 65, 93, Council for World Mission 184 102 Cressy, Earl H. 49, 132 Fuller Theological Seminary 244, 246 Culture Fever 20 Fuzhou 46f, 76, 93, 137, 180f, 186, 188 Daoism 97ff, 118, 157 Dao-tai 54 Gao Fengchi 204 Datong Shijie / shijie datong 159, 161, Gao Shiliang 27 165 Gernet, Jacques 30, 96 De Qing 167 Gibson, John C. 11, 13, 35, 70, 89, Deng Xiaoping 20, 27, 216 186, 193 Ding Limei 189 Gibson, Thomas 186 Disciples of Christ 102 Gih Andrew (See Ji Zhiwen) Dominicans 152 Ginling (Women’s) College 25, 27, 93, Duncan, Moir 51, 53f 102, 162 Dungwu University (See Soochow Gotch-Robinson Theological College University) 62 Graves F.R. 74 East Indian Company 112 Guan Yin 119 Eddy, Sherwood 55 Guangdong 144, 184, 188, 205 Edinburgh Conference 1910, See World Guangzhou 46ff, 93, 230 Missionary Conference (Edinburgh Guo Jing Wei 229f 1910) Guojia dangan ju 243 Edinburgh University 9, 33, 158 Gutzlaff, Karl 12, 68, 70 Empress Dowager 125f English Baptist Mission Society 62ff, Hakka Chinese 245 102, 104, 114f, 122f, 126 Hall, R.O. 167ff, 172, 177, 181 English Congregationalist 61, 102 Han 86 English Presbyterian Mission 69f, Han Qi 28 184ff, 187f, 193, 203 Hangchow (Hangzhou) 93 English Wesleyan Mission 47 Hangchow University 93, 102 Eurocentrism 15f, 33, 37, 249 Hankow 83, 147 Harvard University 56, 105, 144, 147 Faber, Ernst 124 Haskell Lectures 150 Fairbank, John K. 5, 22, 29, 93 Hastings, Adrian 112 Faith and Order Conference Haverfordwest Theological College (Edinburgh) 158 114 Fan Zimei 204 He Xiaoxia 27 Federal Council of Christian Churches Henry Luce Foundation 3, 188 in China 141 Henry Luce Visiting Professor of World Fitzgerald, Charles P. 183 Christianity 6, 32, 37f, 88, 106, 150, Foochow (See Fuzhou) 159, 163 French School of Groupe Societies, Henry Martyn Lectures 9, 111 Religions, Laicities 9 Hewett Lectures 150, 155, 159 254 index of proper names

Hobhouse, L.T. 147 Jiaoan 72, 135 Hocking, William E. 105, 147 Jinan 16, 74, 93, 126, 205, 215 Hood, George 11f, 35, 69f, 184ff, 188, Jing Dianying 75ff, 137, 189, 192, 190, 192f, 195, 200 206, 218 Holden, Reuben 57 Jinling University (See University of House Church 78, 215ff, 218, 228ff Nanking) Hsiang Ya Agreement 59 Jinling Women’s University (See Ginling Hsiang-Ya Medical College 59 Women’s College) Hsu Paochien (See Xu Baoqian) Jinshi 53 Huanan Women’s University (See South Juren 53 China Women’s University) Huang Jianbo 8 Kang Yu Wei 125 Huang Wing Hei 170 Kiangsu 83 Huang Xinxian 27 Kobia, Samuel 239f Huaxi University (See West China Koo, T.Z. 109 Union University) Korean War 93, 174f, 210 Huazhong Normal University (Huazhong Kujiang University (See University of shifan daxue) 3, 4, 9, 20, 25, 45, Shanghai) 105, 145, 163f Kunming 168 Huazhong University (Huazhong Daxue) Kuomingtang 176 6, 32, 59, 88, 93, 102, 105, 145f, Kwangtung (See Guangdong) 162f, 164, 167f Kwong, Peter K.K. 239 Hu Jiang University 27 Hubei Province 144, 163 Lambeth Conference 34 Hume, Edward 59, 128 Latourette, Kenneth S. 105, 114, 143, Hunan 58f 183 Hunan Yuqun xuehui 59 Leung, Philip Yuen Sang 4, 6, 25f, Huzhou 178 29, 246 Huzhou Teachers College 178 Levenson, Joseph 5, 22, 183 Hymns of Universal Praise 170, 214, 219 Lew, Timothy T. 109, 170, 196 Li Hengchun 204 Impact-Response Paradigm 5, 22, 29f, Li Hong-zhang (Li Hung Chang) 51, 93f 116, 123 Institute of World Religions 6 Li Ti Mo Tai (See Timothy Richard) Inter-denominational Union Christian Li Xiangping 8 University 64 Li Xianlin 28 International Community Church Lian Xi 28 (Shanghai) 224 Lianghui 213ff International Missionary Conference Life and Work Conference (Oxford) ( Jerusalem) 146 158 International Review of Missions 86 Life Fellowship (See Sheng Ming She) International Symposium on Historical Life Magazine (See Sheng Ming) archives of Pre-1949 Christian Lingdong (See Lingtung) Higher Education in China 24 Lingnan University 48, 93, 102 Irvin, Dale 104 Lingtung 184ff, 203 Irvin, Edward 117 Little Flock (Xiaoqun) 36, 76, 137, 189, Islam (See Mohammedanism) 192, 205f Liu Tingfang (See Lew, Timothy T.) Jenkins, Philip 198 Liverpool University 128 Jesus Family (Yesu jiating) 23, 36, 75f, Lobenstine E.C. 84 137, 189, 192, 205f Lockhart Medical College 61 Jesuits 152 London Missionary Society 46f, 65, Ji Zhiwen 190 75, 81, 99, 102, 111, 117, 133, Jiang Zemin 233 145f, 188 index of proper names 255

Luce, Henry W. 62 Nestorians 151 Luo Guanzong 238 Nevius, John Livingstone 118 Lutz, Jessie 23f, 96, 164, 183f, 245 Newbigin, Leslie 10 Ng Lee Ming 245 Ma Min 21 Ng, Peter Tze Ming 25f, 29 Ma Xiang Bo 43f Ni Tuosheng 76f, 137, 189, 192, 206, Ma Zhuang 76, 137, 189 218 Mackenzie 124f Ningpo 46f Madras 146 Ningbo Boys’ Academy 47 Madsen, Richard 245 North China College 48, 60f, 103 Mahayana Buddhism 119 North China Education Union 61 Malacca 46 North China Union College 61, 65 Manchu 86, 141 North China Union College for Marxism 20, 224, 227 Women 61 Mateer, Calvin W. 27, 47, 64f, 118 North China Union Medical College for Matteo Ricci 152 Women 65 Memorial Theological College 61 North East Asia Council of Studies in Methodist Church of Canada (See History of Christianity (NEACSHC) United Church of Canada) 40 Methodist Episcopal Mission 102, Methodist Peking University 48, 60f, Oberlin Graduate School of Theology 65, 103 150 Mi-shi Hutong 134 Orwell, George 10 Ming Dynasty 152 Overseas Ministries Study Center 11, Min-nan Chinese Christian Church 33, 133, 179 205 Owen George 134 Missionary Conference of the Anglican Oxford 168, 181 Comnion (London) 34 Oxford University 148, 158, 181 Mohammed 118 Mohammedanism 98f Paton, David 9, 16, 39, 89, 111f, 114, Mongolian 151f 130, 179ff, 185f, 190ff, 195, 199f Moody, Dwight 56 Paton, William 181 Morrison, Robert 9, 46, 111f, 208 Peking University 48 Mott, John R. 83, 161 Pembrokeshire 114 Mullahs 118 Pentecostalism 75 Mullins, Mark 41f Phillips, J.B. 236 Pitkin, Horace Tracy 56f Nanjing 2, 46, 93, 111, 153, 229, 239 Pott, F.L. Hawks 64 Nanking (See Nanjing) Princeton Theological Seminary 216 Nanjing Normal University 25 Protestant Missionary Conferences Nanjing Theological Seminary 214 (1877) 203 Nanyang Technological University 15 Protestant Missionary Conferences Nashville, Tennessee 168 (1890) 203 National Bible Society of Scotland Pui Ying School 48 118 National Christian Council (Zhongguo Qing Government 176 Jidujiao xiehui ) 85f, 140, 153, 194, Qing Zhou (Ching Chou Fu) 118 206f, 224ff, 228 Quan pan xi hua 165 National Council of Churches, Conference in Shanghai (1922) 14, Rawlinson, Frank J. 128 37, 85, 87, 146, 161, 194f Reformed Church in America 102, National Literature Association (See 187f Wen She) Repton College 181 Nee, Watchman (See Ni Tuosheng) Republic of China 150, 176 256 index of proper names

Research Institute of World Religions Spirit of Chinese Culture 143, 151 31 Spiritual Gifts Church 189 Restore Educational Rights Campaign St. John’s Cathedral (Hong Kong) 169 100, 197 St. John’s University 93, 102, 223f Richard, Timothy 9, 16, 50ff, 66, St. Paul’s College 47 111ff, 196 Stanley, Brian 120 Rites Controversies 152 State Archives Bureau 243 Robert, Dana 31f, 91f, 109 State Religious Affairs Bureau 230 Robertson, Roland 106, 222, 248 Stauffer, Milton 153 Roxby, Prof. 128 Streeter, B.H. 147f Runice, Robert 227 Stuart, John Leighton 27, 61, 101, 131 Student Volunteer Band for Foreign Sanneh, Lamin 244f, 247f Missions 56 Schermerhorn Lectures 150 Studies in World Christianity 9 School of Oriental and African Studies Sui Ying College 167 (London) 187 Sunquist, Scott 105 Seabury, Warren B. 57f Sutras 119 Self-strengthening Movement 125 Suzhou (See Soochow) Selly Oak Colleges 184 Swatow 12, 35, 69f, 186ff, 193, 203 Shandong 8, 47, 51, 62, 64, 74, 76, 83, 116, 120ff, 126, 189, 205 Taian 8, 76, 189 Shandong Jidujiao Gonghe Daxue 64 Tai Ping Rebellions 12, 70 Shanghai 2, 6, 8, 12, 14, 26, 37, 46f, Tai-yuan-fu 51 52, 64, 70, 73, 75, 83, 85, 87, 93, Taiwan 136 153, 174, 204f, 223f Tang Dynasty 151 Shanghai Missionary Association 196 Tang Taizong 151 Shantung Christian University 63f, 93, Tang Wuzong 151 102, 118 Tao Feiya 8, 26 Shantung Protestant University 63 Tao Xing-zhi 196f Shantung Union College 63, Taoists 118 Shanxi 45, 50ff, 55f, 58, 74, 116, Taoism (See Daoism) 120ff, 126, 128, 205 Taylor, Hudson 114f, 129 Shanxi University 50ff, 55, 66, 127f Tek-chhiu-kha Church (Second Amoy Sheffield, D.Z. 65 Church) 69 Sheng Ming 197, 208 Temple, William 176 Sheng Ming She 197 Tengchow 62 Shijie datong wenhua 161, 165 Tengchow Boy’s High School 62 Shi Jinghuan 4, 27, 29 Three-Self Manifesto 174, 177, 200, Singapore 15, 17 209f Sinkoe Chapel (The First Amoy Church) Three-Self Movements 1, 11f, 14, 33f, 35, 69, 187, 202 68, 72, 76f, 79, 86, 134, 136f, 182, Sinocentrism 15f, 249 187, 195, 198, 200, 201ff, 207, 221ff, Sino-Japanese War 168, 171f, 176, 237 208 Three-Self Patriotic Movement 1, 11, Society for the Diffusion of Christian 78, 163, 174, 201, 207ff, 216ff, 224ff, and General Knowledge 118, 123 228ff, 237f Song, John (See Song Shangjie) Thurston, Lawrence 57f Song Shangjie 190 Tian Feng 208, 214, 219 Song Yaoru 204 Tianjin (Tientsin) 52, 74, 116, 123, Soochow 93, 167 133, 205 Soochow University 93, 102, 167f Tianshui 8 Soothill, William E. 53f, 120 Tiedemann, Gary 187 South China Women’s University 27, Ting, K.H. 9, 16, 111f, 114, 130, 174, 93, 102 178f, 198f, 201f, 212ff, 221ff index of proper names 257

Tracts for the Times 125 Wen She 197 Tradition-Modernity paradigm 22 Wen She Monthly 197 True Jesus Church 23, 36, 75, 136, Wesleyan Methodist Mission 102, 189, 205f 145f True Light College 47 West China Union University 65, 93, Tsinan 62, 64 102 Tsinanfu 83 Whitehead, Raymond 238 Tsingchow 62f Whyte, Bob 179 Tsingchow Boy’s Boarding School 62 Wickeri, Philip 213, 224, 227, 240f Tsingchow Theological Institute 62f Williams, Arthur C. 57 Tsingdao 74, 205 Williams, Rowan 111 Williamson, Alexander 118, 123 Union Medical College (Tsinan) 63 Wilson, David 111 Union Theological College (Tsingchow) Woodward Lectures 150 63 World Council of Churches 146, 158f, Union Theological Seminary (Nanjing) 169, 175, 181, 239f 224 World History Association Annual Union Theological Seminary, New Conference 15 York 38, 56, 88, 106, 150, 222, 224 World Missionary Conference United Board for Christian Higher (Edinburgh 1910) 10ff, 13f, 17, 33f, education in Asia 3, 26 36ff, 67f, 79, 82f, 89, 133f, 139, 142, United Christian Mission 102 153, 184, 193, 201, 207 United Church of Canada 102 World Student Christian Federation Universal Declaration of Human (Geneva) 224 Rights 159 Wu Leichuan 170, 245 University of London 105, 145, 147, Wu Yaozong (Y.T. Wu) 1, 11, 14, 16, 150 33, 38, 183, 200, 201ff, 207ff, 217ff, University of Nanking (Nanjing) 25, 225, 245 93, 102 Wuchang 105, 144, 147, 168 University of Shanghai 93, 102 Wuhan 3, 4, 19f, 36, 88, 93, 105, University of San Francisco 23 143 Wuhan Conference (1989) 20, 26 Vanderbilt University 168, 170, 176 Varg, Paul A. 183 Xiamen 35, 46f, 69, 134, 202 Venn, Henry 1, 11, 34, 68f, 187, 202 Xie Hongji 204 Xiejiao 30, 97 Walls, Andrew 104, 112, 121, 131, Xizhou, Dali 168 199, 223 Xu Baoqian 170, 183, 245 Wang Licheng 27 Xu, Edward Yihua 4, 27, 29 Wang Lixin 27 Wang Mingdao 75, 77, 137, 190, 206, Yale-China Association (Yale-in-China) 218, 245 55ff, 59, 66, 128, 145 Wang Qisheng 27 Yale-China Chinese Language Wang Zhixin 44, 49, 197 Centre 59 Washington, DC 199, 221 Yale Divinity School 150 Wenzhou 8 Yale-Edinburgh Conference 33 Wei, Francis Cho Min 6f, 16, 32, 37f, Yale Foreign Missionary Society 56ff, 88, 105f, 108f, 143ff, 167f, 222 102 Wei, Issac 75, 136 Yale Union Middle School 58 Wei, Paul 75, 136, 206, 218 Yale University 56, 150 Wei Zhuomin (See Wei, Francis Cho Yaili Court of Medicine 59 Min) Yali Hospital 59, Weihsien (Weixian) 63 Yantai 74, 116ff, 205 Wen Lin Tang 168 Yang Jiao 72 258 index of proper names

Yang Wenhui 119 Zhang Ji-Shi 59 Yenching University 61, 93, 97, 102, Zhang Kaiyuan 21, 25f, 45, 163f, 167 101, 109, 131, 168, 172 Zhao Fu-san (See Fu-san Chao) Ying Lianzi 44 Zhao Zichen (See T.C. Chao) Ying Wah Boys’ School 47 Zhejiang Province 167, 178, 224 York St. John’s University 9 Zhendan Xueyuan (Aurora Academy) Yu Guozhen 73, 77, 136, 189, 192, 43f 204, 206 Zhengjiao 30, 97 Yuan Dynasty 151 Zhongshan 144 Yui, David Z.T. 109, 196 Zhong ti xi yong 165 Yun Chi-ho 26 Zhu Feng 27 Yunnan 168, 172 Zurcher, Erik 30, 97