Field-Governed Mission Structures Part V: and the Inland Mission by Joseph & Michele C.

he story we have told of William Carey and the Serampore Trio can be seen as the tale of a painful struggle for field-governance which ended in a tragic part- ing of the ways. Carey and his colleagues were allowed to continue their work and to retain the college which they had built, but they lost ultimate control of the mission as a whole and of many of the institutions which they had founded. This was tragic, not because of the field-governance principle as an end in itself, but because of the damage which these events did to Carey and his colleagues personally and to their life’s work in India. The case of Hudson Taylor which T we will examine now is the tale of a similar struggle which ended in a “suc- cessful” resolution in which the authority of Hudson Taylor and his China Council was ultimately acknowledged. But this outcome was achieved only at the expense of tremendous amounts of time, money and emotional hurt —both in and in China. More than once Taylor was forced to make the long ship–journey to London to deal with this, when he would have preferred to remain in China to focus on the actual mission task.

James Hudson Taylor is widely considered in evangelical missions circles to be the greatest and most influential missionary since New Testament times. The China Inland Mission (CIM) which he founded—today known as the Overseas Missionary Fellowship (OMF)—continues today to be one of the most admired and effective evangelical mission societies in the world. In 1865, unknown and without the support of any denomination, [Taylor] was led to undertake single-handed the foundation of what for a time was the largest mis- sion in the world (Neill, 1986: p. 282). Ralph Winter says of the mission structure which Hudson Taylor designed, My hope is . . . [to] provide some rationale of many new mission agencies today for the steadfast pursuit of the OMF ‘Directorship’ pattern, which has served for 125 years and successfully withstood pressures and criticisms from every side (Winter, 1990: p. C-1). Popular biographies of Taylor generally tend to focus on three aspects of his vision:

Joseph and Michele have worked for 1) the “faith” approach to financial support which he learned from Georg Müller, fifteen years in North Africa. Joseph is 2) the requirement that CIM missionaries wear Chinese clothing and adapt to a Ph.D. candidate at Yale University. Chinese cultural customs and mores (which we would today call “contextu- alization” – Taylor called it “being Chinese to the Chinese”), and Michele is an R.N. and also an M.A. 3) the urgent need for large numbers of missionaries to go beyond the “treaty candidate at Fuller Seminary. They ports” to reside in every province of inland China if “China’s millions” were have two children. to be evangelized. International Journal of Frontier Missions 18:4 Winter 2001•201 202 Field-Governed Mission Structures Part V: Hudson Taylor and the China Inland Mission 203 However, popular thinking about ciple named by Latourette was actually others. He began spreading false rumors Taylor has generally overlooked the developed years later, and the fourth about Taylor, and writing (untruthfully) fact that equally essential to Taylor’s principle is really an exposition of the to Berger that, vision for the CIM was his convic- third, so that one could argue that the Large stores of English clothing and tion that mission structures should be field-direction principle was one of just material for making such, brought out governed from the field, not from the five founding principles of the CIM. for the use of the mission in China, are home base, if they were to be effective stored away . . . (rather to) rot than Stephen Neill summarizes Taylor’s found- in the evangelistic task.1 sell them to anyone out here who ing principles for the CIM similarly: would make use of them. ‘Hudson Unlike Carey, Hudson Taylor had seven (1) The mission was to be interde- Taylor had changed his mind’ after years’ field experience before he started nominational. Conservative in its reaching , and made them his mission. His experience with the theology . . . all wear Chinese clothes (Ibid., p. 66). Chinese Evangelization Society—and (2) A door was opened for those of Nicol won over one or two CIM col- its governance by a committee in little formal education . . . leagues, and succeeded in poisoning the London which was out of touch with (3) The direction of the mis- attitudes of other organizations toward daily realities in China—played a role sion would be in China, not in – a change of far-reach- Taylor. But the overwhelming majority in his thinking on this question. He ing significance . . . of CIM field personnel recognized the felt that the structure of the Chinese (4) Missionaries would wear Chinese slander for what it was, and the attempt Evangelization Society had significantly dress, and as far as possible iden- to appeal over Taylor’s head to London harmed its effectiveness in China. tify themselves with the Chinese people. was unsuccessful. Berger in London In founding the CIM, Taylor estab- (5) The primary aim of the mission immediately passed on Nicol’s com- lished certain fundamental principles was always to be widespread evan- ments to Taylor, and wrote to Nicol, on which the mission would be run. gelism . . . (Neill, 1986: 283). “If you cannot [have confidence] in us Kenneth Latourette summarizes these Again, the field-direction principle was [Hudson Taylor and Berger] . . . it will founding principles thus: one of five founding principles of the be your duty to retire from the Mission” (1) The Mission was to be undeno CIM. However this principle did not (Ibid., p. 65). Berger wrote to Taylor, minational. . .While persons of remain uncontested in later years. It is still with me a grave question education were preferred, those whether a brother who avows he has were also welcomed who were As with Carey, problems began when young, inexperienced missionaries in no confidence in you (or me) should without much learning but who continue connected with the Mission were otherwise qualified . . . As the process of culture shock wrote back (Ibid., p. 66). liberal theological opinions began to the home office to complain about to make their appearance, the Hudson Taylor’s principles—despite In September 1868, after extensive Mission remained conservative . . . efforts to resolve matters with Nicol, (2) As the years passed, the Mission their having agreed to the principles became international . . . before joining the mission. One is Taylor made the decision to dismiss him (3) . . . The members of the mission reminded here also of the problems because of his “falsehoods and misrepre- had no guaranteed salary but were encountered by Matteo Ricci’s Jesuits sentations . . . in the habitual breach and to trust God to supply their needs. when less-experienced missionaries perversion of the truth.” In his letter to Moreover . . . the Mission was never appealed to Rome to overrule Ricci’s Nicol, Taylor stated that he was, to go into debt . . . contextualized approach. (4) No personal solicitation for funds acting after conference with and with was to be made . . . The first major crisis within the CIM the concurrence of all the brethren (5) Missionaries were to conform as of the Lammermuir party [the senior was precipitated in 1867—two years field-resident members of the CIM] nearly as possible to the social and after the Mission’s founding—by a new living conditions of the Chinese, and as many of the other brethren of and until well after 1900 were for missionary named Lewis Nicol, who the Mission as I have had opportunity the most part to wear Chinese attempted to appeal over Taylor’s head of meeting . . . I do not dismiss you . . . dress. to William Berger who was in charge for your preference for the English (6) The direction of the Mission was of the CIM’s home base in Britain. The costume; nor indeed on any other to be in China and not by a board resolution of this conflict demonstrated ground in whole or in part than that in Great Britain . . . that the field-direction principle was of habitual and deliberate falsehood (7) Finally, the main purpose of still effective. Although the CIM was (Ibid., p. 128). the Mission was . . . to diffuse as quickly as possible a knowledge being sharply criticized at the time in Though there was as yet no struc- of the Gospel throughout the the press in China, “Far worse than tured Field Council or China Council, Empire . . . (Latourette, 1973: gibes in the press was the obsessive Taylor felt obliged to seek the concur- 385-386). correspondence by Lewis Nicol with rence of the senior missionaries on the Thus, out of Hudson Taylor’s seven William Berger” (Broomhall, 1985: field before acting. Berger in London founding principles for the CIM, one 65). Nicol, who had agreed to Chinese completely supported Taylor’s action, (often ignored today) was the principle clothing and to the Chinese-to-the- writing, “Your letter to Nicol . . . was that, “The direction of the Mission Chinese principle before joining the everything the case required, and how was to be in China and not by a board Mission, was now fighting against it and sad was his reply to it” (Ibid.). in Great Britain.” The second prin- “obsessively” attempting to influence

International Journal of Frontier Missions 18:4 Winter 2001 202 Field-Governed Mission Structures Part V: Hudson Taylor and the China Inland Mission 203

Another incident in 1869 demonstrated that, “Our fellowship together has been the founding principles of the mis- how crucial the field-direction principle a source of unmixed and uninterrupted sion. However there were no immedi- was to the CIM’s very existence. The joy,” but that Berger was unfortu- ate problems over the field-direction primary reason why Taylor had founded nately forced to retire because of “Mr. principle. the CIM was that the tiny number of Berger’s failing health and strength” A childhood friend of Taylor’s, missionaries in China were concen- (Ibid., p. 343). Both before and after Benjamin Broomhall, took on more trated almost entirely in the handful this announcement Taylor searched in and more work for the home base of of “treaty ports” on the Chinese coast, vain for a successor to Berger. Taylor the CIM during the 1870s; but despite which had been dominated politically returned to Britain to serve as acting their friendship, Taylor did not have by European powers after military home director while he pursued this the kind of confidence in him that he confrontations such as the shameful search, but was not able to find the right had had in William Berger (Broomhall, Wars. The reason for the China individual “who sees things from my 1988: 191). Furthermore Benjamin Inland Mission’s existence was to station standpoint, and on whom I can depend” Broomhall’s time and attention in resident missionaries —far from (Broomhall, 1988: 191). inland the 1870s were divided, since he also the treaty ports. Finally, after a long and fruitless search, worked as secretary to the Anti-Slavery In 1869 the British Foreign Office Taylor reluctantly agreed to the sug- Association until 1879. In 1879, “The and the House of Lords considered gestion made by a number of friends in council minuted that in his represen- issuing regulations forbidding British Britain that he should form a “council tation of the CIM all over Britain, subjects to reside in China outside of of management” composed of several Benjamin Broomhall needed ‘authen- the treaty ports. The reasons cited for people who would assist in “home tication’ and in March resolved that these regulations were concern for the affairs.” Taylor expressed his concern he . . . should be ‘associate secretary’” safety of the missionaries and concern that the CIM should not repeat the (Ibid., p. 190). Soon afterward the that the missionaries would undermine error of the Chinese Evangelization London Council designated Broomhall British commercial interests (the mis- Society in giving control of the mission as “General Secretary”. Around this sionaries documented that “commercial to a committee in London. However, same time period Taylor’s leadership interests” were largely a euphemism when he reached the point that he knew style in China is described thus: “He for the opium trade, which Taylor did he must leave for China imminently and himself held the reins, firmly, very vigorously oppose). Hudson Taylor did did not yet have a successor for Berger, firmly at times when discipline was not have the kind of political connec- he agreed to establish, “an advisory needed, but very loosely in the case of tions that might have enabled him to council to share the responsibilities in men and women whom he could trust influence this debate in human terms, Britain” (Broomhall, 1985: 347; to plan and work and use scarce funds but it is clear that if the regulations had emphasis his). Taylor empha- responsibly” (Ibid., p. 211). passed, they would have destroyed the sized to the new Council the In the early 1880s mild very reason for the new CIM’s exis- nature of their role: tensions began to develop tence. Missionaries from the Church The management of the between Taylor (in China) Missionary Society (CMS) and London Home affairs of the China on one hand, and Missionary Society (LMS)—notably Inland Mission. The Council Broomhall and the Home Maria Taylor’s CMS brother-in-law was to deputise for him Council on the other. Both —took up a lobbying cam- in his absence and to Taylor and Broomhall paign which successfully persuaded the advise him when he was were seriously overworked British government not to issue these in Britain. They and overcommitted, and regulations. clearly under- stood how in this context the However the LMS London headquar- it differed quality of their ters (presumably concerned for the from the letter-writing safety of their missionaries) was not as controlling to each other easily persuaded as the British govern- councils and suffered. Taylor ment. Broomhall writes, committees complained that of most other Broomhall and In his comments to the LMS directors societies, and on the same issue of shackling the approved of others in Britain missionary, was no less his principles were “disregarding explicit, but even after his powerful in this respect him, starving him of pleading, the London-based ruling (Ibid., p. 348). information” (Ibid., body of the LMS declined to retract p. 380). their own strong restraints upon their Within months, missionaries in China. In loyalty they members of the Council were ques- More distressing were reluctantly obeyed, while the tioning the CIM principle of not solic- was the disapproval by CIM surged forwards (Ibid., p. 185). the council in London of his own han- iting funds (Ibid., pp. 365ff.). Taylor dling of affairs in China. Restraining In 1872 William Berger retired as direc- had to persuade Council members by strong-willed men in unwise actions, tor of the CIM in Britain. Taylor wrote letter from China to remain faithful to and weaker men from abandoning

International Journal of Frontier Missions 18:4 Winter 2001 204 Field-Governed Mission Structures Part V: Hudson Taylor and the China Inland Mission 205 their principles under influences to In China the facts were known and The next occasion for this unresolved compromise or to enter salaried understood. Men at a distance with tension to flare up came in December employment, had been difficult no personal knowledge of China or 1887, as Taylor prepared to return to enough. When ‘London’ listened of the circumstances could not adju- China. American Henry Frost came to their complaints and sided with dicate . . . Correspondence on these to England to seek to persuade Taylor them, his leadership had been under- issues had worsened rather than mined (Broomhall, 1989: 33). resolved the differences between to allow the opening of an American London and Hudson Taylor. Only branch of the mission. Taylor’s initial These mild tensions exploded into a crisis his return to Britain held any hope reaction was favorable, but then he in the November 1886, when there was of agreement . . . The dissident mis- learned from Benjamin [Broomhall] a difference of conviction over mission sionaries’ side of the story had been how strongly he opposed the structure and over field policy. The CIM given a sympathetic hearing, by the ‘transfer of a British organisation to was growing extremely rapidly. Having Home Director, Theodore Howard, American soil’. American missions [and] the General Secretary, Benjamin would not welcome it, Benjamin consulted with the Home Council and Broomhall . . . Benjamin’s propensity secured their support, Taylor appointed thought, and too much would be had for long been to champion the involved when the CIM was already John Stevenson as his Deputy Director underdog . . . . A small China Council, doubling its size . . . Frost could not in China and appointed regional superin- it was being said . . . had laid down know that deep rifts were already tendents for each province in China, and arbitrary rules for over two hundred threatening the structure, even the he established a China Council composed others . . . For London to question the existence of the Mission. It was the of these field leaders. Also with consulta- composition and actions of the China wrong moment to introduce a revo- tion and approval of the Home Council, Council they had supported Hudson lutionary new development without Taylor had written a document called Taylor in setting up was far more seri- unity of mind in the administration “Principles and Practice”, which laid out ous . . . [Benjamin Broomhall began in (Ibid., p. 56). 1886 to hint at the risk of a “separa- the distinctive convictions on which the tion” between himself and Taylor, In the interest of keeping peace, Taylor CIM was based. At its first meeting, in implying the resignation of one or told Frost that the answer was no. 1886, the China Council made minor both of them. . .] All the dealings However, Frost did persuade Taylor to wording clarifications to the “P and P”, between their supporting churches visit North America en route to China, and it began work on drafting an infor- and the Mission had been with the and to accept a number of speaking mal “book of arrangements” that would Secretary, whom they had come to engagements in America. A series indicate to field missionaries how Taylor value. Discord between Hudson Taylor of events during his time in North applied the “Principles and Practice” in and the London Council, especially his boyhood friend and brother-in-law America persuaded Taylor that he and concrete, often-repeated situations. Taylor Benjamin had been mistaken, that God and Stevenson were to finish this draft at the heart of the Mission, could be most damaging. Separation could be was clearly guiding the CIM to accept and send it for comment to the Home lethal. The issue had become constitu- the opening of a North American Council and to those regional superin- tional. The London Council as a whole branch. Unsolicited donations (some of tendents who had been unable to attend in objecting to the revision of the them logistically impossible to return) the China Council meetings. Taylor’s Principles and Practice (P and P) and and missionary candidates were pouring biographer indicates here that, the introduction of ‘rule’ in the Book in from all over North America. He no thought occurred to them that of Arrangements were claiming a say asked Benjamin to come to take over, this logical step in the Mission’s in both (Broomhall, 1989: 36-38). but Benjamin was unable to do so. development would provoke years of Despite pressing needs in China, Taylor disharmony and be the reef on which As Taylor prepared to for China, returned to Britain in the winter of he felt “duty bound to make provision the CIM could have come to grief 1886-87 to deal with this crisis and (Broomhall, 1988: 423). of some sort” (Ibid., p. 91). He asked stayed for a year and a half. Rather than Alfred Sandham to handle Canadian That sound, efficient reorganiza- precipitating a direct confrontation with candidates and Henry Frost to handle tion itself became the reef on which the London Council, which “could have the CIM nearly perished. Physically Americans. “He explained that perma- been disastrous” (Ibid., p. 50), Taylor nent arrangements would follow con- remote from Hudson Taylor, the spent substantial time meeting indi- London Council had been undergo- sultation with the China and London ing a gradual change in its viewpoint, vidually with Council members over Councils, but a tentative auxiliary coun- unknown to him. The basic principle a period of months, rebuilding trust cil was desirable, for Sandham and Frost on which the CIM had been founded, relationships. During these months he to consult” (Ibid.). Taylor then boarded that its leadership and control must also took many public meetings all over a ship from Vancouver to China, but be in China, had paled in the light Britain, which had the effect of shoring when the ship stopped at Yokohama of contemporary practice by other up the confidence of the CIM’s constit- “the mail awaiting him contained the missions, merchant houses and the uency in his leadership. This approach first blow in an onslaught unrelent- government. All paid the piper and was effective, and an angry confronta- called the tune from the homeland ing until he sailed again for Britain six tion was prevented. By August 1887 months later. But he seems to have been in Europe or America. Complaints relationships were fully cordial again. to the London Council against the oblivious of the worst dangers ahead” directors in China were taken as But the difference of perspective had (Ibid., p. 92). valid, without proper verification. still not been resolved.

International Journal of Frontier Missions 18:4 Winter 2001 204 Field-Governed Mission Structures Part V: Hudson Taylor and the China Inland Mission 205 erhaps their persistence despite deep hurt on both sides was the greatest Pevidence of the “power of Christian love.” The field leadership in China were between Taylor and BB. It was also America . . . And better still, on July enthusiastic about the new North concretely damaging the work in China. 4, he could say of the disagreements American recruits. “During 1888 five “Henry Frost had kept some prospective over the P and P, ‘All now cordially men of the CIM had died, two had missionaries back from sailing, while accepted’ and being referred to the resigned, and three might have to the standing of the ‘auxiliary’ was under China Council for approval . . . ‘I do not think things have been so cordial leave, but twelve new men had come debate, and two men had turned to in years.’ . . . Sound lessons had been to China . . . They, not mission politics, other missions” (Ibid.). learned—the inherent dangers in cor- settled the issue. North Americans were Despite various crises in China demand- respondence; the value of face to as much the CIM as anyone” (Ibid., p. ing Taylor’s attention, there was only one face courtesy and prayer together; 98). But Benjamin Broomhall and the thing to do: “Hudson Taylor character- the dangers of physical and mental London Council were very upset. exhaustion when matters of moment istically went to meet his opponents in were under debate; and the truth Hudson Taylor had formed the ‘ten- person” (Ibid.). On his way to England that ‘reckless words pierce like a tative auxiliary council’ in Toronto in May 1889 he visited the retired and sword’ but ‘love covers a multitude of without consulting London. He had infirm William Berger in France. Berger sins’ (Ibid., pp. 104-105). kept them informed, but had not rebuked Taylor —not for the principle of sought their approval. What was establishing a North American auxiliary, However, the problems turned out to be the status of the London Council? . . . far from over. “From November 1886 ten- When London heard of a North but for Taylor’s arrogant attitude about it and about divine guidance. Berger sion persisted between him and London American council they reacted until July 1893” (Ibid., p. 172). One won- adversely. ‘The question will be,’ continued, “‘It takes two to make a wrote Theodore Howard, ‘whether quarrel . . . You are to all intents mar- ders, if this had happened 100 years later it should be a branch of the Home ried to Mr. B and cannot be divorced.’ (1986-1993), whether Taylor, BB and the work or work independently under So [Taylor] must not think of separat- others concerned would have continued the same lines and in fellowship ing, but must find that modus vivendi” for so many years to work on the relation- and sympathy, but not under the (Ibid., p. 104). Other members of the ship, or whether instead they would have same direction as the CIM.’ Either London Council informed him that a split the mission or resigned in bitterness. subsidiary to the London Council or Perhaps their persistence despite deep hurt quite separate? But a sibling ‘Home’ modus vivendi must be found, for if BB resigned, they would resign as well. on both sides was the greatest evidence of department in the same family, the “power of Christian love.” autonomous in relation to London Once Taylor met face-to-face with BB but equal in status under the General and the London Council, it seemed to The next occasion for a constitutional Director, seems not to have occurred him as though a miracle took place: crisis was created by a senior missionary to ‘London’ (Ibid., p. 99). who had brought a family servant to I reached England on May 21st the field from Britain in violation of the During the winter of 1888-89 both (my birthday) and found the stone “BB” (Benjamin Broomhall) and Taylor already rolled away,’ Hudson Taylor “book of arrangements”, but who now were under extreme strain with crises reported to John Stevenson. Strong was dismissing that servant and expect- and overwork in China and in London. currents were as nothing where ing the Mission to fund the servant’s “Where in writing to anyone else they Christian love existed. Two evenings voyage back to Britain. He wrote to would have been more careful, between with Benjamin and the next day with the London Council objecting to the P old friends hurried notes and ill-consid- the London Council giving an account and P, and to the book of arrangements. ered wording left wrong impressions” of his tour in the States and Canada, Instead of referring him back to the and the clouds dispersed. At last they field leadership, (Ibid., p. 100). BB wrote that, “I must understood. Discussion of permanent ask you to accept my resignation if you arrangements was deferred until Thomas Howard and some [London] have resolved to carry out this American after the annual meeting. On June Council members took up his com- plan” (Ibid., p. 101). Taylor interpreted 18 it all ended amicably with the plaints by challenging the China this as effectively an actual resigna- London Council accepting lock, stock Council’s action. From this small begin- tion, and in a “strictly private” letter and barrel Hudson Taylor’s outline of ning the status of councils, not least of to all members of the mission Taylor the arrangements and status of the the London Council became a major North American Council. Its duties issue. The seeds of a constitutional announced this fact—a move that he controversy had been sown, and not soon recognized as a bad mistake. were to be the same as the London Council’s. It was to deal directly with until five years later was peace fully In letters to BB and to Henry Frost, the directors in China, not through restored . . . The controversy held Taylor emphasized that “China and the London. Its funds would be distinct many lessons for the Mission . . . work of God came first. Administrative and its missionaries on the same foot- Most remarkable, perhaps, was the maintenance of personal friendships niceties were subsidiary” (Ibid., p. 102). ing as those from Britain. And they would be directed in China, not from and affection when strong words and The crisis was not just causing hurt even rudeness threatened them.

International Journal of Frontier Missions 18:4 Winter 2001 206 Field-Governed Mission Structures Part V: Hudson Taylor and the China Inland Mission 207

One clause in the handbook touched Far worse, it precipitated another con- ciples on which he had founded the off a debate on the right of Hudson stitutional crisis. The London Council Mission . . . Taylor and the administration in China began to take a strong hand in ‘Field’ On January 6, 1891, [the London to reject probationers or dismiss seri- affairs. [Taylor’s] reminder that the Council] adopted a new tone. The ous offenders without the approval directors in China were in a better Council minutes referred to their of the men who sent them. In effect, position to know and act in such a discussion as being ‘final’ . . . In the it raised the question: Was London to matter was curtly answered [that] the autumn of 1891 feelings ran high have the last word? The Principles and trouble lay in your wrong ideas in London on their demands for the Practice and Book of Arrangements —and your China Council’s . . . For last word in some field matters. ‘The themselves then became the chief the London Council to intervene in supreme question is that of final bone of contention. [Anyone familiar administrative and disciplinary action headship,’ Hudson Taylor wrote to with the field context could see that from a distance was a very different Stevenson [his field Deputy Director, a practical book of arrangements, matter . . . The status of the London who was visiting Britain], ‘but great summarizing the field leadership’s Council and a supposed threat to it gentleness and patience will be position on various concrete ques- from the new China Council quickly needed to make the reasonableness tions, was obviously necessary and emerged as the main issue . . . ‘You of this clear to all, and it is equally n London, however, the Council were busy drafting and adopting a letter reasonable.] Most front-line mis- have a Council here (in London) clear to me that it can only be vested sionaries had welcomed it, but the nominally [emphasis his] to advise in China. . .’ Hudson Taylor could see well-meaning men in London were you,’ but it should be recognised on ‘the Council’s relation to missionaries on the field’, which ended as an no solution other than the status too far from the scene to understand as having administrative power. quo—the foundation principle of run- (Ibid., p. 132). [One very influential member of the ning field affairs on the field—and the ultimatum such as Hudson Taylor had never before seen and never used. Council wrote that he] could wish China Council agreed with him (Ibid., The bulk of the field missionaries in you [Taylor] were led to leave the I pp. 171-174). China supported Taylor’s position. “The Mission to get on by itself while you conference of CIM missionaries [in took up more largely the expound- Matters reached a “desperate” (Ibid., China] in May 1890 had found little ing of Scripture and stirring up of the p. 174) nadir in summer 1891, when in the documents to question” (Ibid., p. Churches’ (Ibid., pp. 157-158). Taylor began to think it probable that 173). This was further made clear on The rift was clearly very deep. the London Council would “take power Taylor’s birthday on May 21, after the Regarding the slandered veteran, “‘That by force” (they controlled the legal conference, when sorrowful persecution of a beloved corporation in Britain), and that he and the eighty-three members of the servant of God’ continued until Henry much of the field leadership in China Mission still in Shanghai presented Frost invited him to help him in North would be forced to resign and perhaps him with an address [which] read, America ‘for six months or a year’. He form another mission. He wrote to ‘We desire to express our unshaken went, in December 1891. Then other Stevenson, conviction that those principles on which you were led to found this pretexts for raising the status of the While I let you know in confidence Mission, and on which it has grown to London Council were found” (Ibid.). that my mind is made up, I do not its present extent and usefulness, are wish to bring pressure on the Home Taylor’s biographer assesses the situa- Council . . . Do your best to get them of God.’ . . . Criticism of the Principles tion thus: and Practice and ‘Arrangements’ had individually to see (that they cannot become public knowledge, and his Violence and even massacre have take power by force), but do not loyal friends wished to demonstrate strengthened rather than weakened put our refusal of it in the form of their support (Ibid., p. 144). the China Inland Mission on many an ultimatum. Should I and certain occasions in the century and a quarter other members of the China Council In 1891 the constitutional crisis was of its existence. Tightening its belt at conclude on retiring, we will endeav- inflamed by the reverse problem: this times of low income has done it good, our to do so in such a form as shall time the London Council wanted to focusing its attention on the One do least harm to a work dear to us discipline a missionary whom Taylor who provides because it is his own all. Those of us who retire may form and the field leadership knew to be work. What shook the Mission to its another mission for the purpose of innocent: foundations in the last decade of the preaching the gospel . . . But surely nineteenth century was . . . the seven- God will avert the danger as He has so Far more painful were letters from a year challenge to parts of the P and P many others (Ibid.). member of the London Council. On and to Hudson Taylor’s leadership . . . the strength of hearsay and without In Britain also the China Council was Few evangelical missionaries today, verification, an honoured veteran was seen as a rival and, as argument reflecting on the life of Hudson being accused and condemned at a developed, it became clear that the Taylor, imagine that he came to such distance for alleged indiscretions with London Council saw itself as the chief a low point of near-despair over the young women. [Taylor investigated council of the CIM and other councils field-governed principle. Writing to fully and confirmed the missionary’s as subordinate . . . Theodore Howard of the London innocence. Taylor objected to the fact Council, Taylor pleaded, of] someone writing to a member of The voluminous correspondence the London Council instead of to the and recollections show beyond You very clearly stated the position in directors in China, and of ‘London’ in question, far from an authoritarian your draft of your letter of February minuting their discussion and conclu- Hudson Taylor forcing his ‘dictates’ 6, 1890: ‘We were never supposed or on ‘nonentities’, an embattled leader sions. intended to have and never have had was having to defend the basic prin-

International Journal of Frontier Missions 18:4 Winter 2001 206 Field-Governed Mission Structures Part V: Hudson Taylor and the China Inland Mission 207 any authority over the work in China . . . passed through” (Ibid., p. 177). In May Frost later described how he quickly saw we have been a Council of advice and 1892 he again sailed for Britain (via that consultation, not for government . . . Canada) to deal with the crisis. Nor would it ever have been admitted The London Director and Council that we were in any sense a Council In mid-April [a few weeks before sail- were strongly tending to the thought to which missionaries in China could ing] he was prostrate again, giddy and that they had and should have a pre- appeal from any decision of the China helpless, preparing to face the music in eminent place, as related to all the Directors or China Council. . .’ Do not I London, but appalled by the prospect, other Directors and Councils of the beseech you for Christ’s sake rend the so imminent did complete shipwreck Mission . . . If the London Director and Mission asunder by claiming what you of the Mission appear to be. The Council were supreme, then they were yourself have repeatedly affirmed was China Council in session addressed a over us and we were under them, an never intended and would never be letter to him identifying themselves arrangement to which we were not agreed to (Ibid., p. 174-175). with his view of the crisis, particularly willing to agree (Ibid., p. 184). n London, however, the Council were busy drafting and adopting a letter on ‘the Council’s relation to missionaries on the field’, which ended as an I ultimatum such as Hudson Taylor had never before seen and never used. Taylor’s biographer notes that this inter- as it concerned ‘exclusion from the This insight apparently calmed the nal crisis was going on at a time when Mission’ and dismissals. discussion. By the end of February unrest in China and hostility toward We value exceedingly the services 1893, Taylor and the London Council foreigners was increasing alarmingly. By rendered by the Home Councils, had reached agreement on “the funda- the end of the 1890s this erupted in the and especially for so many years by mental principles”, with Taylor making Boxer uprising, in which many CIM members of the London Council. only “unimportant concessions” (Ibid., missionaries and Chinese Christians But we fully agree with you. It is p. 182) were killed. Taylor, in China, was sensi- manifestly impossible for those in A.J. Broomhall the biographer con- tive to this situation and to the need for the Home lands to know as fully as can be known here the character cludes: him to give attention to it. In London, and influence, the competence however, the Council were busy drafting After four more years of disagree- or incompetence of our fellow- ment, Theodore Howard, William and adopting a letter on ‘the Council’s workers . . . [Ten signatures were relation to missionaries in the field’, Sharp and ‘Benjamin B[roomhall]’, appended.] (Ibid., p. 178). the most vocal objectors, had come which ended as an ultimatum such as Arriving in London in August 1892, to realise how great a gap existed Hudson Taylor had never before seen between their understanding of con- and never used (Ibid., p. 175). Taylor again devoted months to rebuilding personal trust relation- ditions in China and the considerable expertise of the field leaders. Then This letter, which Theodore Howard ships with the individual members of signed in October 1891, on behalf of they accepted the wisdom of the the London Council. Gradually he ultimate control being in the hands the Home Council, was intended to discussed the “thorny subjects” with of those on the spot, and the status establish the relationship of the London the Council, but he avoided provok- of the London Council as advisory to Council to the administration in China ing a showdown. Over a period of the Directors and representative of [by] challenging the existence and months he saw significant progress, the Mission to the public at home. ‘It powers of the China Council” (Ibid., but in November was still writing to brings to an end difficulties that are p. 176).The tone of the letter is that of Stevenson in China that, “Matters here tearing the Mission to pieces,’ Hudson a final rejection of the China Council. are approaching a crisis” (Ibid., p. 181). Taylor continued; ‘it settles the ques- Howard writes, tion of where the seat of power is, The turning point came in January and with the consent of the London This letter intimates as kindly but 1893, when Henry Frost visited from Council dismisses all questions of their as firmly as possible the final (and I America, together with two members of being a seat of power’ (Ibid., p. 183). may say unanimous) decision of the Council in this matter, and we await his North American Council, and met Though this sounds like a “happy your agreement, by wire or other- with the London Council. ending”, two points should be men- wise . . . (Ibid.) As Henry Frost expected, his com- tioned in closing. First, A.J. Broomhall’s panions impressed and delighted the In his December 1891 reply (five days biography mentions as an afterthought Council, who confided frankly in the to this crisis that, “Already it had led after receiving the London Council’s visitors . . . Frost played a major role in letter), Taylor said that he was “greatly to the resignation of nearly thirty finding a way out of the quagmire, and, missionaries, unsettled by the contro- distressed and perplexed”, and that “I where Hudson Taylor and the London feel that we have reached perhaps the Council were ‘so weary of strife, jeal- versy.” (Ibid.). When one considers the gravest crisis that the Mission has yet ousy (and) division’, Frost’s fresh mind remarkably low attrition rate which the saw light (Ibid., pp. 181-182). CIM had had before this (as Taylor had

International Journal of Frontier Missions 18:4 Winter 2001 208 Field-Governed Mission Structures Part V: Hudson Taylor and the China Inland Mission 209 to prove repeatedly in response to false The New Testament may not contain initially directed by field-sensitive individuals, is to sow the seeds of accusations on the subject), one realizes any examples of home-governed mis- future problems. that the resignation of thirty missionar- sion structures. But if the “judaizers” (5) This leads to sharp conflict ies was a huge loss both to CIM human who “came from James” in Galatians and between the home base and the resources in China and to the morale of the “superapostles” with their legitimat- field missionaries, which often those who stayed. ing “letters of recommendation” in 2 centers on the field missionaries’ Corinthians are examples of such home- passionate insistence on cultural Second, one of the “unimportant governed mission efforts, then it is clear adaptation to the peoples among concessions” to which Taylor agreed in whom they live and/or on the that the New Testament presents them as February 1893 was “an administrative authority to assign or dismiss field examples of what to do. principle of ‘unanimity’”. This meant negative not personnel. The field missionaries insist that they are not under the accepting “nothing less than ‘unanim- In these examples from the New authority of the home structures, ity’ between [the China Council] and Testament we may see at work some of but rather that they are under the London in reaching conclusions.” the same dynamics we see in later mis- authority of their field-based mis- This was seen then (and is still seen in sions history. In the historical examples sion structures. the OMF today) as an opportunity to we have reviewed—Patrick and the Celtic (6) The effectiveness of the mission is “respect one another’s views, and accept peregrini (18:2), Ricci and the Jesuits in badly hurt by the conflict, as is the morale of its members. In some them under the influence of the Holy China (18:3), Carey and the Serampore cases (Taylor, Patrick) the work Spirit. Therefore any impasse was an Trio (18:3), Hudson Taylor and the is able to continue to be effective indication for ‘waiting upon God’” (Ibid., CIM—we can see the same interper- after recovering from the damage p. 184). While many in the OMF today sonal dynamics being repeated again and done by a painful and time-con- is first conflict emerged when a minority of younger missionaries in (100 years later) view this principle as again. In each of these examples we can suming struggle. In other cases (the Jesuits) the entire work is a spiritual strength of the organization, see a common pattern at work. Not all destroyed by well-intended deci- culture shock refused to follow his rules about wearing Chinese clothing some other mission leaders view this elements of the pattern are present in sions made by the home base. unanimity-principle as OMF’s chief every case, but the pattern as a whole can Let us consider, in summary, the ways in and adapting to Chinese culture. structural weakness, as it occasionally be seen. Here are some of the elements of which some of these dynamics are illus- makes it impossible to make a major the pattern we have seen: H trated in the historical examples which decision without the unanimous consent (1) The first pioneer missionaries to we have considered: of numerous Councils (home and field) bring the Gospel to an unreached all over the world. area are field-governed and, when Patrick’s mission in Ireland was clearly challenged, insist strongly that field-governed, despite repeated criti- Conclusion to the Series they are not under the author- cism of his person and his work from In our New Testament study in the first ity of the home base from which church leaders in his home country. The section of this paper (see 18:2) we they have come. This does not IJFM mean that they reject all author- Canons of St. Patrick seem to provide saw that the Pauline apostolic band in ity: rather, they establish authority evidence that he encountered problems Scripture was a field-governed, ecclesi- structures of mutual account- with younger missionaries who were less ally-legitimate mission structure. This ability on the field. They strongly sensitive than he to Irish culture, and that structure saw itself as accountable to the emphasize adapting to the indig- he insisted that the leadership in Ireland home base, especially where financial enous culture of the people they evangelize. should have veto authority over mission- transparency was concerned, but it did (2) Later, when less-experienced ary personnel being sent from Britain. not see itself as being under the deci- people come from the home base, A delegation from the British hierarchy sion-making authority of the home base. often experiencing culture shock, summoned Patrick to come to Britain to Decision-making authority resided on the some of these people are critical answer charges being made against him, field in the mutually accountable author- of the more-experienced pioneers but he politely refused to come. This ity structure of the missionary teams. and of their methods and cultural adaptation. This disgruntled conflict was deeply painful to him—more These teams saw their purpose as being group (usually a minority) of field painful than repeated imprisonments, the planting of local congregations, and personnel appeal “over the heads” murder attempts and the like. they drew their personnel (and occasion- of the senior field missionaries to ally finances) from local congregations, the sending structures at the home The early Celtic peregrini were perhaps but they were not themselves a local base. the purest example in history of a totally congregation, nor were they under the (3) This home base then seeks to field-governed mission, since they cut authority of any local congregation. Paul assert its authority over the field off all ties to their home bases in Ireland, personnel. Scotland and Britain. This gave them related to the Antioch church as a home (4) Sometimes the first generation of base to which he regularly reported, but more flexibility in cultural adaptation, leaders who direct such home-base so that they were effective in recruiting the Antioch church did not mediate his structures are godly, field-sensitive missionary call, nor did it authoritatively people (Ingoli, Fuller, Berger). But and training large numbers of indig- commission him as a missionary, nor did it is inherent in their geographical enous clergy with whom they worked as location that their successors tend equals. They established strong authority it seek to direct his teams’ activities on to be less field-sensitive and to the field. Indeed the local congregation at structures of mutual accountability within have less humility about their own their monastic communities on the field. Antioch was a product of the missionary authority. Thus, to create a home- labors of Paul and Barnabas. governance structure, even if it is In the early years these Celtic peregrini

International Journal of Frontier Missions 18:4 Winter 2001 208 Field-Governed Mission Structures Part V: Hudson Taylor and the China Inland Mission 209 also declined to submit to the Romanized in Britain had died and a successor had Church of the East and the story of the bishops who claimed nominal authority taken his place, this home base began American Presbyterian Board of Foreign over the regions in which the missionar- to assert administrative control over the Missions. ies worked (though the peregrini did not work in India, for example assigning new The medieval “Nestorian” missions, one deny the authority of the pope, whom personnel (Pearce) to specific tasks and of the great missionary movements in they saw as an ally against hypocritical deciding who should share living quarters history, which once spanned all of Asia bishops). This led to conflict, but gradu- with whom. This led to a protracted from Syria to China, eventually collapsed ally over the course of a few centuries the and painful conflict which greatly hurt completely, leaving behind almost no Celtic mission structures were absorbed the effectiveness and the morale of the trace of surviving indigenous churches by the Roman diocesan hierarchical missionaries. In the end Carey’s team was in Central or East Asia. Several factors structure. Along with this structural allowed to continue their work, but they combined together to bring about this absorption the missionary vitality of the lost ultimate control of the mission and collapse, but one of the important fac- Celtic movement was also lost. of most of the institutions which they tors was clearly the conviction of these had founded in India. Matteo Ricci’s pioneer mission in China Syriac-speaking missionaries that the strongly emphasized deep understand- Hudson Taylor saw field-governance as language of their homeland (a dialect ing of Chinese language, culture and one of the central principles on which of Aramaic), since it was the language thought, and it was phenomenally he founded the CIM. His first conflict Jesus himself had spoken, was the only is first conflict emerged when a minority of younger missionaries in culture shock refused to follow his rules about wearing Chinese clothing Hand adapting to Chinese culture. successful. Though the Jesuits of course emerged when a minority of younger language in which mission work should acknowledged the authority of the pope, missionaries in culture shock refused to be carried out. This inevitably caused a in practice the Vatican had no adminis- follow his rules about wearing Chinese centralization of control of the mission trative machinery in Rome during the clothing and adapting to Chinese culture. by people in the West Asian homelands early years to exercise tight control of the The first-generation leader in the home of the Syriac language. The churches work in China, and decisions were made base in London (William Berger) sup- which they established in Central and through mutual accountability on the ported Taylor, but Taylor came into sharp East Asia tended to be perceived by their field. Some later missionaries, especially conflict with Berger’s successor Benjamin neighbors as foreign implants. Dominicans, who did not understand Broomhall and with the London The story of the American Presbyterian the Chinese language or culture as Ricci Council, which gradually asserted its Board of Foreign Missions also illustrates had, were critical of his methods. They authority more and more strongly. Taylor the pattern. This mission was not started appealed over the Jesuits’ heads to the insisted on the authority of the China by the denominational hierarchy, but newly-formed Propaganda in Rome. Council, composed of field missionaries was started by people on the fringes of Even though the majority of missionar- in China, whereas the London Council the denominational structure. Gradually, ies in China (including the Franciscans insisted on their authority. Despite however, over the course of 150 years, the and Augustinians) ultimately supported the best of motives on both sidesSee, central denominational machinery took Ricci’s methods, Rome ruled against tremendous amounts of time, energy over control of the mission, and decision- them. The consequence of a century of and emotional hurt were wasted by this making authority was shifted from the conflict and of misguided decisions by conflict, and the mission repeatedly very fields to the denominational headquarters Rome was the nearly total collapse of the close to being completely destroyed by in the U.S.A. The 20th-century doctrinal Church in China in the latter half of the this constitutional crisis. In the end, confusion in many Presbyterian churches 18th century. Hudson Taylor’s diplomatic skills and is not sufficient by itself to explain the Benjamin Broomhall’s commitment to Carey and the Serampore Trio estab- dramatic numerical decline of this mis- the relationship saved the day, and this lished an effective mission, with a system sion during the twentieth century—a conflict was able to be resolved more of mutual accountability on the field. period when the number of Presbyterian constructively than had been possible for Later new, younger missionaries who missionaries going to the field with Carey in India or the Jesuits in China. did not have Carey’s understanding interdenominational mission agencies of Indian languages and cultures criti- We believe that many other examples strongly increased. The rate of decline cized the Serampore Trio to the home could be cited which would illustrate this in PCUSA denominational missionaries base in Britain. This reinforced criti- same pattern at work. As we mentioned has been almost as rapid as the collapse cisms already being voiced in London in the Introduction of this paper, we hope of the Jesuit work in China in the 18th and false accusations that Carey was in the future to add other examples, century. There is one big difference, enriching himself financially. Once the including sections recounting the story however, between the 18th-century Jesuits first-generation leader of the home-base of the “Nestorian” missionaries of the and the 20th-century Presbyterians: the

International Journal of Frontier Missions 18:4 Winter 2001 210 Field-Governed Mission Structures Part V: Hudson Taylor and the China Inland Mission 211 Presbyterians had translated the Bible Beda Venerabilis (the Venerable Bede) Dales, Douglas and had trained and ordained large 1849 The Ecclesiastical History of England. 1997 Light to the Isles: Missionary Theology J. A. Giles (ed.). London: Henry in Celtic and Anglo Saxon Britain. numbers of indigenous clergy in nations Cambridge: Lutterworth Press. around the world. The churches thus led G. Bohn. Volume also contains The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. De Saint-Priest, Count Alexis and thus taught are continuing to grow Berkhof, Louis 1845 History of the Fall of the Jesuits. today. 1941 Systematic Theology. 4th edi- London: John Murray. We hope that the foregoing has shown tion. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Eusebius of Caesarea that it is indeed true that those who Publishing. 1989 The History of the Church. Blass, F. and Debrunner, A. G.A.Williamson and Andrew do not study history are condemned to Louth (transl.). London: Penguin repeat it. There are important lessons to 1961 A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Books. be learned from these experiences of the Literature. Chicago: University of Frizen, Edwin L., Jr. past. We hope that our generation will Chicago Press. 1992 75 Years of IFMA: 1917-1992: learn them. IJFM Bosch, David The Nondenominational Missions 1978 “The Why and How of a True Biblical Movement. Pasadena: William Endnote Foundation for Mission”, article Carey Library. 1 in Zending Op Weg Naar De George, Timothy It was Ralph Winter who first called Toekomst, J.D.Gort (ed.). Kampen: 1998 Faithful Witness: The Life and our attention to the importance of this issue J. H. Kok. Mission of William Carey. Christian in both William Carey’s and Hudson Taylor’s Broomhall, A.J. History Institute. lives. As will be seen, we are admittedly 1985 Refiner’s Fire, Book V of Hudson Glasser, Arthur F. heavily dependent also upon A.J. Broomhall’s Taylor and China’s Open Century. 1976 “The Missionary Task: An encyclopedic 7-book biography of Taylor. It London: Overseas Missionary Introduction”, article in Perspectives should be noted that Broomhall’s historio- Fellowship. on the World Christian Movement: graphical approach, based on impressively 1988 Assault on the Nine, Book VI of A Reader, 2nd ed. Ralph D. thorough examination of the vast record Hudson Taylor and China’s Open Winter and Steven C. Hawthorne Century. London: Overseas (eds.). Pasadena: William Carey of letters and personal diaries, is to put the Missionary Fellowship. Library, 1992. Reprinted from reader into direct contact with extensive 1989 It is not Death to Die!, Book VII Crucial Dimensions in World excerpts from the primary sources, with of Hudson Taylor and China’s Evangelization, Arthur Glasser, minimal editorial comment. This leaves wide Open Century. London: Overseas et al., Pasadena: William Carey freedom to the reader to interpret the signifi- Missionary Fellowship. Library, 1976. cance of the events recorded in letters and Bruce, F.F. 1989 Kingdom and Mission. Pasadena: diaries. Thus, to read these seven volumes is 1972 New Testament History. New York: Fuller Theological Seminary School close to being a direct review of the extensive Anchor Books. of World Mission. and diverse primary literature. The objectivity 1977 Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Gort, J.D. Free. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1979 “The Contours of the Reformed of A. J. Broomhall’s reporting of the tensions Publishing. Understanding of Christian between China and London is all the more 1988 The Book of the Acts. Revised edi- Mission,” Mission Focus, Vol. 7, No. impressive when one considers that it was tion. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 3, September 1979. Elkhart, Indiana: Benjamin Broomhall in London who was Publishing. Mennonite Board of Missions. often on the opposite side of the debate from 1990 The Acts of the Apostles: The Gougaud, Dom Louis Taylor. In this article, the reader will need to Greek Text with Introduction 1932 Christianity in Celtic Lands. Maud distinguish carefully between A. J. Broomhall and Commentary. Third revised Joynt (transl.). London: Sheed & the 20th-century biographer and Benjamin and enlarged edition. Leicester: Ward. Apollos. Broomhall the 19th-century Secretary of the Green, Michael Bushell, Michael CIM’s London Council. 1979 Evangelism: Now & Then. Downers 1995 Bible Works for Windows 3.1. I am Grove: InterVarsity Press. indebted to this software program Haenchen, D. Ernst Bibliography for much of the Greek word-study 1968 Die Apostelgeschichte: Neu Addison, James Thayer in this paper, as well as for the Übersetzt und Erklärt. Göttingen: 1936 Greek fonts used. The Medieval Missionary: A Study Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. of the Conversion of Northern Cahill, Thomas Hanson, R. P. C. Europe A.D. 500-1300. New York: 1995 How the Irish Saved Civilization. 1968 Saint Patrick: His Origins and Career. International Missionary Council. New York: Doubleday. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Allen, Roland Catechism of the Catholic Church Hay, Alexander Rattray 1962 The Spontaneous Expansion of the 1994 Vatican City: Libreria Editrice 1947 The New Testament Order for Church Church. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Vaticana. and Missionary. Winston Salem: Eerdmans. Chadwick, Henry Bauer, Walter New Testament Missionary Union. 1967 The Early Church. London: Penguin Hemer, Colin J. 1979 A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Books. 1989 The Book of Acts in the Setting of Testament. Edited, adapted and Chapin, Jack revised by William F. Arndt, F. Hellenistic History. Tübingen: Mohr. 1998 “Local Church and Mission Agency Hollis, Christopher Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick – What is the Best Relationship?” 1968 The Jesuits: A History. New York: W. Danker. Chicago: University of in Pasadena: Mission Frontiers. The MacMillan Company. Chicago Press. USCWM, Jan-Feb 1998.

International Journal of Frontier Missions 18:4 Winter 2001 210 Field-Governed Mission Structures Part V: Hudson Taylor and the China Inland Mission 211

Hood, A. B. E. (ed. and transl.) Greek. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Story, Cullen I.K. and Story, J. Lyle 1978 St. Patrick: His Writings and Nee, Watchman 1979 Greek to Me. San Francisco: Harper Muirchu’s Life. London: Phillimore 1980 [1939] The Normal Christian & Row. & Co. Church Life. Anaheim: Living Sundkler, Bengt Horton, Stanley M. Stream Ministry. 1965 The World of Mission. Grand 1976 What the Bible Says about the Holy Neill, Stephen Rapids: Eerdmans. Spirit. Springfield, MO: Gospel 1986 A History of Christian Missions Taylor, Dr. & Mrs. Howard Publishing House. (second edition). London: Penguin 1919 God’s Man in China: Hudson 1981 The Book of Acts. Springfield: Books. Taylor and the China Inland Gospel Publishing House. Packer, J. W. Mission. London. Hengel, Martin 1966 Acts of the Apostles. Cambridge: Theißen, Gerd 1979 Acts and the History of Earliest Cambridge University Press. 1979 Studien zur Soziologie des Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress Patrick of Ireland (Patricius Hiberniae) Urchristentums. Tübingen: J.C.B. Press. “Epistola ad Coroticum,” in Patrologia Mohr. Joyce, Timothy, O.S.B. Latina Database, on internet Walker, F. Deaville 1998 Celtic Christianity. Maryknoll: at http://www.library.yale.edu/ 1960 William Carey: Missionary Pioneer Orbis Books. pubstation/databases/patrologia.html. and Statesman. Chicago: Moody Latourette, Kenneth Scott “Confessio,”in Patrologia Latina Press. 1929 A History of Christian Missions in Database, on internet at http: Webster, Warren W. China. New York: The MacMillan //www.library.yale.edu/pubstation/ 1991 “The Messenger and Mission Company. databases/patrologia.html. Structures,” in Perspectives on 1944 A History of the Expansion of “The Confession of St. Patrick” and the World Christian Movement. Christianity, Vol. 6. Grand Rapids: “Letter to Coroticus,” translated by Ralph D. Winter and Steven Zondervan Publishing House. Ludwig Bieler, on internet at http: C. Hawthorne (eds.). Pasadena: 1947 The Chinese: Their History //www.ccel.org/p/patrick/confession/ William Carey Library. and Culture. New York: The confession.html. Winter, Ralph D. Note: A. B. E. Hood’s Latin edition and MacMillan Company. 1974 “The Two Structures of God’s 1975 (revised translation of Patrick’s Confessio A History of Christianity Redemptive Mission,” Missiology: ed. – additional material by Ralph and Epistola ad Coroticum is An International Review, Vol. II, Winter). New York: Harper and listed under Hood’s name in this bibliography. No. 1, pp. 121-139. Row. 1978 “Ghana: Preparation for Marriage,” MacDonald, Gordon Peters, George in International Review of Mission, 1982 “The Sending Church,” in 1972 A Biblical Theology of Missions. vol. LXVII, no. 267, July 1978. Confessing Christ as Lord: The Chicago: Moody Press. Geneva: WCC. Urbana 81 Compendium. John Pierson, Paul 1990 “How to Run a Mission Society”, Alexander (ed.). Downers Grove: 1982 Themes from Acts. Ventura, CA: article in Perspectives on the World InterVarsity Press. Regal Books. Christian Movement – Study Guide MacPherson, Hector 1989 Course lectures in “The Historical (Steven Hawthorne and Ralph 1914 The Jesuits in History. Edinburgh: Development of the Christian Winter, eds.). Pasadena: William MacNiven and Wallace. Movement” (cassette tapes avail- Carey Library, 1991 (date of Marshall, I. Howard able through Fuller Theological article: 1990). 1981 The Acts of the Apostles: An Seminary In-Service Program). 1992 “The Kingdom Strikes Back: Introduction and Commentary. Piper, John The Ten Epochs of Redemptive Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1994 Let the Nations Be Glad (British History”, article in Perspectives on McNeill, John T. ed.). London: InterVarsity Press. the World Christian Movement: A Ralph D. Winter 1974 The Celtic Churches: A History, A.D. Pollock, J.C. Reader, 2nd ed. and Steven C. Hawthorne (eds.). 200 to 1200. Chicago: University 1962 Hudson Taylor and Maria. London. of Chicago Press. Pasadena: William Carey Library, Rowbotham, Arnold H. 1992. Mellis, Charles J. 1966 Missionary and Mandarin. New 1992 “William Carey’s Major Novelty,” 1976 Committed Communities: Fresh York: Russell & Russell. in Missiology: An International Streams for World Missions. Smith, A. Christopher Review. (January 1992). Pasadena: William Carey Library. 1990 “The Edinburgh Connection: 1997 “Four Men, Three Eras”, Mission Metcalf, Samuel F. Between the Serampore Mission Frontiers, Nov-Dec 1997. Pasadena: 1993 “When Local Churches Act Like and Western Missiology,” in USCWM. Agencies,” in Mission Frontiers. Missiology: An International Pasadena: U.S. Center for World Review. (April 1990) Mission, July-Aug 1993. Speer, Robert. Miller, Basil 1933 “Rethinking Missions” Examined: 1952 William Carey: The Father of An Attempt at a Just Review of the Modern Missions. Grand Rapids: Report of the Appraisal Commission Zondervan. of the Laymen’s Foreign Mission Moffett, Samuel Hugh Inquiry. New York: Fleming H. 1991 A History of Christianity in Asia. Revell. San Francisco: Harper Collins. Stedman, Roy C. Moulton, James Hope 1995 The Strategy of the Spirit. Palo Alto: 1963 A Grammar of New Testament Discovery Publishing.

International Journal of Frontier Missions 18:4 Winter 2001