Christian Encounters with Chinese Culture: Essays on Anglican and Episcopal History in China (Sheng Kung Hui: Historical Studies of Anglican Christianity in China) 9789888208388, 9888208381

Table of contents :
Series page
Contents
Series Introduction
Contributors
Illustrations
Foreword
Acknowledgments
Abbreviations
Introduction
Society, Education, and Culture
1. The Protestant Episcopal China Mission and Chinese Society
2. Female Education and the Early Development of St. Stephen’s Church, Hong Kong (1865–1900s)
3. R. O. Hall and the Christian Study Centre on Chinese Religion
The Prayer Book
4. Rethinking Church through the Book of Common Prayer in Late Qing and Early Republican China
5. An Analysis of the Compilation and Writing of the Book of Common Prayer in the Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui
Parishes
6. Christianity and Chinese Nationalism
7. Contextualization and the Chinese Anglican Parish
Theology
8. Bei Zhao Nan Wei
9. T. C. Chao and the Sheng Kung Hui
Appendix 1. The Succession of Anglican and Episcopal Bishops in China, 1844–2014
Appendix 2. Timeline of Anglican-Episcopal History in China
Selected Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

15mm

5mm

146mm

12mm

18.5mm

12mm

146mm

5mm

15mm

15mm 5mm

Sheng Kung Hui: Historical Studies of Anglican Christianity in China

“This is one of the finest books on Christianity and Chinese culture to have emerged in recent years. Philip Wickeri has done the almost-impossible, and assembled an outstanding, world-class team of scholars to write on Anglican and Episcopal history in China, with essays focusing on education, liturgy, ministry, ecclesiology and theology. This is a timely, important book—and one that will re-shape the way we understand the place of Anglican and Episcopal churches in the past, present and future.” —Martyn Percy, dean of Christ Church, Oxford, UK “This pioneering study provides new knowledge of local parishes, translation of liturgy, as well as mission and theology of Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui. Comprehensive in scope and original in using new resources, it will stimulate new scholarship in the study of Christianity in China.” —Kwok Pui-lan, author of Chinese Women and Christianity, 1860–1927 “The essays included in this important volume offer a refreshingly realistic image of the Christian missionary enterprise and its interaction with Chinese culture and society. The contributors present new angles of interpretation, with more informed and nuanced accounts of the complexities and contradictions that shaped the encounter of one particular strand of Western Christianity and Chinese culture during a turbulent century of change.” —R. G. Tiedemann, professor of Chinese history, Shandong University, China

History / Religion / China

Cover image: Shanghai clergy, circa 1885. Courtesy of Special Collections, Yale Divinity School Library.

Edited by

Philip L. Wickeri

Edited by

Philip L. Wickeri is advisor to the archbishop on theological and historical studies, professor of the history of Christianity at Ming Hua Theological College, and archivist for the Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui.

Essays on Anglican and Episcopal History in China

Philip L. Wickeri

Historical topics range from macro to micro levels, beginning with an introductory overview of the Anglican and Episcopal tradition in China. Topics include how the church became embedded in Chinese social and cultural life, the many ways women’s contributions to education built the foundations for strong parishes, and Bishop R. O. Hall’s attentiveness to culture for the life of the church in Hong Kong. Two chapters explore how broader historical themes played out at the parish level—St. Peter’s Church in Shanghai during the War against Japan and St. Mary’s Church in Hong Kong during its first three decades. Chapters looking at the Chinese Prayer Book bring an innovative theological perspective to the discussion, especially how the inability to produce a single prayer book affected the development of the Chinese church. Finally, the tension between theological thought and Chinese culture in the work of Francis C. M. Wei and T. C. Chao is examined.

Christian Encounters with Chinese Culture

235mm

Written by a team of internationally recognized scholars, Christian Encounters with Chinese Culture focuses on a church tradition that has never been very large in China but that has had considerable social and religious influence. Themes of the book include questions of church, society and education, the Prayer Book in Chinese, parish histories, and theology. Taken together, the nine chapters and the introduction offer a comprehensive assessment of the Anglican experience in China and its missionary background.

Christian Encounters with Chinese Culture

Christian Encounters with Chinese Culture

Printed and bound in Hong Kong, China

5mm

15mm

Wickeri_hc.indd 1

13/04/2015 10:06 AM

Christian Encounters with Chinese Culture

Sheng Kung Hui: Historical Studies of Anglican Christianity in China Series Editor: Philip L. Wickeri The Anglican (and Episcopal) tradition has been present in China for almost two hundred years. The purpose of this series is to publish scholarly, wellresearched, and authoritative volumes on the history of the Sheng Kung Hui (“Holy Catholic Church”), with an emphasis on its life and work in Chinese society. Sponsored by the Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui, separate volumes in this series will include studies of particular people and institutions, as well as studies of the broader intellectual and social significance of Anglican involvement in Chinese history. Also in the series: Imperial to International: A History of St. John’s Cathedral, Hong Kong Stuart Wolfendale

Christian Encounters with Chinese Culture

Essays on Anglican and Episcopal History in China

Edited by Philip L. Wickeri

Hong Kong University Press The University of Hong Kong Pokfulam Road Hong Kong www.hkupress.org © 2015 Hong Kong University Press ISBN 978-988-8208-38-8 (Hardback) All rights reserved. No portion of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publisher. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Printed and bound by Paramount Printing Co., Ltd., Hong Kong, China

Contents

Series Introduction Philip L. WICKERI

vii

List of Contributors

ix

List of Illustrations

xi

Foreword xiii Paul KWONG Acknowledgments xv Abbreviations xvii Introduction 1 Philip L. WICKERI Society, Education, and Culture Chapter 1  The Protestant Episcopal China Mission and Chinese Society 25 Edward Yihua XU Chapter 2  Female Education and the Early Development of St. Stephen’s Church, Hong Kong (1865–1900s) 47 Patricia P. K. CHIU Chapter 3  R. O. Hall and the Christian Study Centre on Chinese Religion 65 Fuk-tsang YING The Prayer Book Chapter 4  Rethinking Church through the Book of Common Prayer in Late Qing and Early Republican China Chloë STARR Chapter 5  An Analysis of the Compilation and Writing of the Book of Common Prayer in the Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui Feng GUO Parishes Chapter 6  Christianity and Chinese Nationalism: St. Peter’s Church in Shanghai during the War against Japan Qi DUAN

81

103

119

vi Contents

Chapter 7  Contextualization and the Chinese Anglican Parish: A Case Study of St. Mary’s Church, Hong Kong (1912–41) Philip L. WICKERI and Ruiwen CHEN Theology Chapter 8  Bei Zhao Nan Wei: A Study of Two Chinese Anglican Theologians in Republican China Peter Tze Ming NG Chapter 9  T. C. Chao and the Sheng Kung Hui: With Particular Emphasis on Theology, as Exemplified by His Later Soteriology Yongtao CHEN

135

155

169

Appendix 1: The Succession of Anglican and Episcopal Bishops in China, 1844–2014

193

Appendix 2: Timeline of Anglican-Episcopal History in China

209

Selected Bibliography

215

Index

223

Series Introduction Sheng Kung Hui: Historical Studies of Anglican Christianity in China The purpose of the series Sheng Kung Hui: Historical Studies of Anglican Christianity in China is to publish well-researched and authoritative volumes on the history of Anglican-Episcopal Christianity as a contribution to the intellectual, cultural, and religious history of modern China. With an in-depth focus on one particular denominational tradition, which has been in China for almost two hundred years, the series presents an interdisciplinary perspective that will also contribute to the history of Christianity in China. The emphasis throughout is on the life and work of the Church in society. Individual volumes are written for an educated audience and a general readership, with some titles more academic in character and others of more general interest. The spirit of Anglicanism is expressed by the Chinese term Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui, meaning the “Holy Catholic Church of China,” the national church that was founded in Shanghai in 1912 and the first non-Roman church body in China. Anglicans stand between Protestants and Catholics in their approaches to Christian tradition and church order, but they are usually regarded as part of the Protestant movement in China. Since the nineteenth century, the Sheng Kung Hui has been involved in a wide range of educational, medical, and social welfare work alongside efforts to spread the Christian message and establish the Church. In the first decades of the twentieth century, Chinese Sheng Kung Hui leaders began taking the lead. The Sheng Kung Hui has also played an important role in cultural exchange between China and the West. Co-published by Hong Kong University Press and the Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui (Anglican Church), the first volume in the series was Stuart Wolfendale’s Imperial to International: A History of St. John’s Cathedral, Hong Kong (2013). Subsequent volumes will include biographical studies, essays on Anglican women’s histories, and historical photographs. It is hoped that the series will encourage further dialogue on the place of Christianity in the history of modern China. Philip L. Wickeri, PhD, DD Series Editor

Contributors

Ruiwen CHEN is a research associate at the Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui Archives. She completed her PhD in religious studies at the Chinese University of Hong Kong in 2014. Her book Fragrant Flowers Bloom: T. C. Chao, Bliss Wiant and the Contextualization of Hymns in Twentieth Century China will be published later this year. Yongtao CHEN teaches at Nanjing Union Theological Seminary and has written extensively on Chinese theology. He completed his PhD at the Theology Faculty of the University of Helsinki in 2014. His dissertation is entitled “Chinese Christ: The Christology of T. C. Chao.” Patricia P. K. CHIU is an honorary institute fellow at the Hong Kong Institute for the Humanities and Social Sciences of the University of Hong Kong. Her most recent book is A History of the Grant Schools Council: Mission, Vision and Transformation (2013), which documents the history of Hong Kong’s first schools council, representing twenty-two mission and denominational schools. Qi DUAN is a researcher at the Institute of Religious Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing. She has published many books and articles on the history of Christianity in modern China. Her book The Struggle Forward: The Indigenization of Christianity in China (2004, in Chinese) is a widely used study of the history of indigenization. Feng GUO is a pastor at Community Church in Shanghai. He is also the associate general secretary of the Shanghai Christian Council and Christian ThreeSelf Patriotic Movement Committee. He is interested in the study of the Book of Common Prayer, liturgy, and the history of Christianity in China. Peter Tze Ming NG (PhD, University of London) served as professor of religious education at the Chinese University of Hong Kong for twenty-three years. He chaired the North East Asian Council for the Study of History of Christianity (2007–9). His most recent book is Chinese Christianity: An Interplay between Global and Local Perspectives (2012). Chloë STARR is associate professor of Asian Christianity and theology at Yale University Divinity School. She is currently completing a volume on Chinese intellectual Christianity and an anthology of translations of Chinese theology. She has edited a number of conference volumes and is the author of Red-Light Novels of the Late Qing (2007).

x Contributors

Philip L. WICKERI is advisor to the archbishop on historical and theological studies, Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui. He teaches at Ming Hua Theological College, Hong Kong, and the Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley, USA. His most recent book is Reconstructing Christianity in China: K. H. Ting and the Chinese Church (2007). Edward Yihua XU is a professor and director of the Department of International Politics, Fudan University, Shanghai. He is the author of numerous books and scholarly articles, including Religion and Contemporary International Relations (2012, in Chinese), and Religion in American Politics and Diplomacy in the Post–Cold War Era (2014, in Chinese). Fuk-tsang YING is the director of the Divinity School of Chung Chi College and of the Christian Study Centre on Chinese Religion and Culture, the Chinese University of Hong Kong. He writes widely on the history of Christianity in China. Recent publications include  “The CPC’s Policy on Protestant Christianity, 1949–1957: An Overview and Assessment” in Journal of Contemporary China 23: 89 (Sept. 2014) and Christianity’s Failure in China? Essays on the History of Chinese Communist Movement and Christianity (2012, in Chinese).

Illustrations

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

10.

11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

Lithograph of Huang Guangcai (1824–86). Courtesy of the Reference Library, General Theological Seminary. 4 Map of China showing Diocese of Victoria and other dioceses (1921). Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui Archives. 8 Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui, First General Synod, April 1912. Courtesy of Special Collections, Yale Divinity School Library. 10 St. John’s Pro-Cathedral, Shanghai, circa 1940. Courtesy of the Episcopal Church Archives. 11 Bishop Frederick R. Graves (1858–1940). Courtesy of Special Collections, Yale Divinity School Library. 12 St. John’s University Memorial Arch with Social Hall in background. Courtesy of Special Collections, Yale Divinity School Library. 14 Lydia Mary Fay (1804–78). Courtesy of Special Collections, Yale Divinity School Library. 26 General map of China showing CHSKH dioceses. Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui Archives. 31 Congregation of St. Stephen’s Church, Hong Kong, at the opening of the new church on Pokfulam Road, 1888. Courtesy of St. Stephen’s Church Archives. 50 A missionary lady and students of the Women’s School, St. Stephen’s Church, Hong Kong. Courtesy of St. Stephen’s Church Archives. 59 Bishop R. O. Hall (1895–1975), circa 1932. Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui Archives. 65 Christ Temple. Courtesy of Tao Fong Shan Christian Centre. 67 Bishop Samuel Isaac Joseph Schereschewsky (1831–1906). Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui Archives. 83 Bishop John Shaw Burdon (1826–1907). Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui Archives. 83 The first full Chinese translation of the Book of Common Prayer, Peking, 1872. Hong Kong Sheng Kung Kui Archives. 88 The first Prayer Book published in Hong Kong, 1855. Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui Archives. 99 Bishop T. K. Shen (1895–1982). 111 Rev. Paul Huaren Pu (1887–1974). Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui Archives. 119

xii Illustrations

19. St. Peter’s Church, Shanghai, circa 1933. Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui Archives. 121 20. Bishop Yu Ensi (d. 1944). Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui Archives. 121 21. Interior of St. Mary’s Church, Hong Kong, 1924. Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui Archives. 139 22. Rev. Lee Kau Yan (1882–1962) and Hong Kong Chinese clergy, 1930. Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui Archives. 140 23. St. Mary’s Church, Hong Kong. Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui Archives. 147 24. Professor T. C. Chao (1888–1979), aged 44. 155 25. Professor Francis C. M. Wei (1888–1976). Courtesy of Special Collections, Yale Divinity School Library. 162 26. Calligraphy of Professor T. C. Chao, 1947. 180 27. Professor T. C. Chao with students, 1950. 189 28. Last photo of Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui House of Bishops, May 1956. Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui Archives. 195 29. Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui dioceses, circa 1947. Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui Archives. 213

Foreword

The Anglican and Episcopal tradition in China has never been very large, but it has made a distinctive contribution to the broader history of Christianity in our country. This tradition continues through the work of our church in Hong Kong and Macao, and through Anglican and Episcopal churches in the Chinese diaspora in Southeast Asia and around the world. Historically, Anglicans have embraced a via media between Protestant and Catholic understandings of the Western Christian tradition. In our life and thought, we rely on scripture, reason, and tradition, rather than confessions or doctrinal teachings. We are part of the Anglican Communion, unified through our relationship to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conferences, meetings of primates, and the Anglican Consultative Conference. There are tensions in Anglicanism today, and we can detect their sources as we look back on our common history, including the history on Chinese Anglicanism. We value our liturgy, where we can be high, low, or broad, liberal or conservative in approach. The Book of Common Prayer is important for us, but so too is its translation into different cultures. In mission, we like to bring together the church, education, medical work, and social service. Anglicans have different approaches to spirituality, but we are held together by a comprehensive Anglican sensibility that links us to the past and prepares us for future challenges. Christian Encounters with Chinese Culture: Essays on Anglican and Episcopal History in China is the first collection of historical essays to be published on Chinese Anglicanism in any language. It begins with a comprehensive historical introduction that interprets the Anglican encounter with Chinese culture. In the nine chapters that follow, individual authors approach our history through a variety of studies on church and society, education, biography, the Prayer Book, parish life, and theology. In Appendix 1, the book includes the first full listing of episcopal succession in Greater China. The photographs and maps in this volume, many of which come from our church archives and some of which are quite rare, add an important historical perspective in and of themselves. Some authors of the individual chapters are well-known scholars in their fields. Others are younger scholars with promising careers ahead of them. They include both Anglicans and non-Anglicans, and even non-Christians. All of the authors are from Greater China, or they have done substantial academic work here. This is not a book with a narrow confessional approach. We like to be very broad and open-minded in our approach to history, and I hope this volume exemplifies that. All of the chapters have been revised from papers presented

xiv Foreword

at our 2012 international academic conference on the occasion of the centennial celebration of the founding of the Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui, “Sheng Kung Hui—Learning from the Past, Looking to the Future: Anglican-Episcopal History in China and Its Impact on the Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui.” This was the first Protestant or non-Roman Church in China, and we chose to celebrate it with an academic gathering. In writing about the history of the Anglican and Episcopal tradition in China, our interest is not to promote this tradition above all others. We realize that we have a great deal to learn from other churches and traditions. There is no longer an Anglican Church in Mainland China, and we do not wish to promote Anglicanism on the Mainland. But as part of Christianity in Greater China, we believe that we have something to share in our approach to Christian faith. The chapters in this book give evidence of that. I urge scholars, church members, and the broader community to read this book carefully. You should begin with the introduction, which offers a concise overview of our history, and then turn to the maps and photographs. But move from there to the chapters that strike your interest. They will help you to reflect on both history and its significance for today. Christian Encounters with Chinese Culture: Essays on Anglican and Episcopal History in China is the first book on Christianity in China that surveys one particular denominational tradition. As such, the publication of this book is itself history making. Paul Kwong Archbishop of Hong Kong Advent 2014

Acknowledgments

My thanks go out to the many people who helped with the editing and preparation of the book that lies before you. Foremost among these is Archbishop Paul Kwong, who has graced us by writing a foreword. Without his support and encouragement, and that of the offices of the Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui, this book could not have been written. The chapters in this book were presented in earlier versions at a conference held to observe the centenary anniversary of the founding of the Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui. The conference was entitled “Learning from the Past, Looking to the Future: Anglican-Episcopal History in China and Its Impact on the Church Today” (Hong Kong, June 7–9, 2012). More than thirty papers were presented at this conference on various aspects of Anglican-Episcopal history in China. I would like to thank all the authors, participants, and staff who made this gathering possible. All of the chapters in this volume have been substantially revised. Six have been translated into English. I also wish to thank Brian O’Keefe for his translation of Chapter 6, and Janice K. Wickeri for her experienced editorial hand in editing Chapter 9. My colleagues at the Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui Archives have spent an enormous amount of time and energy in preparing this volume for publication. Katie Webb worked on many chapters at various stages, and she caught errors and infelicities in many places. Michelle Lin painstakingly prepared the maps, illustrations, and photographs for this book. In addition to her editing and translation work, Chen Ruiwen lent her expertise to correcting footnotes and preparation of the bibliography. Christopher Munn, Jessica Wang, Yuet Sang Leung, and other colleagues at Hong Kong University Press have been helpful at every stage of the writing and editing process. I would also like to thank the three anonymous reviewers who gave valuable suggestions on how the book could be improved. For permission to use photographs and other materials, I wish to thank the Shanghai Municipal Archives; St. Stephen’s Church and St. Mary’s Church of the Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui; the Tao Fong Shan Christian Centre; Martha Smalley, curator of Special Collections, Yale University Divinity School; Mark Duffy and Sarah Dana, Archives of the Episcopal Church; and Mary Robison, reference librarian at the Christoph Keller Jr. Library of the General Theological Seminary. Philip L. Wickeri

Abbreviations

ACM

American Church Mission (same as PECM)

BCP

Book of Common Prayer

CCC

China Christian Council

CCP

Chinese Communist Party

CEZMS

Church of England Zenana Mission Society

CHSKH

Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui (The Holy Catholic Church of China)

CMB

Christian Mission to Buddhists

CMS

Church Missionary Society

CSCCR

Christian Study Centre on Chinese Religion (and Culture)

DHO

Diocesan Home and Orphanage

DNFTS

Diocesan Native Females Training School

FES

Female Education Society (also known as Society for Promoting Female Education in the East)

HKSKH

Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui

IMC

International Missionary Council

KMT

Kuomintang (Nationalist Party)

LMS

London Missionary Society

NSKK

Nippon Seikokai (Anglican-Episcopal Church in Japan)

PECM

Protestant Episcopal Church Mission

PRC

People’s Republic of China

SPCK

Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge

SPFEE

Society for Promoting Female Education in the East (also known as Female Education Society)

SPG

The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts

TFSCI

Tao Fong Shan Christian Institute

TSPM

Three-Self Patriotic Movement of the Protestant Churches of China

USPG

United Society for the Propagation of the Gospel (formerly SPG)

WCC

World Council of Churches

YMCA

Young Men’s Christian Association

YWCA

Young Women’s Christian Association

Introduction Philip L. Wickeri

There have been a variety of Christian encounters with Chinese culture over the last fourteen hundred years, but in one way or another missionaries have always faced challenges establishing a Chinese church. Even as they attempted to accommodate to Chinese culture and engage in dialogue, they continued to be seen as propagating a foreign religion—sometimes strange, sometimes exotic, sometimes imposing, and at times simply ignored. The adaptability and otherness of Christianity became two poles in the Christian encounter with China, and these two poles have shaped our historical understanding of the relationship. East Syrian Christians from the Church of the East, the so-called Nestorians, went to China in the seventh century and again in the thirteenth century, but their churches did not survive. The same was true of the Franciscans, who were at first welcomed at the Yuan dynasty court and then forced out. Beginning in the late sixteenth century, Matteo Ricci and the Jesuits were successful in engaging in a dialogue with Chinese culture and in starting churches, but their efforts were cut short when, in the early eighteenth century, Pope Clement XI condemned the Chinese Rites Ricci introduced. Some years later, the Yongzheng emperor forbade the Catholic missionaries from continuing their religious work. Robert Morrison’s arrival in Macao in 1807 was the beginning of the Protestant mission to China. From then until the mid-twentieth century missionaries from many countries and denominations came to China to spread the Gospel. Chinese Christianity was both assisted and impeded by the forces of colonialism and empire. Missionaries started churches, schools and universities, hospitals, and social welfare projects. A Chinese church grew, and the missionaries facilitated cultural exchange on a variety of levels. By the 1920s, Chinese Christians began to assume positions of leadership in churches established by missionaries. Some indigenous churches also began to emerge. When the People’s Republic of China (PRC) was established in 1949, the missionaries were expelled but the churches continued under increasingly difficult circumstances. By the start of the Cultural Revolution in 1966, all churches had been closed, and Christians were persecuted and imprisoned. Still, some Christians continued to meet secretly.

2

Philip L. Wickeri

The situation changed dramatically with the beginning of the period of openness and reform in the late 1970s. Churches and informal Christian meeting points were now run entirely by the Chinese themselves, and they moved in new directions. Since then, there has been a renewal of Chinese Christianity and churches have been growing rapidly. Chinese intellectuals have been developing a deepening interest in the encounter between Christianity and Chinese culture, while people from all walks of life, young and old, rural and urban, women and men, have professed faith in Christ. All of this has heralded a new form of Sino-Christian encounter in which Christianity from the West has not been the most significant force. And yet the problems associated with the adaptability (or contextualization) and otherness (or foreignness) of Christianity have not gone away, although they have been expressed in different ways. Christian Encounters with Chinese Culture: Essays on Anglican and Episcopal History in China offers a perspective on the historical experience of one denomination. The Anglican-Episcopal tradition was never very large in China, but it is one that has had considerable social and religious influence. Although the Anglican-Episcopal encounter with Chinese culture was by no means unique or more important than other denominational traditions, it was characterized by the distinctive features of Anglicanism which differentiated it from other Protestant missions and churches on the one hand, and from the Roman Catholic experience in China, on the other. Historically, in England and all over the world, Anglicans have emphasized the catholicity of the church, communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury, acceptance of the historic episcopacy grounded in the apostolic succession, the value of human reason, and the importance of liturgical worship based on the Book of Common Prayer.1 It is a Reformation tradition but not entirely Protestant, a catholic tradition but by no means Roman. In the historical encounter between the Anglican-Episcopal tradition and Chinese culture there have been these distinctive emphases, all of which are illustrated in this volume. This book is part of the broader re-evaluation of the history of Christianity in China now underway in the academic world. The chapters have been written by scholars—historians, theologians, and educators—all of whom are experts in their fields. Some are senior scholars, others are just at the beginning of their careers. Individual chapters deal with subjects that were central to the Anglican-Episcopal experience in China, and each offers a perspective on the problems and possibilities of the Christian encounter with Chinese culture. The authors all focus on one particular denomination and tradition to contribute to the more general understanding of the Christian encounter with Chinese culture. 1. On the Anglican-Episcopal tradition, see Stephen Sykes and John Booty, eds., The Study of Anglicanism (London: SPCK; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988).

Introduction 3

An Historical Overview To set the stage for the chapters that follow, we begin with a brief overview of the Anglican-Episcopal tradition in China and the history and work of the Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui (Zhonghua shenggonghui, hereafter CHSKH). Robert Morrison and the other early Protestant missionaries came to China to preach the Christian message and establish churches. Morrison was employed as a translator by the East India Company and eventually settled in Macao. As a missionary, he pioneered in the translation of Christianity into the Chinese idiom.2 This was much more than a linguistic problem, for it had to do with the communication of the Christian gospel in a new religious and cultural context. One of the earliest Chinese terms for Christianity was shenggonghui (聖 公會), or “Holy Catholic Church.”3 This was consistent with what had been written in the early creeds, but in the end the transliterated term jidujiao (基 督教, the religion of Christ) was chosen instead. The Protestants wanted to differentiate themselves from the Roman Catholics who had been in China for a considerable time and were known for practicing the religion of the “Lord of Heaven” (tianzhujiao, 天主教). Individual Protestant churches and denominations also wanted to differentiate themselves from one another. By midcentury, the denominational names were fixed, and shenggonghui had become the accepted name for the church that British Anglican and American Episcopalian missionaries were trying to establish in China.4 The term was chosen because it expressed the catholic character of the Anglican and Episcopal tradition. The first Anglican priest in China was not a missionary but a chaplain attached to the British East India Company in Macao. He had been sent to serve the foreign community, and in 1821 he conducted the funeral for Morrison’s first wife, Mary.5 Morrison was a Presbyterian, not an Anglican, but 2. Christopher A. Daily, Robert Morrison and the Protestant Plan for China, Royal Asiatic Society Books (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2013). Also see Christopher Hancock, Robert Morrison and the Birth of Chinese Protestantism (London: T&T Clark, 2008). 3. The term shenggonghui ( 聖 公 會 ) was probably invented by Robert Morrison and his Chinese assistants. In his 1818 prayer book ( 年 中 每 日 早 晨 祈 禱 敘 式 , Daily Order of Morning Prayer throughout the Year [Malacca: Yinghua shuyuan, 1818]), he used the term 聖 公會 to describe the church community, and thereafter the term 聖公會 was used for a time to describe the Protestant community as a whole. 4. The best historical summary of Anglican-Episcopal work in China is G. F. S. Gray with Martha Lund Smalley, Anglicans in China: A History of the Zhonghua Shenggong Hui (Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui) (New Haven, CT: Episcopal China Mission History Project, 1996). This is an outline summary of a longer unpublished and undated manuscript entitled, “Anglicans in China: A History of the Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui,” by Gray, an Anglican missionary who worked in China beginning in the 1930s. 5. Henry Harding was the chaplain appointed in 1819. He was succeeded by George H. Vachell, who was succeeded in 1833 by Charles Wimberley, the last of the East India Company chaplains. See Lindsay and May Ride, An East India Company Cemetery: Protestant Burials in Macao (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1998), 234.

4

Philip L. Wickeri

denominational distinctions were not always emphasized in the small foreign community. Macao was the entry point for missionaries from Western churches and missionary societies in the early nineteenth century, just as it had been for the Roman Catholics who went to China in the late sixteenth century. The American Protestant Episcopal Church appointed its first two missionaries to China in 1835, and late that year they arrived in Canton (Guangzhou).6 However, they were unable to do any work in Canton or Macao, or even study Chinese, and so they relocated to Singapore, and later to Batavia, to work among overseas Chinese. In 1837, William Jones Boone (1811–64) was appointed missionary to Batavia by the Episcopal Church. In 1840, he moved to Macao and from there to Amoy (Xiamen) to set up the first base for the Episcopalians. In 1844, Boone was consecrated bishop of Amoy and other parts of China.7 He thus became the first bishop of China outside the Roman tradition. Together with several missionary colleagues and their families, all part of what became known as the American Church Mission (or the Protestant Episcopal China Mission, PECM), he settled in Shanghai the following year. Shanghai, like Amoy, was one of the treaty ports open to foreign missionaries after the signing of the Treaty of Nanjing (1842) ended the First Opium War. It soon became the base of most churches engaged in missionary work in China. Boone worked to start churches, contributed to the translation of the Bible and the Prayer Book, and began educational and simple medical services. He also ordained the first Chinese priest, Huang Guangcai (黃光彩, Wong Kong Chai, 1824–86), in 1851. From England, there was a separate Anglican-Episcopal missionary beginning. The Church Missionary Society (CMS, founded in 1799) had long been interested in evangelistic work in China. The CMS had contributed to the work of Karl Gutzlaff on the China coast, but it was only in 1836 that the first CMS missionary went to Singapore “and thence Figure 1  Lithograph of Huang to make journeys to Chinese ports as he Guangcai (1824–86), from Spirit of might find possible.”8 This exploration did Missions 49 (1884): 141–42, March not amount to much. And so, in the early 1884. Courtesy of the Reference 1840s, CMS missionaries George Smith Library, General Theological Seminary. 6. “The Mission to China: From the Missionaries, the Rev. Messrs Hanson and Lockwood,” The Spirit of Missions 1, no. 1 (January 1836): 79–81. 7. He was consecrated on October 26, 1844, in Philadelphia. See Gray, “Anglicans in China,” 10. 8. Eugene Stock, The History of the Church Missionary Society: Its Environment, Its Men and Its Work (London: Church Missionary Society, 1899), 1: 468.

Introduction 5

and Thomas McClatchie were sent out for an exploratory visit. They toured South China to look into the prospects for future work and eventually settled in Shanghai.9 Hong Kong became a British colony after the end of the First Opium War, and the territory was to have a special place in Chinese Anglican history. In 1843, Vincent Stanton was appointed colonial chaplain to Hong Kong. He had been in South China some years before, having gone out on his own because he was too young for missionary service. He was even imprisoned by the Chinese during this earlier stay. With his new appointment, he began to organize the church in Hong Kong and raise funds for St. John’s Cathedral and St. Paul’s College, both of which were opened in 1849.10 That same year the Diocese of Victoria was created by Royal Letters Patent, and George Smith was appointed the first bishop. His diocese included all of China plus Japan, notwithstanding the fact that the PECM was already well established in Shanghai. This was the largest Anglican diocese the world had ever seen. Although the Royal Letters Patent authorized the diocese to provide oversight and pastoral care to members of the Church of England only, George Smith and the CMS bishops and missionaries who followed him were very much interested in evangelism among the Chinese. CMS work had already begun in Foochow (Fuzhou), which would become an important center for Anglican work in China. The early bishops of Victoria spent much time in Fukien (Fujian), Kwangtung (Guangdong), and other parts of China conducting confirmations, visiting churches, and overseeing CMS missionary activity. Generally speaking, they got along well with American Episcopalians, and cooperated with one another when they could. The work of the PECM continued to develop in Shanghai and, beginning in 1868, in Wuchang (central China). Whereas the CMS had a “bottom-up” approach to mission work, emphasizing work with people at the grass roots, the PECM was more interested in training an elite. The first Bishop Boone had died in 1865, and his successor, Channing Moore Williams (1829–1910), was named bishop of both China and Japan. The PECM sent out many outstanding missionaries, many of whom were involved in education. Among these Lydia Mary Fay (1804–78), in addition to contributing to education, became an accomplished sinologist.11 The PECM ordained Chinese priests much more quickly than the CMS. Among the outstanding priests and Chinese intellectuals from this period was Yen Yun-ching (顔永京, Yan Yongjing, 1838–98). One of the first Chinese to study in the United States, Yen became a renowned 9. George Smith, A Narrative of an Exploratory Visit to Each of the Consular Cities of China and to the Islands of Hong Kong and Chusan in Behalf of the Church Missionary Society in the Years 1844, 1845, 1846, 2nd ed. (London: Seeley, Burnside and Seeley, 1847). 10. George B. Endacott and Dorothy E. She, The Diocese of Victoria, Hong Kong: A Hundred Years of Church History, 1849–1949 (Hong Kong: Kelly and Walsh, 1949), 1–14. 11. Ian Welch, “Lydia Mary Fay and the Episcopal Church Mission in China,” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 36, no. 1 (January 2012): 33–37.

6

Philip L. Wickeri

educator, translator, and advocate for social justice.12 He was also a cofounder and the first principal of St. John’s College in Shanghai (1879). The creative force behind that college was Samuel I. J. Schereschewsky (1831–1906), who became one of the most renowned missionaries of the nineteenth century. Schereschewsky was a Lithuanian Jew who became Christian after immigrating to the United States.13 He went to China in 1859, and soon moved to Peking (Beijing), where he was the first American missionary. There he began his language study. A gifted linguist, Schereschewsky helped translate the Bible and (with John Shaw Burdon, later the bishop of Victoria) the Book of Common Prayer (BCP) into Chinese. There were many versions of the BCP translated or partially translated in the nineteenth century, but the Schereschewsky-Burdon version of 1872 was the most widely used. Schereschewsky became the third PECM bishop of Shanghai in 1877. He strongly believed in mission through education, and the college he founded grew to become St. John’s University, one of the most outstanding Christian institutions of higher education in China.14 A few years later, Schereschewsky was paralyzed after he suffered a stroke and he then resigned his episcopacy. Following many years of treatment, he was able to continue his translation work, in later years typing with only one finger and keeping his many assistants busy well into the night. After China’s defeat by Anglo-French forces in the Second Opium War, the Western missionary presence in China increased significantly. The Church of England’s Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts (SPG) began work in North China in 1863. Charles Perry Scott (1847–1927) was consecrated its first bishop in 1880 and resided in Peking. Other Anglican mission societies also entered the field in China.15 The Church of England Zenana Mission Society (CEZMS), founded in India, was a women’s missionary society that worked closely with the CMS. The CEZMS began work in Fukien and South China in 1884. The Dublin University Mission began to send missionaries to Fukien in 1887. After an Anglican mission conference in 12. Edward Yihua Xu, “Westernization and Contextualization: A Study on Three Pioneering Chinese Pastors of the Sheng Kung Hui in China,” in Contextualization of Christianity in China: An Evaluation in Modern Perspective, ed. Peter Chen-Main Wang (Sankt Augustin, Germany: Institut Monumenta Serica, 2007), 183–206. 13. The standard biography is still James Arthur Muller, Apostle of China: Samuel Isaac Joseph Schereschewsky, 1831–1906 (New York: Morehouse, 1937). Also see Irene Eber, The Jewish Bishop and the Chinese Bible: S. I. J. Schereschewsky, 1831–1906 (Leiden: Brill, 1999). 14. Xu Yihua, “St. John’s University, Shanghai as an Evangelising Agency,” Studies in World （上海： Christianity 12, no. 1 (2006): 23–49. Also see 熊月之、周武編：《聖約翰大學史》 上海人民出版社，2007）。[Xiong Yuezhi and Zhou Wu, eds., History of St. John’s University (Shanghai: Shanghai People’s Press, 2007).] 15. For a listing of the important societies working in China, see R. G. Tiedemann, Reference Guide to Christian Missionary Societies in China: From the Sixteenth to the Twentieth Century (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 2009). There were a total of seventeen Anglican-Episcopal missionary societies and churches that worked in China up until 1949.

Introduction 7

Shanghai in 1907 (see below), the Church of England in Canada was asked to begin work in Honan (Henan). This remained the Canadians’ center of mission activity in China until the mid-twentieth century. Anglicans also participated in ecumenical and interdenominational Christian organizations that sent missionaries to China, including the China Inland Mission, the Female Education Society (FES), and the Young Men’s and Young Women’s Christian Associations (YM and YWCAs). The expansion of the missionary presence in China often engendered a hostile response from the local Chinese populace, as is evident in the “missionary cases” that were taken to the courts or resolved in international negotiations in the second half of the nineteenth century.16 The missionaries were often the only foreigners in inland China, and their presence and activity sometimes provoked violent attacks against both missionaries and Chinese converts. The largest of the cases involving Anglican (CMS) missionaries was the Kucheng Massacre in Fukien in 1895. This was the dark side of the Christian encounter with Chinese culture, which reached a high point in the Boxer Uprising (1899–1901). The CMS remained the largest Anglican missionary society in China, and its work greatly expanded in the late nineteenth century. Education work in Hong Kong was always a focus of church activity. In 1872, the Diocese of Victoria had been reduced to China south of the twenty-eighth parallel and Smith’s successor, Bishop Charles Alford (1816–98), resigned over what he considered a slight to his authority. Thereafter, even as the work of the church expanded, the diocese continued to be reduced in size right up to 1951. The CMS assumed responsibility for the dioceses of Mid-China (1880), later divided into West China (Sichuan, 1895) and Chekiang (Zhejiang, 1909), Fukien, and Kwangsi (Guangxi)-Hunan (1909). As with other societies and churches, the CMS combined evangelistic work and establishing churches with education and social welfare. A special area of interest was work with leprosy, and the CMS established important leprosaria in Kwangtung, Fukien, and Chekiang.17 In Hong Kong and South China, the CMS was active mainly in education and evangelistic work. The first six bishops of Victoria were all CMS men, and the society’s presence in Hong Kong continued into the 1970s.

16. The classic study in English is Paul A. Cohen, The Missionary Movement and the Growth of Chinese Anti-Foreignism, 1860–1870, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967). In Chinese see 呂實強：《中國官紳反教的原因，1860–1874》，第二版（臺北：中央研究 院， 2005）。 [Lü Shih-ch’iang, The Origin and Cause of the Anti-Christian Movement by Chinese Officials and Gentry, 1860–1874, 2nd ed. (Taipei: Academia Sinica, 2005).] 17. Zhou Donghua, “The Anglican Church and the Treatment of Leprosy in Modern Fuzhou,” paper presented at the conference entitled “Learning from the Past, Looking to the Future: Anglican-Episcopal History in China and Its Impact on the Church Today,” Hong Kong, June 7–9, 2012. Also see Stock, History of the Church Missionary Society, vols. 2–3, passim.

8

Philip L. Wickeri

Figure 2  Map of China showing Diocese of Victoria and other dioceses (1921). Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui Archives.

The Mission to Seamen became an important part of Anglican work beginning in the second half of the nineteenth century.18 Anglicans took a special interest in the pastoral care and support for seafarers, and CMS mission personnel were often involved in the homes and clubs set up for sailors in China’s port cities. Closely related to this work were the chaplaincies established in the treaty ports along the China coast for the English residents. In the late nineteenth century, Bishop Hoare (1851–1906) of the Diocese of Victoria regularized and expanded the work of the consular chaplaincies.19 This work developed out of the close relationship between the Church of England and its missionaries and British government agencies and officials in China. By the late nineteenth century, women, both missionary wives and single women, outnumbered men in the missionary community, and their numbers would continue to grow. There had been societies of women missionaries early 18. See Stephen Davies, Strong to Save: The Story of the Mariners’ Club, Hong Kong: 1863–2013 (forthcoming). 19. G. A. Bunbury, “Episcopate of Bishop Joseph Charles Hoare, 1898–1906,” Hong Kong Public Records Office, HKMS 94-1-5: 3–4.

Introduction 9

on: the FES, for example, and the Zenana Society that started later. The PECM had been sending single female missionaries since the 1850s, but the CMS began recruiting single women only in 1887. Women were involved in education, medical work, pastoral visitation, and other activities primarily, but not exclusively, among Chinese women, who outnumbered men among Chinese converts. By 1937, there were 50 percent more Chinese women than men working for the CHSKH and more than double the number of women than men among the foreign missionaries.20 A feature of the Anglican-Episcopal mission work not found in other Protestant denominations was the orders of religious women, or nuns. Two Episcopal sisterhoods, both related to the American Church, were present in China: the Community of the Transfiguration (1914) in Wuhu and Hankow (Hankou) and the Order of St. Anne (1909), a small order found only in Shashi, Hubei and about which little is known.21 These were autonomous religious communities involved in education and social welfare, working under the authority of the local CHSKH bishop, not the PECM. In general, Protestant missionaries cooperated well in nineteenth-century China. Although American Episcopalians and the various Anglican mission societies worked together when they could, there were occasional differences. Some arose over which prayer book to use, but disputes were primarily over questions of diocesan boundaries and episcopal jurisdiction. Already in 1853 Bishop Boone conceded authority over English clergy and laity in Shanghai, a PECM area, to Bishop Smith of the CMS. The first meeting of British and American bishops in China (and Korea) was not held until 1897. They met to discuss common ecclesial concerns and to work for cooperative approaches to evangelism and mission. Subsequent meetings of bishops and clergy took place in 1899, 1903, 1907, and 1909.22 The last meeting prepared for the organization of the CHSKH, and Bishop Charles P. Scott of North China was asked to draft its constitution. At precisely noon on April 26, 1912 the CHSKH General Synod was formally constituted at St. John’s Pro-Cathedral in Shanghai, which was located on the campus of St. John’s University. Representatives of all the Anglican and Episcopal churches and mission societies in China were present, including ten of its eleven bishops. There were perhaps thirty thousand baptized church members at the time.23 The CHSKH included three dioceses from the PECM 20. “General Statistics of the Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui for the Year of Our Lord 1937,” Report of the Tenth General Synod, Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui (Shanghai, August 23–31, 1947), 2–3. 21. Tiedemann, Reference Guide to Christian Missionary Societies in China, 151, 195. 22. “Letter and Resolutions of the Conference of the Anglican Communion in China,” Shanghai, 1897–1899; “Letter and Resolutions of the Conference of the Bishops of the Anglican Communion in China and Hong Kong,” Shanghai, October 19–23, 1903; “Report and Resolutions of the Conference of the Anglican Communion in China and Hong Kong,” Shanghai, 1907, 1909. 23. Stock, History of the Church Missionary Society, 4: 294–95; Kenneth Scott Latourette, A

10

Philip L. Wickeri

Figure 3  Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui, First General Synod, April 1912. Courtesy of Special Collections, Yale Divinity School Library.

(Shanghai, Hankow, and Wuhu [later named Anking]), five dioceses that were associated with the CMS (Victoria–South China, Fukien, West China [Sichuan], Chekiang, and Kwangsi-Hunan), two dioceses established by the SPG (North China and Shantung [Shandong]), and one diocese under the Church of England in Canada (Honan).24 The CHSKH was the first non-Roman Catholic national church body formed in China. The inaugural General Synod approved the new Constitution and Canons, passed resolutions on a range of subjects from church extension to Christian literature, and attended to organizational matters. There was even a resolution on the need for local adaptation.25 Beginning in 1913, the eleven individual dioceses (or missionary areas) held their own General Synods, creating a networked infrastructure for the new church. History of Christian Missions in China (London: SPCK, 1929), 664. 24. In 1934, the CHSKH established the new Diocese of Shensi (Shaanxi). In 1936, West China was split into two new dioceses, Sichuan West and Sichuan East. In 1947, the YunKwei Diocese was split off from South China. By the time of the Tenth General Synod, there were fourteen CHSKH dioceses in all. In 1951, the Diocese of Hong Kong and Macao became a detached diocese, with a new Diocese of Guangdong created on the Mainland as part of the CHSKH. 25. Constitutions and Canons of the Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui Together with the Report of the General Synod, and the Report and Resolutions of the Conference of the Anglican Communion in China and Hong Kong Held at Shanghai, April 18th–26th, 1912 (Shanghai, 1912).

Introduction 11

Figure 4  St. John’s Pro-Cathedral, Shanghai, circa 1940. Courtesy of the Episcopal Church Archives.

The General Synod met ten times between 1912 and 1947, and in theory it oversaw and guided the CHSKH and all Anglican-Episcopal mission work in China. It sought to separate Anglican from “Englishness” and Episcopalian from “Americanness,” so that a truly Chinese church could grow. In this, the CHSKH was never entirely successful. The missionary presence was always too strong, and important decisions were made in Canterbury, London, or New York. The otherness of the church—its foreign image—persisted. The missionaries were also in control in China. This was so even after the CHSKH was recognized at the Seventh Lambeth Conference in 1930 as an independent province, and thus part of the worldwide Anglican Communion. The missionary organizations continued alongside the church structure, and they were much more powerful and better organized. Foreign missionaries and missionary bishops held the purse strings and retained most of the important positions of leadership in church institutions.

12

Philip L. Wickeri

Although there had been a Chinese assistant bishop since 1918, the first Chinese diocesan bishop was not elected until 1934. It was not until the 1940s that it became common to elect or appoint Chinese bishops over Western missionary counterparts. Bishop F. R. Graves (1858–1940) of Shanghai was the longest-serving CHSKH bishop. He held his episcopacy for forty-four years before retiring in 1937, and then he was replaced by another American.26 The CHSKH had not lost its otherness as a foreign church dependent upon foreign mission organizations even by 1949, despite its expressed commitment to be a Chinese Church. This is not to say that all its efforts toward “local adaptation” came to naught. The CHSKH was a church that became known for its literary contributions, its efforts in education, its cultivation of talented intellectuals, its work in social welfare, and its leadership in ecumenism. Already in 1908 the church had begun to publish Sheng Kung Hui Bao (The Chinese Churchman), the journal that became the official publication of the CHSKH from 1912 to 1951 and the longest-running church publication of any denomination.27 Like many other mainline churches, the CHSKH published Christian literature for a wide variety of constituencies. More generally, intellectuals in the CHSKH were also significantly involved in writing about the pressing social and cultural issues facing China. After 1912 there were renewed efforts to write a prayer book in Chinese to replace translations of the various foreign Figure 5  Bishop Frederick R. Graves prayer books. This proved to be a dif- (1858–1940). Courtesy of Special ficult task, however, because of regional Collections, Yale Divinity School language variations and individual mis- Library. sions’ preferences.28 English dioceses 26. For a short study of Graves’s early years in Shanghai, see Mei-Mei Lin, “The Episcopalian Missionaries in China, 1835–1990” (PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, 1994): 277–306. With one exception, the CMS did not have local diocesan bishops in any of its missionary areas in any part of the world until the 1950s. See Kevin Ward, “‘Taking Stock’: The Church Missionary Society and Its Historians,” in The Church Missionary Society and World Christianity, 1799–1999, ed. Kevin Ward and Brian Stanley (Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans and Curzon Press, 2000), 29. 27. The Sheng Kung Hui Bao ( 聖 公 會 報 ) was published monthly and sometimes bimonthly, except during the years of the War against Japan. It maintained a very high standard of Chinese and can be studied for the evolution of vernacular Chinese literature (baihuawen, 白 話 文 ) and as a reflection of what was going on in the Chinese church. A monthly English journal The Chinese Churchman was also published for a time, but it was more irregular in production. 28. 潘乃昭：〈公禱書的翻譯與聖公命名的歷史關係〉[Michael Nai-chiu Poon, “Prayer Book

Introduction 13

continued to use translated versions of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, while American dioceses used translations of their own 1789 Book of Common Prayer. Besides the various Chinese versions of the Prayer Book, there were authorized liturgies for services for marriages and burials and non-liturgical services for use in homes and schools.29 A Chinese BCP was never formally approved, although it remained on the agenda of each General Synod meeting up until 1947, when a resolution calling for a draft BCP was finally approved.30 But this was already too late. The last meeting of the House of Bishops in 1956 also approved a resolution to draft yet another CHSKH Prayer Book, but it too was never written. The BCP, which was designed to hold Anglicans together, proved to be a source of division in China. Many outstanding intellectuals, both clergy and laity, Christian and nonChristian, were drawn to the CHSKH. The two major Episcopal universities— Boone University (after 1924, it became Central China Normal University) and St. John’s University—were committed to an American liberal-arts approach to higher education. There were very few Christians among the graduates of any of the Christian colleges, but the colleges themselves had a profound influence on intellectual life and educational reform in the country as a whole.31 Among the Christian graduates were prominent officials in the Republican government and the Nationalist Kuomintang, as well as leading educators, businesspeople, and church people. Families who were members of the CHSKH wanted their children to go to these universities, and many future bishops and priests were graduates. Theological education was a priority for Anglicans and Episcopalians, both before and after the founding of the CHSKH. There were different models of theological education, from individual mentoring to diocesan-level training to university and graduate-level education. Financial support for seminary training was a continuing problem for the CHSKH, but there were other difficulties as well: the standards for ordination varied, especially between the coastal cities and the rural churches. The question of language—facility in English (where St. John’s excelled) and the use of Mandarin or another dialect (Cantonese in the south, for example)—was never resolved, but it probably did not need to be because of the varying requirements for priests in different dioceses. There were never very many Chinese faculty and few well-educated candidates for Translation and the Birth of the Sheng Kung Hui,” http://doc.baidu.com/view/80f3df 7202768e9951e738fa.html (accessed November 5, 2014)]. Also see the chapters by Starr and Guo in this volume. 29. Michael Bruce, “China: Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui,” in The Anglican Communion: A Survey, ed. J. W. C. Wand (London and New York: Oxford University Press, 1948), 173. （上海，1947）[T. K. Shen, On the Principles 30. 沈子高：《中華聖公會新公禱書之原則芻議》 of New Prayer Book Revision (Shanghai, 1947)]. Also see Bruce, “China: Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui,” 174. 31. Daniel H. Bays and Ellen Widmer, eds., China’s Christian Colleges: Cross-Cultural Connections, 1900–1950 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2009).

14

Philip L. Wickeri

Figure 6  St. John’s University Memorial Arch with Social Hall in background. Courtesy of Special Collections, Yale Divinity School Library.

holy orders. The heart of the problem was the unresolved tension between the need for a well-trained clergy that was well formed in Anglican tradition and spirituality, and the absence of strong theological institutions with adequate funding and church and diocesan support.32 T. C. Chao (趙紫宸, Zhao Zichen, 1888–1979) was China’s most important theologian of the twentieth century, and he became a CHSKH priest in Hong Kong in 1941.33 His theology is especially important in the intellectual encounter between Christianity and Chinese culture. Chao emphasized the connection between creation and redemption, and so brought Chinese culture into dialogue with Christian theology. He saw God in nature and in Chinese culture, and he expressed this in his poetry and hymns, as well as his theology. Chao had a sacramental sense of the world, although he wrote very little about the sacraments. In all of these ways, we can see him as “Anglican,” but we should not claim too much in saying this. Like other Chinese, he wanted the church to be Chinese, and he was drawn to the churchmanship of the CHSKH. Theologically, Chao was broadly ecumenical and thoroughly contextual. As a Chinese theologian, he went beyond theological traditions that had been inherited from the West, including the Anglican tradition. This was 32. See Philip L. Wickeri, “Clergy Training and Theological Education: The Anglican-Episcopal Experience in China,” paper presented at the conference of the Yale-Edinburgh History of the Missionary Movement and World Christianity, New Haven, June 30–July 2, 2011. 33. Wi n f r i e d G l ü e r, C h r i s t l i c h e T h e o l o g i e i n C h i n a : T. C . C h a o : 1 9 1 8 – 1 9 5 6 . Missionswissenschaftliche Forschungen (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn, 1979); T. C. Chao, Zhao Zichen wenji [The collected works of T. C. Chao], ed. Yenching Graduate Institute (Beijing: The Commercial Press, 2003–2010).

Introduction 15

also true of other Anglican religious thinkers, such as Wu Leichuan (吳 雷 川 , 1870–1944), Francis C. M. Wei (韋 卓 民 , Wei Zhuomin, 1888–1976), and Hsieh Fu-ya (謝扶雅, Xie Fuya, 1892–1991), to the extent that he may be regarded as Anglican. The CHSKH was a leader in ecumenical cooperation among Chinese Protestants. Before 1912, Anglicans and Episcopalians held prominent positions of leadership in missionary gatherings, interdenominational publications and translation work, the Student Volunteer Movement, and the YM and YWCAs. In 1922, the CHSKH became a founding member of the National Christian Council of China (NCCC), and many NCCC officers were prominent church members. The CHSKH was part of the committee that produced Hymns of Universal Praise (普天頌讚), an ecumenical hymnal that came out in 1936 and is still in use in many Chinese churches today. CHSKH leaders, both Chinese and foreign, played important roles in national and international ecumenical organizations. T. C. Chao was one of the first presidents of the World Council of Churches (WCC), representing the Anglican and Episcopal family of churches.34 The church decided not to join the Church of Christ in China, a union of largely Presbyterian and Congregational churches and missions in 1927, because this was not a church that made space for the historic episcopacy or other Anglican particulars. The CHSKH grew in numbers and developed as a church, however modestly. This can be seen in the emergence of strong and well-educated Chinese clergy and laity in many parts of China. The church was also rooted in several well-run dioceses and strong Chinese parishes. These included St. Peter’s, St. Paul’s, and St. John’s Pro-Cathedral in Shanghai and St. Stephen’s, St. Paul’s, St. Mary’s, All Saints’, and Holy Trinity in Hong Kong. Foochow, Wuchang, Anking, Peking, and other coastal cities also had historic Anglican and Episcopal parishes rooted in the Chinese context. The CHSKH also grew in size. From 1937, we have the following statistics: Church Constituency Churches Preaching Halls Chinese Clergy Foreign Clergy

80,521 712 154 284 102

By 1938, the total constituency had grown to 85,769, which is the highest number of CHSKH adherents there has ever been in China.35 Fukien always 34. Chao resigned his presidency in 1951 because of China’s opposition to the WCC resolution on the Korean War. See Philip L. Wickeri, Reconstructing Christianity in China: K. H. Ting and the Chinese Church (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2007), 83. 35. “General Statistics of the Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui for the Year of Our Lord 1937,” Report of the Tenth General Synod, Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui, 18–19. During the war years, the numbers declined. By the tenth synod of the CHSKH, the total constituency was only 66,651, although it grew to 77,741 by the end of 1949. Sheng Kung Hui Bao 39 (October

16

Philip L. Wickeri

had the largest number of church members, followed by Kiangsu (Jiangsu, the former Diocese of Shanghai) and Chekiang. The CHSKH as a whole took great pride in the new Diocese of Shensi (Shaanxi).36 Chinese clergy had initiated mission work in the region in 1916, and it became a diocese in 1934. Although Shensi was always the smallest and the weakest of the dioceses, with only 549 members in 1937, this was a diocese and a mission founded by the Chinese themselves. The years of the War of Resistance against Japan (1937–45) were a time of great hardship for China and took a toll on the churches. Many church leaders and Christian institutions moved west to “Free China,” while Manchuria, Taiwan, and most coastal cities were under Japanese occupation. Although the churches continued to function, attendance declined. Some churches were taken over by the Japanese or damaged in the war effort.37 St. John’s University and church schools in Shanghai remained open throughout the war. American and British missionaries remaining in occupied China were interned in 1943. Others had already returned to their home countries or moved to the West. When Yu Ensi (余恩嗣, d. 1944) became assistant bishop of Kiangsu in 1942 he was the only CHSKH bishop in Japanese-occupied territory. Overall, communication within China was difficult; there could be no regular church meetings, and many activities ceased. In 1944, Bishop R. O. Hall of Hong Kong and South China took the extraordinary step of ordaining Florence Tim-Oi Li (李添嬡, 1907–92) to the priesthood. She became the first ordained woman in the Anglican Communion. After the end of the war, she could no longer function as a priest because of objections from Canterbury and other parts of the church.38 It would be almost twenty-eight years before two other women were ordained, also in Hong Kong. In 1984, Li’s priestly orders were restored, and she was honored in a ceremony at Westminster Abbey and received in Lambeth Palace by the Archbishop of Canterbury. A little-known aspect of Anglican-Episcopal work in China outside the CHSKH was the mission of the Anglican-Episcopal Church in Japan (Nippon Seikokai, NSKK) in Japanese-controlled areas. The NSKK, which, like China, had American, English, and Canadian roots, had become an independent church in 1887. With the CHSKH, the NSKK was recognized as a province by Lambeth in 1930. After the Sino-Japanese War (1894–95), the church started 15, 1950): 14. 36. See Eric Skues, Shensi: China’s Mission to the Chinese (London: SPG and SPCK, 1935). 37. For example, St. John’s Cathedral, Hong Kong. See Stuart Wolfendale, Imperial to International: A History of St. John’s Cathedral, Hong Kong, Sheng Kung Hui: Historical Studies of Anglican Christianity in China series, ed. Philip L. Wickeri (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2013), 170–72. 38. The ordination is recalled in her memoir, Florence Tim-Oi Li, Raindrops of My Life: The Memoir of Florence Tim Oi Li (First Woman Priest in the Anglican Community) (Toronto: Anglican Book Centre, 1996).

Introduction 17

to do mission work in Taiwan (1897) and in Manchuria (1914).39 The NSKK began work among Japanese church members in China, but it also evangelized among the Chinese. This mission work continued through the War against Japan but came to an abrupt end with the surrender of Japan. When the war ended in August 1945, churches in China began an arduous process of rebuilding and reorganization. In fact, the CHSKH never recovered from the war. The House of Bishops had met only four times in the years between 1937 and 1947, and no synod committees met at all. Church membership had declined by more than 20 percent, and resources from the various mission boards were limited. After the war, Central Theological School was opened as the official theological college of the church, and the CHSKH finally established a national office in Shanghai. The bishops returned to their dioceses, church schools and other institutions reopened, and some of the missionaries returned, but all this was set against the struggle between the Kuomintang (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) for the control of China.40 The tenth and last General Synod met in August 1947, and resolutions were passed to continue the process of rebuilding, but the political situation was changing too quickly for the church to respond either creatively or effectively. The House of Bishops and the Standing Committee of the CHSKH met in Shanghai in July 1950 and issued a pastoral letter affirming support for the PRC and the independence of the church from foreign control.41 The following year, Hong Kong and Macao were separated from the Diocese of South China, and Bishop Hall was no longer recognized as a member of the House of Bishops. The CHSKH conducted an accusation meeting criticizing itself for its ties to America and the West. Bishops Y. Y. Tsu (朱友漁, Zhu Youyu, 1886–1986) and Quentin Huang (黃奎元, Huang Kuiyuan, 1902–73), both of whom had gone to America, were singled out for attack. Huang had been imprisoned for a time by Communist troops in Yunnan. T. C. Chao resigned his presidency of the WCC because of its support for the Americans in the Korean War, and at least one report asserted that the CHSKH had withdrawn from the WCC.42 The early 1950s was an immensely difficult time for all churches in China, and Christians came under attack during all the mass movements in the subsequent decade. But this was not the whole story. Many former Anglicans assumed key positions in the PRC, and they maintained their ties with friends and colleagues 39. Tiedemann, Reference Guide to Christian Missionary Societies in China, 120. 40. Report of the Tenth General Synod, Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui, 1–22. 41. “Sheng Kung Hui Pastoral Letter,” in Documents of the Three-Self Movement: Source Materials for the Study of the Protestant Church in Communist China, ed. Wallace C. Merwin and Francis P. Jones (New York: National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA, 1963), 21. 42. “Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui Announces Permanent Withdrawal from World Council of Churches,” Ta Kung Pao, August 5, 1951.

18

Philip L. Wickeri

in the CHSKH, the YM and YWCAs, and other church bodies. The most important of these was H. J. Paul Pu (浦化人, Pu Huaren, 1887–1974), who became prominent in educational and cultural circles in the 1950s; he had once been a priest at St. Peter’s Church in Shanghai, and he later volunteered to work for the church in Shensi.43 Some CHSKH leaders played important roles in the newly-formed Chinese Christian Three-Self Patriotic Movement of the Protestant Churches of China (TSPM). They were socially and politically progressive Christians and tried to bring to the TSPM a stronger sense of churchmanship. After the end of the Korean War, there was a modest revival of the CHSKH. In 1955 three new bishops were consecrated, including K. H. Ting (丁光訓, Ding Guangxun, 1915–2012), who in the 1980s became the leader of the TSPM and the newly-formed China Christian Council.44 Some of the dioceses were strengthened; there were new baptisms, confirmations, and ordinations of priests.45 The church grew. These were all reported in a new CHSKH publication, Sheng Gong (聖工). In 1956, the House of Bishops met in Shanghai, with all seventeen bishops in attendance. The church strongly endorsed the new order, and, although it was much weaker than it had been, the bishops had ambitious plans for the future.46 However, this turned out to be its final meeting. Although the CHSKH was never formally dissolved, it effectively came to an end in 1958, as did all other denominational bodies. After 1951, the new Diocese of Hong Kong and Macao became a detached diocese of the CHSKH. In the early 1950s, refugees from the Mainland poured into Hong Kong, and churches responded with new programs of outreach, education, and mission, starting new schools, welfare settlements, and parishes. China could not be forgotten. In 1956 Bishop Hall became the only Hong Kong church leader to visit the Mainland during the decade. But his attention was now focused on Hong Kong and Macao, and under his leadership the church assumed a higher profile than it ever had before. Gilbert Baker became the first elected bishop of Hong Kong in 1966, and the last Englishman to hold that office. He continued the tradition of linking the church to education and social welfare during a time when “Hong Kongers” were emerging with their own identity.47 Hong Kong is remembered for ordaining Li Tim-Oi as the first woman priest, but Bishop Baker ordained the second, third, and fourth women 43. “Pu Huaren” ( 浦 化 人 ), http://baike.baidu.com/view/1422794.htm (accessed October 31, 2014). 44. Wickeri, Reconstructing Christianity in China. 45. Ibid., 125–30. 46. The publication of Sheng Gong came to an end in December 1957. After this time, there were letters and scattered reports on the life of CHSKH churches up until the outbreak of the Cultural Revolution. 47. Stephen Tsang, A Modern History of Hong Kong (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2004), especially Chapter 13, “The Rise of Hong Kongers,” 180–97.

Introduction 19

to the Anglican priesthood as well, and all were ordained with the approval of the Anglican Communion. Peter Kong Kit Kwong (鄺廣傑) became the first Chinese bishop in Hong Kong in 1981. He was elected just as Hong Kong was entering the period of transition to Chinese rule, and he guided the church over the next twentysix years. He reorganized church policies, structures, and finance. He also helped build relationships with the Chinese government and with the “postdenominational” church on the Mainland, thus ensuring a smooth transition for church and society in the post-1997 Special Administrative Region. The major achievement of Kwong’s bishopric was the creation of a new province, the Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui (HKSKH). Kwong saw early on that a detached diocese, operating under the Constitution and Canons of a church that no longer existed, was an anomaly. Facing 1997, and a Hong Kong no longer under British administration, the church needed a more formal institutional grounding. On October 25, 1998, after seven years of planning, the HKSKH was established as the thirty-eighth province in the Anglican Communion. Episcopal work in Taiwan was in part a response to the needs of the members of the CHSKH who fled to the island after 1949.48 The American Episcopal Church started a mission in Taiwan in the early 1950s, and the Diocese of Taiwan was established as part of Province VIII of the Episcopal Church in 1954. There are those who argue that the historical encounter between Christianity and Chinese culture in the Anglican and Episcopal tradition of Chinese Christianity ended in failure. It is true that the CHSKH never became rooted in the Chinese cultural and social context, for the church was always dominated by the foreign missionary presence. As with all other churches, the CHSKH was overwhelmed by the political movements of the 1950s and beyond. Today, there is certainly no prospect of and no desire for a return of an Anglican or Episcopal denomination in China, even on the part of the older generation of Christians who still remember the CHSKH. And yet, the Anglican and Episcopal churches of Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan—as well as the Chinese churches of Singapore, Southeast Asia, and other parts of the world—hold firm to both their Chinese and their AnglicanEpiscopal heritage. Bishop K. H. Ting was the preeminent Christian leader in China from 1979 to his retirement in 1996, and he continued to embrace this heritage in a post-denominational church. The tradition and the church itself also left their marks on theology and church life in China, through the 48. For a study of the Episcopal Church in Taiwan, see Mei-Mei Lin, “How to Search, Establish and Continue an Indigenous, National, Anglican Missionary Bishopric Leadership from Mainland China to Taiwan: Taking Four Missionary Bishops of American Episcopal Church as an Example,” paper presented at the conference entitled “Learning from the Past, Looking to the Future: Anglican-Episcopal History in China and Its Impact on the Church Today,” Hong Kong, June 7–9, 2012. Prof. Lin is also at work on a history of the Episcopal Church in Taiwan.

20

Philip L. Wickeri

contribution of T. C. Chao and through the continuing interest in liturgical worship. On the China Mainland, many former Anglican and Episcopal churches are protected historical monuments and continue to be used for worship. The Church Order of the China Christian Council incorporates some distinctive Anglican features, as in its provision for the election of bishops. Anglican hymns and the language of Chinese prayer books can still be heard in Chinese churches. An increasing number of younger Chinese Christians appreciate the Anglican emphasis on tradition, liturgy, and intellectual life. In these small ways, the CHSKH legacy endures, reflecting a certain Anglican-Episcopal spirit. This spirit is a way of understanding how to be Christian in the world, with a sensibility and an approach to religious life that continues to develop beyond the institutions that brought it into being.

Structure of the Book The individual chapters of this book highlight important aspects of Anglican and Episcopal history in China. Together they offer innovative and original perspectives on the encounter between Christianity and Chinese culture in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, in the context of the Anglican and Episcopal tradition in Chinese Christianity. The authors employ a variety of methodologies, approaches, and perspectives, and they are not of one mind about the nature or significance of the encounter. Taken together, the nine chapters offer a balanced assessment of an important part of the Christian experience in China and its missionary background. The first three chapters are concerned with the Anglican-Episcopal encounter with society, education, and culture. Chapter 1 offers a broad overview of the work of the Protestant Episcopal Church Mission (PECM) and its impact on Chinese society. Edward Yihua Xu contends that the PECM had a mission strategy aimed at the elite and that it was somewhat successful in meeting its goals. Thus, the work of the CHSKH in education and building up the church, as well as in influencing Chinese politics, became embedded in Chinese social and cultural life. In Chapter 2, Patricia P. K. Chiu presents a detailed study of women’s education in relationship to a particular church in Hong Kong in the second half of the nineteenth century. She discusses the opportunities and limitations of women’s work in education and shows how Christian women helped to build the foundation for a strong Chinese parish. Fuk-tsang Ying, in Chapter 3, focuses on Bishop R. O. Hall’s pioneering work for the Christian Study Centre on Chinese Religion in Shatin, Hong Kong. Hall was Hong Kong’s longest-serving bishop; he left an indelible impact on Hong Kong’s religious and social life, and he made a significant contribution to cultural understanding. The Book of Common Prayer is central to Anglican worship and religious practice, but, up until now, little work has been done on the various Chinese

Introduction 21

versions of the Prayer Book and their importance for the encounter between Christianity and Chinese culture. In Chapter 4, Chloë Starr explores how the BCP helped to shape debates on theology, identity, and practice in the church. Focusing on the landmark edition of the Chinese BCP by John Burdon and Samuel Schereschewsky, both of whom were later made bishops, her chapter places the discussion in the context of the reception of texts in the late nineteenth century. Feng Guo takes the discussion into the twentieth century and the mandate to produce a Chinese BCP for the use of the whole church. In Chapter 5, he addresses the question of why a CHSKH Prayer Book was never produced and considers the legacy of the BCP liturgy in the Chinese church today. Parish life is at the heart of any church. Over the past twenty years, there has been a growing interest in parish or congregational histories in the study of Christianity all over the world. In Chapter 6, Qi Duan looks at St. Peter’s Church in Shanghai during the years of the War against Japan. It was arguably the most important CHSKH parish in Shanghai and the first to be self-supporting. She shows how St. Peter’s contributed actively to resistance efforts. In Chapter 7, Ruiwen Chen and Philip Wickeri adopt a “contextualization” approach to parish history in their study of the first three decades of St. Mary’s Church in Hong Kong. The youngest of the five traditional Chinese Anglican parishes, St. Mary’s celebrated its centennial in 2012. They consider the role of both clergy and laity in responding to social needs as they shaped a church whose ministry, mission, and even architecture embraced elements of the Chinese cultural and social context. Both of the last two chapters consider China’s preeminent twentieth century theologian, T. C. Chao. In Chapter 8, Peter Tze Ming Ng offers a comparative study of Chao and Francis C. M. Wei, the noted educator and later president of Central China Normal University. He shows that Chao and Wei came out of two very different church traditions, one British and one American, both part of the CHSKH. They both sought and ultimately failed to produce an indigenous Chinese theology. In Chapter 9, Yongtao Chen contends that the Anglican tradition contributed to T. C. Chao’s rediscovered sense of churchmanship. His chapter offers a detailed theological study of Chao’s doctrine of soteriology, a singular contribution to his efforts to indigenize or contextualize Chinese theology. The photographs, maps, and illustrations that accompany each chapter are designed to enhance the overall analysis. Many of the photographs and illustrations are quite rare and appear in print in this volume for the first time. Pinyin romanization is used throughout, except where another romanized form is preferred (in the case of proper names) or more widely known. For the first usage of such forms, the pinyin romanization follows. In Chapter 7, Anglicized Chinese names are in Cantonese romanization.

22

Philip L. Wickeri

“The Succession of Anglican and Episcopal Bishops in China, 1844–2014” was prepared especially for this volume. It is divided into four parts, representing the different juridical areas of the individual dioceses. A timeline of Anglican-Episcopal history in China appears at the end of the volume, followed by a bibliography of important works in Chinese and English.

Society, Education, and Culture

Chapter 1

The Protestant Episcopal China Mission and Chinese Society Edward Yihua Xu

Compared with other Protestant missionary societies in China, the Protestant Episcopal China Mission (PECM)—also known as the American Church Mission (ACM)—was noted not so much for the number of its believers but for its prominence within the broader church community and society. Not only did the PECM raise up generations of renowned priests and church workers, it also fostered first-class educators, scholars, professionals, social activists, and even national leaders in modern China. One can say, therefore, that within the PECM there was a plethora of talents unmatched by any other mission body in terms of diversity and impact on the international scene. The PECM has deeply influenced Chinese society through its church, education, and social service programs. It has helped shape the basic pattern and theological characteristics of Chinese Christianity, and it had a direct impact on the modernization of Chinese society. Its influence is incontrovertible and still lingers today. Given the PECM’s illustrious history in China, a significant amount of archival works and other literature has been made public in China and abroad over the last decades. The academic community has also made considerable in-depth studies on the work of the PECM. This chapter will discuss, in broad outline, the ways in which the PECM has embedded itself in Chinese society, including such areas as church education (especially theological education), church-based interpersonal networks, and political participation. These are generally designated as “upper-class embedding” or “top-down embedding.” I use the term “embedding” to indicate the ways in which the PECM became part of Chinese social and religious life. Three topics will be addressed in this chapter: 1) 2) 3)

Embedding in education: the contribution and status of the PECM in the history of Christian education in China Embedding in the church: the shaping of Chinese Christian churches by the PECM Embedding in politics: the participation of the PECM in modern Chinese politics, especially the party politics of the Kuomintang (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), as well as an analysis of the factors involved in such high-level political participation

26

Edward Yihua Xu

The conclusion will briefly review the historical status and legacy of the PECM and its relevance for today. Much of this chapter summarizes and draws conclusions from my earlier research on this period, in works published in both Chinese and English.

Embedding in Education The missionary enterprise of the Protestant Episcopal China Mission began, succeeded, and ended with education. In the so-called evangelical trinity of church, school, and hospital, the PECM realized the value of education from the start. However, there were only several “atypical missionaries” who put into practice and established PECM’s initial blueprint for education. One of them was a female missionary educator, Lydia Mary Fay (1804–78), who had a real flair for languages. She came to China when she was forty-six, far older than the average age of twenty-five for Western missionaries just entering the mission field. She served in China for twenty-seven years (1851–78), much longer than the average service duration of five years for PECM missionaries. During these years, she endured loneliness and practiced her own spirit of “three-self”: self-denial, self-discipline, and self-sacrifice. At the same time, she diligently studied Chinese language and culture every day. The level of her sinology was widely praised by both Chinese scholars and missionary sinologists. Fay was considered one of PECM’s leading missionary pioneers, alongside eminent sinologists like Bishop Samuel Isaac Joseph Schereschewsky (1831–1906) of the same mission. When Fay first came to China, she was in charge of a boarding school and the boys’ school in Shanghai set up by the PECM. In 1860, because of the outbreak of the American Civil War, the mission’s funding was cut. As a result, she led her students to the Church Missionary Society. Seven years later, she returned to the original PECM mission. Two years before her death in 1878,

Figure 7  Lydia Mary Fay (1804–78). Courtesy of Special Collections, Yale Divinity School Library.

The Protestant Episcopal China Mission and Chinese Society 27

she opened another PECM school named Duane Hall, which was the predecessor of St. John’s University.1 As the “flagship” for the PECM and the entire Anglican Church in China’s educational efforts, the founding and development of St. John’s University had an indissoluble bond with three other atypical missionaries, Samuel Isaac Joseph Schereschewsky, Yung King Yen, and Francis Lister Hawks Pott. Schereschewsky was a Lithuanian Jew. After his conversion to Christianity and immigration to the United States, he became a missionary—he was the first American missionary in Peking (Beijing)—and then bishop of the PECM. He was one of the main advocates, designers, and representatives of missionary education, and he envisioned an institute of higher learning in China, which was regarded as “a new turn” for the Protestant Episcopal Church’s China mission.2 Yung King Yen (Yan Yongjing, 1838–98) was one of the earliest Chinese students to study in the United States and one of the initial leaders of Christian education in China. He contributed to the founding of two PECM Christian colleges—Boone University and St. John’s University. In addition, he was one of the first English-speaking PECM Chinese priests, thereby enjoying the same salary as his Western coworkers.3 Francis Lister Hawks Pott (1864–1947) was raised in a prominent Episcopalian family in New York City and studied at Columbia University (then Columbia College). When he first came to China, he went to the countryside and settled in a village near Shanghai, where he implemented the “three togethers” (eat, live, and work together) with local residents. After being assigned to oversee church education, his heart still longed for direct evangelical work. Despite the PECM’s prohibition against marriage between 1. For the life and work of Lydia Mary Fay, see Ian Welch, “Lydia Mary Fay and the Episcopal Church Mission in China,” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 36, no. 1 (January （珠海：珠海出版 2012): 33–37; 徐以驊：《教育與宗教：作為傳教媒介的聖約翰大學》 社，1999），頁 3–5。[Xu Yihua, Education and Religion: St. John’s University as Evangelizing Agency (Zhuhai: Zhuhai Press, 1999), 3–5.] 2. For Bishop Schereschewsky’s thought and practice of missionary education in China, see 林美玫：〈施約瑟主教與聖公會在華傳教策略的變遷 ―― 十九世紀中葉美國基督新教與 中國文化的再接觸與對話〉， 《東華人文學報》，第 4 期（2002） ：31–79。[Lin Mei-Mei, “Bishop Schereschewsky and the American Church Mission’s Changing Evangelical Strategy in China—The Reengagement and Dialogue of American Protestant Church with Chinese Culture in the Mid-Nineteenth Century,” National Dong Hwa University Journal of Humanity Studies, no. 4 (2002): 31–79.] 3. For the life and work of Y. K. Yen, see 徐 以 驊：〈顏 永 京 與 聖 公 會〉，《近 代 中 國》，第 10 輯，2000 年 6 月， 頁 193–215。[Xu Yihua, “Y. K. Yen and the American Church Mission,” Modern China, no. 10 (June 2000): 193–215]; Edward Yihua Xu, “Westernization and Contextualization: A Study on Three Pioneering Chinese Pastors of the Sheng Kung Hui in China,” in Contextualization of the Christianity in China: An Evaluation in Modern Perspective, ed. Peter Chen-Main Wang (Sankt Augustin, Germany: Institut Monumenta Serica, 2007), 183–206.

28

Edward Yihua Xu

Western missionaries and local women, he married Wong Woo-ngoo (Susan N. Wong), the daughter of Huang Guangcai (Wong Kong Chai), PECM’s first Chinese priest. Withstanding the temptation to become the PECM bishop for the missionary district of Wuhu (later Anqing), he dedicated his whole life to the development of St. John’s University and was widely quoted in discussions of Christian higher education in China. Hawks Pott was truly a pioneer and an outstanding leader of St. John’s University.4 These four atypical missionaries gave birth to St. John’s University, which became famous for teaching in the English medium. Before other Christian colleges in Peking and Nanking (Nanjing) came to fruition, St. John’s was the leader in Christian higher education in China and set the standard. However, because of the dwindling strength of the American Protestant Episcopal Church as well as the “the isolation policy” of not registering with the Chinese government, after the mid-1920s it became increasingly difficult for the PECM to maintain the university’s growth and development. In fact, within the Wuchang Diocese in Central China, the PECM also had Boone Memorial School (which later became Boone University, jointly supported by several missions). The two church education bases, south and north of the Yangtze River, worked in concert with one another and formed PECM’s education circle or educational system. Elsewhere, I have pointed out that the Protestant Episcopal China Mission operated a huge church educational system in China, from kindergarten to university, with St. John’s University as the core of the system. And St. John’s was a church educational subsystem itself, which was composed of several affiliated institutes like St. John’s High School, St. Mary’s School for Girls and St. John’s YMCA School. In addition to these institutes, St. John’s University also had an exam-exempted admission system drawing on a few feeder schools, including such well-known church and non-church schools as Mahan School in Yangchow, St. Paul’s School in Anking, Soochow Academy, the English Methodist College in Ningpo, Pei Yuan School in Chuan-Chow and the Ming-li School in Shanghai. Thus a “St. John’s education circle” was formed in eastern China.  .  .  .  [T]he Christian colleges in China all had their own subsidiary or related secondary schools, but St. John’s was more than an early starter in operating its education circle. It also enjoyed the shared identity and resources from its church system. Therefore, its influence had a wide range of activities and an enduring existence. This

〈卜舫濟自述〉 ， 《近代中國》 ，1996 年第 6 輯，頁 243–61。[Francis Lister Hawks 4. 卜舫濟： Pott, “Autobiography of Francis Lister Hawks Pott,” Modern China, no. 6 (1996): 243–61]; 徐 以 驊：〈卜 舫 濟 自 述〉， 頁 261–68。[Xu, “Francis Lister Hawks Pott and His Auto­bio­ （北京：社會科學文獻出版社，2011）。[Shi graphy,” 261–68]; 石建國：《卜舫濟傳記》 Jianguo, Biography of Francis Lister Hawks Pott (Beijing: Social Science Academic Press, 2011).]

The Protestant Episcopal China Mission and Chinese Society 29

was how St. John’s University obtained educational and social influence far beyond what it originally had.5

For the Boone education circle in Central China, we can make almost the same statement. The number of PECM staff in Christian higher education was remarkable, accounting for nearly half of the total number of Episcopal missionaries.6 The Chinese Anglican-Episcopal Church (Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui, CHSKH) also had an impressive staff with respect to education personnel. By 1949, the vast majority of the church, or 75 percent of the salaried staff (1,760 persons), were engaged in the educational work, among them 272 at the university level, 774 in secondary schools, and 714 in primary schools.7 The large denominational churches in China more or less shared a similar focus on education. In China, the auxiliary works of the missionary societies in education and medicine became the capstone for the entire missionary cause and the stepping-stone for the Christian Church to influence Chinese society. It was through the education system, the associated health-care system, and the charity system that the PECM achieved a social influence in China that would have been hard to reach merely by direct evangelical activities. This is mainly reflected in the following aspects. First, as a pioneer in China’s higher education, the PECM’s education system, along with that of other early missionary societies, “opened the way for higher education in China, made a strong demonstration, provided teachers and accumulated experience, trained leaders and laid the foundation, bridged the division of old and new education and decreased the gap between the Western and Chinese education.”8 Educational embedding afforded the mission a leading role in the direction of China’s social development at the superstructure level. Second, the education system of the PECM helped to change the traditional image of Christianity in China that reflected the aspirations of the socially marginalized populations. Educational work turned Christianity in coastal and urban areas from “the religion of the poor” to “the religion of the rich.” This also provided the church with the infrastructure to become embedded in China. In the era of large-scale migration from north to south in global Christianity, Christian schools, especially Christian colleges and universities, （上 海： 上 海 人 民 出 版 社，2009）， 5. 徐 以 驊 主 編：《上 海 聖 約 翰 大 學（1879–1952）》 頁 102–6。 [Xu Yihua, ed. St. John’s University, Shanghai (1879–1952) (Shanghai: Shanghai People’s Press, 2009), 102–6.] 6. Welch, “Lydia Mary Fay and the Episcopal Church Mission in China,” 36. 7. 〈1949 年 全 國 各 教 區 統 計〉，《聖 公 會 報》， 第 39 卷 第 10 期， 頁 13–14。[“Statistics of All Dioceses of the Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui,” Chinese Churchman 39, no. 10: 13–14]; Xu Yihua, “St. John’s University, Shanghai as an Evangelizing Agency,” Studies in World Christianity, The Edinburgh Review of Theology & Religion 12, Part 1 (2006): 42. 8. 徐以驊主編：《上海聖約翰大學（1879–1952）》，頁 132。[Xu, St. John’s University, Shang­ hai (1879–1952), 132.]

30

Edward Yihua Xu

were not only the center of the transmission of Western culture and civilization but also the chief vehicles for missionary activities. Third, the education system was more geared toward the development of a myriad of talents, which was one of the most measurable achievements of the Christian movement in China’s social modernization process. Christian churches, through their training of personnel, had an impact on “China’s social and political improvement.” In the words of the St. John’s–educated Episcopal priest Dr. Y. Y. Tsu (Zhu Youyu), “it is through her schools and colleges that she exerts the greatest direct influence. She trains the men, and they do the work.”9 The 1933 edition of Who’s Who in China: Biographies of Chinese Leaders is a pivotal transcript of the great contribution of Christian colleges, especially the CHSKH’s St. John’s University and Boone University, in nurturing social leaders in China.10 Through the universities, the intertwined interpersonal networks and social mobilization pipeline of mutual trust and assistance in the Chinese Christian community promoted the impact of Christianity on the whole society in both tangible and intangible ways.

Embedding in the Church When it came to education, the PECM did not take the “low road” in its missionary endeavors. Unlike the China Inland Mission, whose work was located more in China’s interior and rural areas, the PECM took the “high road” of urbanization and elite orientation, almost to an extreme. This, to some extent, was related to the threefold order of ministry in the Anglican-Episcopal tradition (deacon, priest, bishop), which was in some ways compatible with the Chinese social customs and bureaucratic rule. A classic example is that in the early years of the Wuchang Diocese, when a local clergyman died, his family used the title “deacon” (會吏, which could be translated as “church official”) to glorify the deceased and strike awe in their neighbors.11 The urbanization route of the PECM was naturally reflected in the way it developed the church and its mission work in China. The mission first went to South China, then retreated to Southeast Asia, and finally landed in Shanghai. The PECM used Shanghai as a base to develop in other cities, including Peking, Wuchang, and Chefoo (Yantai in Shandong). It established three missionary dioceses along the Yangtze River—the Dioceses of Shanghai, Wuchang (Hankow [Hankou]), and Anqing (Wuhu). 9. 徐以驊：《教育與宗教：作為傳教媒介的聖約翰大學》，頁 227–28。[Xu, Education and Religion: St. John’s University as a Missionary Intermediary, 227–28.] 10. According to this edition of Who’s Who in China, St. John’s University and Boone University of the CHSKH produced seventy leaders in all walks of life in Chinese society. For the analysis of this edition, see 徐以驊主編：《上海聖約翰大學（1879–1952）》，頁 139–40。 [Xu, St. John’s University, Shanghai (1879–1952), 139–40.] 11. F. R. Graves, Recollections (Shanghai, 1928), 6–8.

The Protestant Episcopal China Mission and Chinese Society 31

Figure 8  General map of China showing CHSKH dioceses. Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui Archives.

With regard to the urbanization-oriented missionary route, the PECM was more strategically located than most of the dioceses built by the British and Canadian Anglican churches. The missionary fields of the entire Anglican Church were also better located strategically than those of many other missions in China. The Yun-Kwei and Shensi missionary dioceses of the CHSKH (Holy Catholic Church of China), set up before and during the War of Resistance against Japan, were also located at the center of the vortex of China’s domestic

32

Edward Yihua Xu

politics. The PECM’s strategic vision of focusing on coastal, urban, and geopolitical centers made it one of the most urbanized Christian missions in China, and so it became a church with great social visibility. Given their mission priority on education, the PECM also took the high road when it came to their design of theological schools. One of their original intentions in the development of Christian schools and colleges was to promote theological education. For instance, mission authorities and St. John’s University considered its theological department as “the pillar of the school” and “the crown of the whole work.”12 The theological department later followed Bishop William Boone Jr., who was then in charge of the whole China mission, and moved to Wuchang. This action alone revealed the status of the theological department as the center of the work of the university. The PECM founded the theological departments of St. John’s University and Boone University, teaching mainly in English, and the Central Theological School, which taught mainly in Chinese. These three theological institutes demonstrated how the mission put its emphasis on advanced theological education. Before 1949, according to the actual level of education, Christian theological institutions were divided into three types: 1) Graduate schools of theology (e.g., School of Religion, Yenching University), which mainly recruited college and university graduates 2) Theological colleges or seminaries (e.g., Nanking Theological Seminary), which mainly recruited high school graduates 3) Theological training schools (e.g., Fujian Theological Seminary), which mainly enrolled junior high school graduates Although the theological departments of St. John’s University and Boone University belonged to the second-level seminaries, their five-year academic structure, combining a bachelor’s degree and a theology degree, was quite similar to the theological education model of British universities or dissenting academies, emphasizing the combination of liberal arts education and theology. The principal investigator of Christian theological education in China, Professor S. Stanley Smith of Nanking Theological Seminary, considered this academic structure the most suitable theological education model for the reality of the Chinese church.13 The theological institutions of the PECM system 12. 徐以驊主編：《上海聖約翰大學（1879–1952）》，頁 97。[Xu, St. John’s University, Shang­ hai (1879–1952), 97.] 13. For research on the history, education system, and classification of Protestant theological （桂 林：廣 西 師 範 大 學 出 版 education in China, see 徐 以 驊：《中 國 基 督 教 教 育 史 論》 社，2010） ，頁 71–95。[Xu Yihua, Essays on History of Christian Education in China (Guilin: （福 Guangxi Normal University Press, 2010), 71–95]; 徐 以 驊，《教 會 大 學 與 神 學 教 育》 州：福建 教育出 版社，1999)。[Xu Yihua, Christian Colleges and Theological Education in China (Fuzhou: Fujian Education Press, 1999)]; C. Stanley Smith, The Development of Protestant Theological Education in China (Shanghai: Kelly and Walsh, 1941), 42–43, 56–57, 123–24.

The Protestant Episcopal China Mission and Chinese Society 33

played a pivotal role in the development of advanced theological education (both the graduate schools of theology and theological seminaries) in China. In the late nineteenth century and the first twenty years of the twentieth century, the theological departments of St. John’s University and Boone University saw their best days. This was due to their great vision, high admission standards, and teaching in the English medium. The two theological institutions coordinated with each other, representing the highest level of Protestant theological education in China. In the early 1920s, the Yenching University School of Religion came from behind to become the first graduate school of theology in China. In both professional training and academic research, it outshined St. John’s and Boone, declaring the advent of the “Yenching era” in Protestant theological education in China. In the late 1920s, a meteoric rise of the North China Theological Seminary, known as the Chinese Christian fundamentalist stronghold, came to the fore. As a conservative theological institution with solid grassroots support, the seminary attracted many students. Meanwhile, Nanking Theological Seminary was also ready to boom, pursuing development with a “consistent and conservative” theological posture. If it were not for the Japanese invasion of North China in the 1930s, which led to the southward migration and severe downturn of the North China Theological Seminary, there would have been a “tripod complexion” of Protestant theological education. Respectively, the left, middle, and right factions of Chinese Christianity would have been represented by the Yenching, Nanking, and North China theological seminaries. In the mid-1930s, the Wendal estate, a large endowment from the United States, made Nanking Theological Seminary the top location for theological education in China. Until the CCP came to power, Nanking Theological Seminary, as a leading theological institution, set the pattern and pace for Protestant theological education, along with several other institutions (Yenching University School of Religion, China Baptist Theological Seminary, Canton Union Theological College, West China Union University School of Religion, Cheeloo School of Theology, and Central Theological School).14 The overall trend in the development of Protestant theological education in China was the gradual weakening of the theological departments (and schools of religion) of Christian colleges and the gradual strengthening of free-standing theological seminaries. At the same time, this meant a gradual flourishing of the theological institutes cosponsored by several denominations and the decline of the theological institutes supported by a single denomination. Although inferior to the graduate schools of theology with regard to admission levels and the number of students, the two theological institutes of the PECM, especially St. John’s, still represented an extremely elitist route 14. 徐以驊：《教育與宗教：作為傳教媒介的聖約翰大學》，頁 44–45，175–76。[Xu, Educa­ tion and Religion: St. John’s University as a Missionary Intermediary, 44–45, 175–76.]

34

Edward Yihua Xu

to theological education. This was because of their teaching in the English medium and the highly select group of students and staff they recruited. They at one time enjoyed a strong reputation in the Christian community but failed to carry on. The eventual exit of this route from the stage of history about half a century later demonstrated the two above-mentioned major trends. However, the long-standing policy of sending English-educated Chinese clergy to study abroad and the establishment of the Central Theological School (which merged with the theological department of St. John’s University and Bawn Memorial Women’s Theological Seminary in 1946) directly under the CHSKH partly filled the vacancy left by the closing of its English theological institutes. In this way, the CHSKH priests remained the most impressive and well-educated group in the Chinese Protestant churches. Being the earliest to set up English-teaching theological institutes, based upon the model of British theological education, the PECM had large numbers of successful church workers among their graduates. The ecclesiastical structure of Anglicanism as well as the large-scale education, health-care, and charity institutions of the church provided its well-trained clergy and church workers with shelter, a sense of purpose, and opportunities to serve. According to the statistics, up until the late 1950s there were eleven St. John’s graduates (mainly from the theological department) consecrated as bishops of the CHSKH, including T. K. Shen (Shen Zigao), Y. Y. Tsu, Kimber H. K. Teng (Deng Shukun), Mao Keh-ts’ung (Mao Kezhong), K. H. Ting (Ding Guangxun), and Tsen Chien-yeh (Zheng Jianye).15 Based on the memories of the former president of the China Christian Council (CCC), Reverend Cao Shengjie, eleven of the approximately forty students of the Central Theological School during its revived existence (1946–52) later served as national and provincial church leaders: Shen Yifan—the second and third CCC vice president and the third CCC secretary-general Deng Fucun—the fifth to seventh vice president of Three-Self Patriotic Movement of the Protestant Churches in China (TSPM) and the sixth TSPM secretary-general Sun Xipei—the fourth to fifth CCC vice president Xiang Jianhua—the fourth to fifth CCC vice president Cao Shengjie—the first and second CCC secretary-general, the third and fourth CCC vice president, and the fifth CCC president Haolian Zhaoxuan—president of the TSPM and CCC in Henan Province Du Guangyan—president of the TSPM in Guizhou Province Cheng Zhuping—president of CCC in Shanghai He Fengde—president of CCC in Tianjin 15. 徐以驊：《教育與宗教：作為傳教媒介的聖約翰大學》，頁 264–65。[Xu, Education and Religion: St. John’s University as a Missionary Intermediary, 264–65.]

The Protestant Episcopal China Mission and Chinese Society 35

Chen Bentao—vice president of the TSPM in Jiangxi Province Yu Mingjian—vice secretary-general of the TSPM in Shanghai Many of these, including Haolian Zhaoxuan, Shen Yifan, Deng Fucun, and Sun Xipei, were former members of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference and its Standing Committee (Cao Shengjie). Reverend Cao attributed this to the “openness of Anglican theological thought” and “the depth of the spiritual pursuit and dedication to the church.”16 However, this was probably more related to the practice of churchstate relations and the structure and geographic layout of the Sheng Kung Hui in China. In addition to training a significant number of clergy, the PECM also cultivated a number of famous lay leaders and church workers among its believers. When it came to the educational and medical work of the CHSKH, there were notables too numerous to mention. In the study of Christian theology and philosophy of twentieth-century China, we have the famous “Zhao in the North” (T. C. Chao, or Zhao Zichen) and “Wei in the South” (Francis C. M. Wei, or Wei Zhuomin), as well as two well-known Christian scholars in China’s modern history, Xu Qian and Wu Leichuan. The latter two were both from the CHSKH and achieved the rank of Jinshi (successful candidate) in the highest imperial examination in the late Qing dynasty. The PECM Chinese clergy and church workers were part of the so-called Sino-Western Protestant establishment or the Indigenization Movement. Even the Laymen’s Foreign Missions Inquiry gave them much credit, commenting that, as a whole, they “would compare not unfavorably with” their counterparts in the United States.17 In addition, they were part of the worldwide Christian Ecumenical Movement. As a significant group devoting themselves to the study of Christian theology and philosophy, they were forerunners in the nascent state of the “reverse missionary” trend. They became known as Chinese Christian leaders, scholars, and even statesmen who came to the fore in the international stage of Christianity to promote the Chinese church and Chinese religious thought in the West, thus presenting Chinese culture to the international academic “altar.”18 Indeed, in the early 1950s these were important factors allowing Chinese Christianity to attain an equal footing with Chinese 16. 曹聖潔：〈在中央神學院和聖約翰大學求學〉，《世紀》，2012 年第 4 期，頁 18。[Cao Shengjie, “My Education at Central Theological School and St. John’s University,” Century, no. 4 (2012): 18.] 17. Xu Yihua, “Chapter One: Christian Colleges and Theological Education—From Core to Periphery,” in Changing Paradigms of Christian Higher Education in China (1888–1950), ed. Peter Tze Ming Ng et al. (New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 2002), 83–85. 18. 徐以驊：〈從韋卓民看中國基督教會的歷史和現狀〉，徐以驊、張慶熊主編，《基督教學 術》 （第九輯） （上海：上海三聯書店，2011），頁 152–55。[Xu Yihua, “Some Reflections on the History and Current Reality of the Chinese Christian Church Based on the Case of Francis Wei,” in Christian Scholarship, vol. 9, ed. Xu Yihua and Zhang Qingxiong (Shanghai: Joint Publishing, 2011), 152–55.]

36

Edward Yihua Xu

traditional religions and even to do slightly better than other religions in terms of its relationship with the newly established Communist government.19

Embedding in Politics From a political point of view, the modern development of Christianity in China was full of twists and turns. The basic trajectory was roughly from the periphery to the center and then back to the periphery. In other words, Christianity in China first turned from an objectively revolutionary force outside the political system into a reforming and conservative force within the system. Eventually, it became a social force with only a symbolic political role on the edge of the system. Of course, this is a generalization about the overall trend in which there were many counterexamples and other variables. The key events in China in the first half of the twentieth century were the Nationalist Revolution of 1911, the Northern Expedition, the KMT-CCP split, the War of Resistance against Japan, and the victory of the CCP in 1949. All of these affected the basic social and political status of Christianity in China, independent of the Christians’ direct political involvement. With respect to the latter, there were variations in geographical region, period, and personal background. In general, in the nineteenth century and up until the 1911 Revolution, Christianity was rather revolutionary, but afterward, when it was more or less within the KMT political system, it tended to become more conservative. Christianity in China as a whole in the 1920s and 1930s was politically prudent, yet individual Christians would sometimes participate in radical, or even extreme, political activities. The Christian missionary movement in China shifted from being a fringe, even revolutionary, movement to becoming a part of the power establishment at the beginning of the twentieth century.20 To some extent in the nineteenth century, Western missionaries contributed to the decline of Chinese traditions. Various institutional entities propelled changes that eventually coalesced into a wide-ranging social revolution. The development of cultural and social revolution in China in the twentieth century, however, weakened the position and role of the existing missionary institutions as a force for social change. The missionary movement tended to become conservative because of its various vested social interests. When it came to the movement’s political leanings, Professor Timothy Tingfang Lew (Liu Tingfang, 1891–1947) of the 19. Seven religious leaders attended the first plenary meeting of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference held in Beijing from September 21 to 30, 1949. Among them, four were Christians (Wu Yaozhong, Zhang Xueyan, T. C. Chao, and Deng Yuzhi), two were Buddhists (Zhao Puchu and Ju Zan), and one was a Muslim (Ma Jian). Mr. Liu Liangmo, another Christian leader, was an alternate representative for the conference. 20. 徐 以 驊：《教 育 與 宗 教：作 為 傳 教 媒 介 的 聖 約 翰 大 學》，頁 220。[Xu, Education and Religion: St. John’s University as a Missionary Intermediary, 220.]

The Protestant Episcopal China Mission and Chinese Society 37

Yenching University School of Religion made it clear that Western missionaries were “seeking the favor of those in power at any given time so that missionary activities could be carried out and that they could seek the opportunities for missionary preaching. Thus, it was not easy to develop a Chinese political reform movement in the jurisdiction of a church, because it was under the control of Western missionaries. Sometimes the missionaries would provide asylum and protection for Christians [involved in political activity], but they had never officially sponsored revolutionary movements.”21 The missionary movement in the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth century in China did not preach “the gospel of liberation.” It bore a heavy cross for being closely identified with Western powers, and only during the War of Resistance against Japan (1937–45) did it partly get out of this awkward position.22 Before the Revolution of 1911, a typical example of the PECM’s “institutional” participation in Chinese modern politics was its involvement with the activities of the Rizhi Society, the organization that first plotted the Revolution of 1911. Founded by an early student of the theological department at St. John’s University, the Reverend Huang Chi-t’ing, it was also known as the Xingzhong Society, Huaxing Society, and Guangfu Society. The Rizhi Society was originally the name of the newspaper reading room in Wuchang, established by the Wuchang Diocese of the PECM in 1901. In 1902, Huang was sent by Bishop J. Addison Ingle (1867–1903) to Changsha, Hunan Province, to start a new mission station. There, he also set up a newspaper reading room for the Rizhi Society. Many famous revolutionaries such as Huang Keqiang, Song Jiaoren, and Chen Tianhua became its members. In fact, in the fall of 1904, when the Qing government was searching for Huang Keqiang, it was Huang Chi-t’ing who personally sent him out of Changsha in the church’s sedan chair. When saying goodbye, Huang Chi-t’ing asked Huang Keqiang to send him a telegram with the character “Xing” so that he could confirm his safe arrival in Shanghai. This is the origin of how Huang Keqiang eventually received his more famous name, Huang Xing.23 Huang Xing 《生命》，第 4 卷第 8 期，頁 4。[Timothy Tingfang 21. 劉廷芳：〈中國基督教愛國主義評議〉， Lew, “Some Comments on the Christian Patriotism in China,” Life 4, no. 8: 4.] 22. 徐以驊：《教育與宗教：作為傳教媒介的聖約翰大學》，頁 220–21。[Xu, Education and Religion: St. John’s University as a Missionary Intermediary, 220–21.] 23. For the Rizhi Society’s revolutionary activities and its relationship with the Sheng Kung Hui, （北京：北京書目文獻出版社， see 湖北省圖書館編：《辛亥革命武昌首義史料輯錄》 1981）。 [Hubei Provincial Library (ed.), Selected Historical Materials of Wuchang Uprising in the Revolution of 1911 (Beijing: Beijing Library Press, 1981)]; 賀 覺 非：《辛 亥 武 昌 首 義 人 物 傳》 （第 1 卷） （北 京： 北 京 中 華 書 局，1982）， 頁 1–71。[He Juefei, Biographical Sketches of Revolutionaries of Wuchang Uprising in the Revolution of 1911 (Beijing: Zhonghua 《辛 亥 武 昌 首 義 史》 （湖 北：湖 北 人 Book Company, 1982), 1: 1–71]; 賀 覺 非、馮 天 瑜： 民 出 版 社，1986）， 頁 74–81。[He Juefei and Feng Tianyu, History of Wuchang Uprising in the Revolution of 1911 (Hubei: Hubei People’s Press, 1986), 74–81]; 梅 詮：〈辛 亥 革 命 時期為革命做出貢獻的武漢基督徒〉，《天風》，1989 年 10 月，頁 16–20。[Mei Quan, “Christians in Wuhan Who Contributed to the Revolutionary Cause during the Revolution

38

Edward Yihua Xu

was Dr. Sun Yat-sen’s confidant and his second-in-command for the Revolution of 1911. After Huang Chi-t’ing went to Changsha, the Wuchang Rizhi Society was led by two other early students of the theological department of St. John’s, the Reverend Hu Lang-t’ing and Mr. Liu Fan-hou. At that time, the Rizhi Society was located in the Church of Our Savior, where Hu worked. In early 1906, Hu Lang-t’ing assisted two Mandarin teachers of the theological department of Boone University, Liu Ching-an and Cao Yabo, to transform the Rizhi Society into an anti-Qing secret society. As a result the Rizhi Society, relocated to St. Joseph Chapel, quickly turned from a mission station into a hub for revolutionary forces within the two provinces of Hunan and Hubei.24 It was here that one of the CCP leaders, Dong Biwu, accepted the new ideas on the Chinese Enlightenment. On January 13, 1907, a leak from informants led to “the Arrest of 1906” of nine people, including Liu Ching-an. Hu Lang-t’ing, Huang Chi-t’ing, Yu Rizhang, and others were also wanted by the Qing government. Despite this, the Rizhi Society was considered to be one of the organizations that instigated the Wuchang Uprising in the Revolution of 1911. Logan H. Roots (1870–1945), who followed Ingle as bishop of the Wuchang Diocese, proved to be Christianity in China’s man of the hour. His bishopric extended from 1904 to 1938. Not only was he a celebrity in both Chinese and Western societies in Wuhan, but he also played a certain role in the party politics between the KMT and the CCP. Roots and the Wuchang Diocese once came forward to rescue the arrested Christian members of the Rizhi Society, causing the governor of Hu-Guang, Zhang Zhidong, to be more scrupulous in carrying out further raids and repression against the Christians involved in the Rizhi Society. After Chiang Kai-shek launched the April 12 Incident of 1927, the CCP dignitary Zhou Enlai sought refuge in the bishop’s residence in Hankow. Roots admitted him, and they formed a friendship. After the Lugou Bridge Incident (or the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, 1937), the Anti-Japanese National United Front was founded by the CCP and the KMT. Zhou Enlai, Dong Biwu, Qin Bangxian, and other Chinese Communist of 1911,” Tian Feng (October 1989): 16–20];〈黃吉亭會長升受聖職 40 週年紀念感恩禮拜 自述〉，《聖公會報》，1934 年 4 月 15 日，頁 16–20。[“The Rev. Huang Chi-t’ing’s Speech at the Commemorating Service Celebrating the Fortieth Anniversary of His Ordina­tion,” Chinese Churchman (April 15, 1934): 16–20]; L. H. Roots, “Annual Report of the Bishop of the Missionary District of Hankow,” in The Annual Report of the Board of Missions of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, 1905–1906 (New York, 1906), 196–203; 徐 以 驊：《教 育 與 宗 教： 作 為 傳 教 媒 介 的 聖 約 翰 大 學》， 頁 276–77。[Xu, Education and Religion: St. John’s University as a Missionary Intermediary, 276–77.] 《近代裨海》 （第 1 輯） （成都：四 24. 陸丹林：〈革命黨與基督教〉，榮孟源、章伯鋒主編， 川人民出版社，1985），頁 576。[Lu Danlin, “Revolutionaries and Christianity,” in Modern World, vol. 1, ed. Rong Mengyuan and Zhang Bofeng (Chengdu: Sichuan People’s Press, 1985), 576.]

The Protestant Episcopal China Mission and Chinese Society 39

leaders were dispatched to Hankow from December 1937 to October 1938, leading the CCP’s Yangtze River Bureau and the Wuhan Office of the Eighth Route Army. During this period, these senior leaders of the CCP were all frequent visitors to the bishop’s residence. In April 1938, Bishop Roots was about to retire and return to the United States. Zhou Enlai, Qin Bangxian, and other CCP dignitaries hosted a farewell dinner party for him and his family in the roof garden of the Eighth Route Army Office in Hankow. Zhou Enlai also handwrote two scrolls for him as a gift, reading, “Internal disunity dissolves at the threat of external invasion,” and “To clarion call their vocal chords they bend, seeking the happy response of a friend.” When the bishop left Wuhan on April 19, 1938, the South China Bureau of the CCP Central Committee released his farewell speech, “Bishop Roots’s Parting Words to Consolidate the United Front,” through the Xinhua Daily.25 Zhou Enlai also wrote down the Chinese poem, translated here from the Book of Songs (Xiaoya, “Logging”) in the bishop’s diary: I hear the woodchopper’s blows resounding, And the hills with clear bird-calls abounding; From the dark valley below, forth they fly, Lighting on tree-top high against the sky; To clarion call their vocal chords they bend, Seeking the happy response of a friend. Just as the birds with deep instinct of choice, Seek the clear notes of a friend’s well-known voice; May it not be that man, banishing strife, Will in true friendship find the fuller life; The God—all the gods—will lend listening ear, And send to man the gift of peace so dear.

Frank R. Millican of the American Presbyterian Mission translated the poem into English and published it with the original text in the seventieth volume (April 1939) of The Chinese Recorder, adding the title “World Brotherhood.”26 During his stay in Wuhan Bishop Roots was also close to the KMT leadership, including T. V. Soong (Song Ziwen), H. H. Kung (Kong Xiangxi), Zhang Qun, Wang Ch’ung-hui (Wang Chonghui), Feng Yu-hsiang (Feng Yuxiang), and K. C. Wu (Wu Guozhen). Clearly, the War of Resistance against Japan created the conditions by which the bishop could practice his proficient political balancing （1）、（2）、（3）、（4）、（5）[Hu Liuming, “The 25. 胡 榴 明：〈基 督 教 美 國 聖 公 會 在 武 漢〉 Protestant Episcopal China Mission in Wuhan,” nos. 1–5], http://huliuming.blogchina. com/60659.html (accessed March 3, 2012). 26. “World Brotherhood,” Chinese Recorder 70 (April 1939): 214.

40

Edward Yihua Xu

skills as well as assist the Christian Church in identifying with the Chinese movement for national salvation. Under the Japanese imperialist aggression, Western missionaries from other “imperialist countries” also identified with the Chinese people. Together they may be seen as victims of the war. Many anti-Japanese national salvation efforts of the Christian Church were widely praised by historians and even by the Chinese Communists. Be they Western churches or Chinese churches, their close cooperation with the government and the KMT, as the ruling party, was still the main aspect of their political participation. Only when the KMT-CCP struggles had given way to civil war would the Christian Church gain more latitude in choosing sides between the KMT and the CCP. In general, because of their similar educational backgrounds, personal experiences, political views, and religious beliefs, the CHSKH clergy and senior church workers were closer to the KMT, especially in the early years. Earlier, in 1918, when Dr. Sun Yat-sen secluded himself in Shanghai to write his English book, The International Development of China, he invited the CHSKH’s Y. Y. Tsu, David Yu, and T. Z. Koo, among others, to his apartment every week for discussions on how to write his book.27 The coastal and urban locations and geopolitical layout of the PECM, to some extent, put it at center stage in China’s politics. Chinese priests and members of the CHSKH also maintained a variety of connections with the CCP, but these were not as extensive as the more public relationships with the KMT. During the Nanchang Uprising, He Long’s headquarters was located in the CHSKH’s Hong Dao Church (St. Matthew’s Church), where Liu Bing-kang, another graduate of St. John’s theological department, was rector. When T. K. Shen was the bishop of the Missionary Diocese of Shensi, he came to know Zhou Enlai through a St. John’s alumnus, Chung K’e-t’oh (Zhong Ketuo), the CHSKH priest and Shensi antiopium commissioner. Bishop Shen helped the CCP build its religious United Front. During the war, he became acquainted with the Eighth Route Army Xi’an Office as well as with Lin Boqu and other Communist leaders. CHSKH priests who were graduates of St. John’s played important roles in supporting the CCP. Shanghai and Nanjing were the political and economic centers of modern China, as well as the headquarters of the PECM. Many Episcopalians and graduates of Episcopal schools became KMT government officials; some even attained the rank of cabinet member, minister of foreign affairs, and prime minister. Among these, T. V. Soong, Wellington Koo, and David Yu were later listed as “war criminals” by the CCP toward the end of the War of Liberation.

27. Y. Y. Tsu, “Some Recollections of Dr. Sun Yat-sen,” St. John’s Dial (October 4, 1935): 1–3; “Dr. Y. Y. Tsu Recollects Contacts with Dr. Sun,” St. John’s Dial (November 20, 1936): 1–2. The other two assistants mentioned by Dr. Sun are Monlin Chiang and John Y. Lee. See Sun Yatsen, preface to The International Development of China (New York: Putnam, 1922), ix–x.

The Protestant Episcopal China Mission and Chinese Society 41

Although senior CHSKH church leaders did not “collude with the CCP,” several radical young clergy developed close ties with the Communists. The best known were two alumni of St. John’s. H. J. Paul Pu (Pu Huaren) joined the CCP in 1927 and became a senior party member. In the early years, he was known for his literary talent because of his two well-known essays, “My Educational Experience” and “Poor Men’s Fortune.” Later, he served as English translator for the CCP Central Committee, director of Xinhua News Agency, and in other positions. Many church people saw him as their guardian in the CCP. The other Episcopalian who became a CCP government official was H. C. Tung (Dong Jianwu), a senior agent of the Special Operations Division of the CCP Central Committee. His public and private lives are both something of a mystery. He founded Datong Kindergarten, connected with St. Peter’s Church in Shanghai, which sheltered the children and orphans of the CCP senior cadres, including Mao Zedong’s three sons.28 On February 26, 1949, the CCP participants of the Chongqing negotiations, Zhou Enlai and Dong Biwu, wrote to the House of Bishops of the CHSKH to welcome the church “to see our works in construction or to establish churches, hospitals & charitable institutions.” They claimed that “the faith of the Christian Churches and our Party’s ideology may differ, but we are one in service of the people.” This is a famous letter that can be called “one of the most important policy statements by the Chinese Communist Party on religious issues after the war.” To a certain extent, much credit for this letter can be given to H. J. Paul Pu.29 After the fall of Shanghai to the Japanese army in 1937, the church and some of its affiliated institutions such as the Community Church (interdenominational) and the YMCA became, in effect, peripheral organizations of the CCP. Within Shanghai’s education system, St. John’s University had developed into one of the largest strongholds of the Communist Party. The “progressive organizations” of the CCP, St. John’s University and the Shanghai YMCA, formed a special relationship through a training program for YMCA secretaries organized by the moral education department of the Shanghai YMCA. The first director of the department was K. H. Ting. From 1943 to 1949, the training （北 京： 中 央 文 獻 出 版 社，2000）， 頁 126–31。[Wang 28. 王 光 遠：《紅 色 牧 師 董 建 吾》 Guangyuan, Red Pastor Dong Jianwu (Beijing: Central Party Literature Press, 2000), 126–31.] （上 29. 徐以驊：〈浦化人：出入教會的神奇人物〉，朱維錚主編，《基督教與近代文化》 海：上 海 人 民 出 版 社，1994），頁 269–87。[Xu Yihua, “Pu Huaren: A Christian-Turned Legendary Revolutionary,” in Christianity and Modern Culture, ed. Zhu Weizheng (Shanghai: 〈從牧師到中共高級幹部 ―― 浦化人的 Shanghai People’s Press, 1994), 269–87]; 徐以驊： 傳奇生涯〉，《世紀》，1995 年 7/8 月，頁 11–15。[Xu Yihua, “From a Christian Minister to a High-Ranking Communist Party Official—The Legendary Career of Pu Huaren,” Century (July/August 1995): 11–15]; 徐 以 驊：《教 育 與 宗 教：作 為 傳 教 媒 介 的 聖 約 翰 大 學》， 頁 215–20。 [Xu, Education and Religion: St. John’s University as a Missionary Intermediary, 215–20.]

42

Edward Yihua Xu

program had six sessions and sixty-nine trainees in total. They were sent around to become the backbone of the TSPM when it was launched, and several were actually underground CCP members.30 After 1949, bishops and other senior leaders of the CHSKH had reservations about, and were even opposed to, the TSPM. But it appeared to have become a tradition of the church that young clergy and lay leaders take different paths from, or even rebel against, their senior coworkers, and quite a few CHSKH clergy became TSPM leaders. In short, the concept and practice of cooperation between state and church, which may be regarded as an Anglican and Episcopal tradition, allowed the CHSKH to win advantages from both the KMT and the CCP. This enabled them to survive, grow, and develop. The education level, financial resources, social networking, and talent for international communication enabled the Sheng Kung Hui to participate in various educational, social, welfare, and diplomatic activities. In this way they could establish a wide range of social relationships and enjoy a high social status. In the late stages of the War of Resistance against Japan, the training program for YMCA secretaries in Shanghai enabled quite a few young clergy and church workers of the Sheng Kung Hui to become future TSPM activists. In a sense, the institutional and organizational framework of the CHSKH provided a ready reference for the institutionalization of the TSPM. All these special factors combined to enable the CHSKH to have a greater impact than any other church on the TSPM in the 1950s. In the early 1980s, when the Chinese Christian Church resumed its activities after the Cultural Revolution (1966–76), some of its top leaders were K. H. Ting, Zheng Jianye, Zhao Fusan, Shen Yifan, Cao Shengjie, Luo Guanzong, Sun Xipei, and Deng Fucun. This illustrates the continuing influence of the CHSKH on Chinese Christianity.

Conclusion The late missiological scholar Dr. Ralph D. Winter used the formula of “four, three, two” to describe the course of the development of the global Christian missionary movement. “Four” refers to the four roles (or “four Ps”) that the Christian missionary movement played as “pioneer, parent, partner, and participant.” “Three” refers to the three eras that the Christian missionary movement went through: the era of the Coastlands, the era of the Inland Areas, and the era of the Unreached Peoples. “Two” refers to the two transitions, represented respectively by the Student Volunteer Movement and the Student Foreign Mission Fellowship. In reality, this formula is too general and oversimplified 30. Xu Yihua, “Patriotic Protestants: The Making of an Official Church,” in God and Caesar in China: Policy Implications of Church-State Tensions, ed. Jason Kindopp and Carol Lee Hamrin (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2004), 111–12.

The Protestant Episcopal China Mission and Chinese Society 43

to be applied to Christian missions in China, but it does call attention to some intriguing aspects of the missionary movement. Winter cited Christian missionary movement historian Kenneth Scott Latourette, and used Hudson Taylor and Timothy Richard to refer to the low end (mass route) and high end (elite route) of the missionary movement in China. He pointed out that not only were these two routes leading trends in history but they continue to exist in the present.31 Hudson Taylor’s route and Timothy Richard’s route represent divergent thinking about missions, and there were indeed different emphases and characteristics. The former pays more attention to the self-sufficiency or independence of church institutions but is more marginalized with respect to society and clearly lacks social influence. In contrast, the latter emphasizes the topdown method, upper-class embedding, and theological construction. It fully integrates itself into the mainstream of society even though the church’s own causes, especially in education, may become unwieldy and make it difficult for the church to achieve self-support and self-governance. The comparative evaluation of the two routes is difficult because of different analytical perspectives, theological positions, and criteria of evaluation. Because the former is rooted in rural areas at the grassroots level, it was often overlooked. However, in recent years many conservative evangelicals in the international Christian community have favored the low-end route, for it has led to a domestic religious revival, which is regarded as a part of the global evangelical resurgence. The latter used to be blamed for being dependent on the missionary societies economically and administratively, yet in time it has been praised by secular academics for attaching importance to education, health care, and charity causes, which have been the most beneficial from both cultural-historical and cultural exchange perspectives. To study missionary and church history from the cultural exchange perspective has become the mainstream viewpoint among academics in the research field of Christianity in China. As the representative of the high-end route, the PECM’s historical role is naturally controversial. The so-called presentism in historical studies uses today’s concepts, ideas, and theoretical paradigms to interpret, shape, and reconstruct the past. This may also be reflected in the study of Chinese Christian Church history, but it can hardly do full justice to the historical record. In the early days of Communist China, and even at the beginning of the period of openness and reform (1978 onward), the heritage of the major missionary societies including the PECM, and especially the Chinese personnel trained by the missions, enabled Chinese Christians to compile The Encyclopedia of China: Religion Volume.32 The Chinese Christian Church 31. Ralph D. Winter, “How to Best Help China? The Story of Two Very Different Missionaries to China,” Mission Frontiers (November/December 2008): 12–14. （宗教卷） （北京：大百科全書出版社， 32. 中國大百科全書編委會編：《中國大百科全書》

44

Edward Yihua Xu

also founded or restored the only journals on religion, Zongjiao (Religion) and Jinling Shenxuezhi (Nanjing Theological Review), in the early 1980s. These two journals paved the way for the revival of religious studies in China. Chinese Christian leaders in the early 1980s initiated the “post-missionary era”33 and China’s religious interactions with the outside world. The thirty years of unrest up to the end of the Cultural Revolution era seriously weakened theology and academic research in the Chinese church. It fell behind in international religious studies and academic dialogues (this, however, is now changing). Its international status also plummeted; during this time, Christianity in China completely lost its leading role among the so-called younger or new churches in Asia and around the world. After the founding of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the center of gravity of China’s Christian theology and religious studies shifted. It was first transferred to the churches and academic institutions in Taiwan and Hong Kong. Since China’s reform and opening, it has returned to the Mainland’s academia, rather than to the Chinese Christian Church itself. Secular academia on the Mainland, which hardly had anything to say regarding theology and religious studies in the past, has now gained comprehensive and overwhelming advantage vis-à-vis the church in China, and its seminaries.34 With China’s reform and opening, Christianity has experienced rapid development, reflecting the southward trend of global Christianity. However, this development is one of quantity rather than quality, and its main contribution to the worldwide Christian Ecumenical Movement remains at the practical, rather than the theological, philosophical, or ideological, levels. In the past, the Chinese Christian Church has been criticized as “having a swollen body but weakened heart and brain,” meaning it confused the primary with the secondary and paid much more attention to areas like education and medicine than to direct evangelical work. Although the Chinese Christian Church today has almost lost all its auxiliary institutions, this “edema symptom” or “powerlessness” in the theoretical and theological construction has become much more intensified. Despite the fact that the Christian Church has representatives at all levels within the National People’s Congress and the Chinese People’s Political 1988）。[The Editorial Committee of the Encyclopedia of China (ed.), The Encyclopedia of China: Religion Volume (Beijing: Encyclopedia of China Press, 1988).] 〈後傳教時代的宗教與中美關係〉，徐 33. For the so-called postmissionary era, see 徐以驊： 以驊、涂怡超、劉騫主編，《宗教與美國社會 ―― 宗教與美國對外關係》 （第七輯） （北 京： 時 事 出 版 社，2012）， 頁 73–76。[Xu Yihua, “Religion and Sino-US Relations in the Post-Missionary Era,” in Religion and American Society—Religion and American Foreign Relations, vol. 7, ed. Xu Yihua, Tu Yichao, and Liu Qian (Beijing: Current Affairs Press, 2012), 73–76.] 34. Xu Yihua, “Comparison and Shift of Axis in History Research of the Christian Religion in Three Regions: Mainland, Taiwan, Hong Kong,” KIATS Theological Journal, Korea 4, no. 1 (Summer 2008): 111–20.

The Protestant Episcopal China Mission and Chinese Society 45

Consultative Conference and has a symbolic status in the country’s political system, it has been seriously marginalized in society and in academia. Therefore, the high road of the Christian missionary movement in China is, in my view, definitely more favorable than the low. The embedding of the PECM in education, the church, and politics and its high-road approach naturally receive increasing recognition and respect from academia. Today, to enhance its theological studies, social participation, and international status, the Christian Church in China should consider the path of this historical experience as a way forward for its future development.

Chapter 2

Female Education and the Early Development of St. Stephen’s Church, Hong Kong (1865–1900s) Patricia P. K. Chiu

The education of “native” girls and women had been a part of the British Protestant missionary enterprise in Asia from the early nineteenth century. From India (1800s) to the Straits Settlements (1820s), the treaty ports in China and Hong Kong (1840s), and Japan (1870s), mission schools for girls were set up soon after opportunities were made available.1 It was believed that education as intellectual enlightenment would lead to rejection of idolatry, conversion to Christianity, and the eventual elimination of social evils, such as the practices of sati in India, foot binding in China, female infanticide, and various forms of slavery imposed on girls and women on “Eastern land.”2 The opening up of the minds of “native” females, who would be future partners of the male converts and mothers of the next generation, was also perceived as crucial to the progress of the Gospel, as illustrated in an article by Jemima Thompson, “The Importance of Female Agency in Evangelizing Pagan Nations,” published in 1841. It claims that, To whatever extent we may succeed in giving a proper education to the males, if the females are left without education, we can rationally expect nothing but a failure as to our great object. Let us suppose the present generation of male youth to grow up to maturity, under the favourable influence of the best education. If the females are uninstructed, who will be the wives of these youths, but persons with all the degraded feelings and habits which now prevail?3

Underlying this rhetoric was the important role of religious education in Victorian Britain and the rule of law that children should be brought up in the religion of their father.4 A “pagan” wife would certainly cause dispute and difficulty. British Christian women were called to participate in this dual mission 1. See Rosemary Seton, Western Daughters in Eastern Lands: British Missionary Women in Asia (Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger, 2013), 6–14, 117. 2. See Clare Midgley, Feminism and Empire (London, New York: Routledge, 2007), 73–86. 3. Jemima Thompson, “The Importance of Female Agency in Evangelizing Pagan Nations,” in Thomas Timpson, Memoirs of British Female Missionaries: with a survey of the condition of women in heathen countries (London: William Smith, 1841), xiii. 4. Ben Griffin, The Politics of Gender in Victorian Britain (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 147–48.

48

Patricia P. K. Chiu

of civilizing and evangelizing their sisters in the East, as stated in the conclusion of the above-mentioned article: “Christianity is the only remedy for the sufferings of women in heathen and Mohammedan countries; and Christian education can be imparted on no large or efficient plan, but through the interposition of their own sex in this country.”5 Until the establishment of the first female missionary society in England, the Society for Promoting Female Education in the East (SPFEE), or Female Education Society (FES), as it was commonly referred to, missionary wives shouldered, alongside their domestic duties, the challenge of setting up day and boarding schools for orphan girls and daughters and wives of converts.6 However, education work was by no means an easy task for them, as described in the Appeal, published by the FES to promote sending single women as missionaries to overseas stations. It was observed, [But] in those exhausting climates, it cannot be expected that a missionary’s wife, occupied with her domestic duties, and having other duties too, connected with the Mission, can do more than superintend one or two schools in the immediate vicinity, if she can find leisure even for that. But a person whose whole time was devoted to this object might clearly fill a large neighborhood with schools, being herself the teacher of the teachers.7

The founding of the nondenominational FES in 1834 filled this gap before the major mission societies formally recruited single women as missionaries in the second half of the nineteenth century—the Wesleyan Methodist Missionary Society in 1858, the London Missionary Society (LMS) in 1875, and the Church Missionary Society (CMS) in 1887.8 Rosemary Seton remarks that the move led to numerical domination by women in the mission field by early twentieth century, especially in Asian countries. Some 60 percent of British missionaries in the Indian subcontinent and in China were women.9 Studies on the role of women in overseas mission suggest that the nature of missionary work opened doors to experience and fulfillment unavailable to these women in Victorian England. Women’s approach to mission work, stressing personal skills and social contact, brought new dimensions to the development of overseas mission and the “native” churches founded. However, single 5. Ibid. See discussion of the essay in Clare Midgley, “Can Women Be Missionaries? Envisioning Female Agency in the Early Nineteenth-Century British Empire,” Journal of British Studies 45 (April 2006): 335–58. 6. The Ladies Committee of the British and Foreign School Society (BFSS) took the lead in sending out the first single woman missionary teacher, Mary Ann Cooke, to India in 1821. In 1834, their work was handed over to the newly established Society for Promoting Female Education in the East. See Midgley, Feminism and Empire, 75–76, 95–96. 7. Society for Promoting Female Education in China, India and the East, Appeal (London: Edward Suter, n.d.), 12. 8. Midgley, Feminism and Empire, 94. 9. Seton, Western Daughters in Eastern Lands, 22.

Female Education and Early Development of St. Stephen’s Church

49

women’s pushing into a men’s world challenged the norm of male dominance in domestic and ecclesiastical hierarchy and, in some ways, undermined the position of missionary wives, whose work remained part of their domestic role, and who were not appreciated as professionals.10 Conflicts and struggles documented in personal correspondence often underlay the progress celebrated in missionary publications. The development of female education and the Chinese Anglican Church (or Sheng Kung Hui) in nineteenth-century Hong Kong was part of this narrative but not examined in current studies. In diocesan and parish church histories, girls’ schools are documented as part of the church’s charity work, as well as a source of new converts and helpers. Missionary women and students and teachers of the girls’ schools are credited as instrumental to the growth of Chinese parishes.11 Yet in what ways the ideals, strategies, and practices of female education and the participation of missionary women had shaped the early development of the Chinese Anglican Church was not further explored. This is a gap this chapter seeks to address through the study of the early development of St. Stephen’s Church, the first Chinese Anglican church in Hong Kong. The early history of St. Stephen’s Church intertwined with the beginning of vernacular girls’ schools opened by Miss Susan Harriet Sophia Baxter, an honorary missionary of the FES, in the 1860s. A Chinese teacher named Pong Yan Oi and two pupils of the Diocesan Native Females Training School (DNFTS) who transferred from Baxter’s school were baptized in the first baptismal service held in the church on Easter Sunday 1867.12 When St. Stephen’s Church moved from Hollywood Road to the site on Pokfulam Road in 1888, the church became neighbor to the FES Fairlea School on Bonham Road. 10. See discussions in Jocelyn Murray, “The Role of Women in the Church Missionary Society, 1799–1917,” in The Church Mission Society and World Christianity, 1799–1999, ed. Kevin Ward and Brian Stanley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 66–90; Rosemary Seton, “Open Doors for Female Labourers: Women Candidates of the London Missionary Society, 1875– 1914,” in Missionary Encounters: Sources and Issues, ed. Robert Bickers and Rosemary Seton (Richmond: Curzon Press, 1996), 50–69; Rhonda Semple, Missionary Women: Gender, Professionalism and the Victorian Idea of Christian Mission (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2003), 194–206. 11. See G. B. Endacott and Dorothy She, The Diocese of Victoria, Hong Kong: A Hundred Years of Church History, 1849–1949 (Hong Kong: Kelly and Walsh, 1949); 鍾 仁 立：〈聖 士 提 反 堂 七十五年史略〉 ，載於《聖士提反堂七十五周年紀念刊》 （香港：聖士提反堂，1940）， 頁 1–7。 [Chung Yan Lap, “Seventy-Five Years of St. Stephen’s Church,” in The 75th Anni­ versary of St. Stephen’s Church (Hong Kong: St. Stephen’s Church, 1940), 1–7]; 邢 福 增、劉 紹麟：《天國．龍城：香港聖公會聖三一堂史（1890–2009）》 （香港：基督教中國宗教文 化研究社，2010），頁 68–71。[Ying Fuk-tsang and Lau Siu-lun, In Kowloon City as It Is in Heaven: A History of Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui Holy Trinity Church (1890–2009) (Hong Kong: Christian Study Centre on Chinese Religion and Culture, 2010), 68–71.] 12. “Baptism of Pupils in the Diocesan Native Female Training School, Hong Kong,” Female Missionary Intelligencer [FMI] 10 (1867): 138–41.

50

Patricia P. K. Chiu

Figure 9  Congregation of St. Stephen’s Church, Hong Kong, at the opening of the new church on Pokfulam Road, 1888. Courtesy of St. Stephen’s Church Archives.

Shortly after the relocation, the Victoria Home and Orphanage was opened in the church compound. A women’s school housed in St. Stephen’s House was later added to this cluster for the training of Bible women. Names of girls and women related to the three institutions can be found in the baptismal registers. A group photo taken at the opening of the new church showed that women and girls constituted the majority of the congregation.13 Drawing on archival records of the FES, the CMS, and St. Stephen’s Church, this chapter attempts to construct a narrative of the early development of St. Stephen’s Church and female education from the accounts and perspectives of the FES and CMS missionary women, a “faceless presence” in Hong Kong church history. I shall argue that while bishops and clergy laid the foundation of the Chinese church, it was the work of women among women and girls that contributed to its development in the early years when succession of clerical leadership was far from smooth and the evangelistic work among men and boys struggled to take off. I shall further claim that independent women missionaries inspired and shaped the development of Anglican women’s leadership in the Chinese church as well as the community at large. Their work among the marginalized and abused sowed the seeds for the anti-mui tsai campaign in the 1920s, of which lay leaders of St. Stephen’s Church were core members.

13. St. Stephen’s Church, The 75th Anniversary.

Female Education and Early Development of St. Stephen’s Church

51

Early Attempts of English Education (1850s–1865): Mrs. Lydia Smith and the DNFTS The official record that marked the beginning of girls’ education under the Anglican Church in Hong Kong could be traced to a letter by Mrs. Lydia Smith, wife of Bishop George Smith, dated January 22, 1858, to the ladies committee of the FES. Mrs. Smith gladly reported: On Monday, last, January 18th, we were permitted to commence our little girls’ school. Before nine in the morning, nine children were brought by their parents and friends, and duly entered in a book as scholars. After the nature of the school had been explained, a few words of prayer were offered up in Chinese by a friend, and our young teacher commenced her work of instruction by producing the large English letters, much to the delight of the parents.14

The teacher, a young Christian Eurasian woman of Chinese and Dutch extraction named Mary Assu, taught the girls simple English for part of the morning. They would then learn by rote an elementary book of Christian doctrines with a Chinese teacher of St. Paul’s College, the first Anglican boys’ school, under the supervision of Bishop Smith. Plain needlework was taught in the afternoon, and Mrs. Smith would explain to them the lessons previously taught by the Chinese teacher through the interpretation of Mary Assu.15 It was just a month earlier that Mrs. Smith wrote to the FES about this plan, ‘“We feel the growing necessity of educating the females as Christians, that our young men may not have the drawback of heathen wives.”16 This small day school housed in a classroom of St. Paul’s College eventually led to the opening of a boarding school named Diocesan Native Females Training School (DNFTS) in 1860. The purpose of the school was to provide an English religious education to Chinese girls of a better class to open their minds and prepare them to be “intelligent and helpful wives to educated boys.” In 1862, Miss Mary Ann Winifred Eaton of FES was sent to teach in the school under the supervision of a ladies committee from the European expatriate community. The first annual report commented that the school found favor among the Chinese. Teachers from government schools came forward to ask that their daughters be admitted. When the new schoolhouse on Bonham Road was opened, thirty girls were enrolled.17 In February 1864, a high-profile wedding of the eldest girl, Lydia Leung, to Wong Kiu Tak, the assistant to the Reverend John R. Wolfe of the CMS station in Foochow (Fuzhou), had brought great joy and hope to 14. “Chinese Girls’ School at Hong Kong,” FMI 1 (November 1858): 173–77. 15. Ibid. 16. Smith’s letter to FES, December 29, 1857, quoted in “Chinese Girls’ School at Hong Kong,” 173. 17. W. T. Featherstone, The Diocesan Boys School and Orphanage, Hong Kong: The History and Records, 1869 to 1929 (Hong Kong: Diocesan Boys’ School, 1930), 14, 92–95.

52

Patricia P. K. Chiu

the missionaries and European ladies as the first fruit of their labor.18 In 1871 Wong became the first Chinese to receive priestly orders in the Church of England. However, opinion was divided on the utility and efficiency of teaching Chinese girls English. Cases of girls becoming companions of European men after acquiring the English language were later reported. The school was under criticism and funding dwindled. It was decided that learning English should not be made compulsory for Chinese girls. The DNFTS was reconstituted into an orphanage for Eurasian, European, and Chinese children of both sexes in 1869 and was renamed the Diocesan Home and Orphanage (DHO).19 It would be supervised by a headmaster under a school committee made up of colonial officials and businessmen. Records of baptisms of students from this school can be found in the registers of St. John’s Cathedral and the former St. Peter’s Church at West Point.20 The link of the DHO to the development of St. Peter’s Church, and later Christ Church in Kowloon Tong, would warrant another in-depth inquiry as a part of the history of the Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui (Anglican Church). Founded in 1849 by the Reverend Vincent Stanton, the colonial chaplain, and expanded by the first bishop of Victoria, the Right Reverend George Smith, St. Paul’s College aimed to train clergy, catechists, and teachers for the Anglican Church, and interpreters for government services. The Blue Book of 1861 described the education the school provided as “mixed Chinese and English with doctrines and duties of the Christian Religion.”21 The opportunity for social mobility offered by an English-language education attracted boys of humble origin, but attendance and efficiency fluctuated. The young men tended to leave schools for jobs in trading firms soon after they acquired a certain level of English. This was a problem faced by other mission schools as well, such as the Anglo-Chinese College under LMS. Furthermore, the bishop’s presence in Hong Kong was intermittent. Of the fourteen years of his bishopric, Bishop Smith spent a total of only six years in Hong Kong.22 The opening of the government Central School in 1862 also drew ambitious young men from mission schools for the career prospects it offered. When Bishop Smith’s successor, Bishop Charles Richard Alford, arrived in Hong Kong in 1867, he found the college in debt and without an available income. The school opened with an attendance of twenty-one Chinese and nine Eurasian boys in the beginning of 1868, but only five remained until the end of the year. The bishop was of 18. FMI (May 1861): 90–93. 19. Patricia P. Chiu, “‘A Position of Usefulness’: Gendering History of Girls’ Education in Colonial Hong Kong (1850s–1890s),” History of Education 37, no. 6 (2008): 793–96; Patricia P. K. Chiu, A History of the Grant Schools Council (Hong Kong: Grant Schools Council, 2013), 36–37. 20. Endacott and She, Diocese of Victoria, Hong Kong, 141. 21. Hong Kong Blue Book for the Year 1861 (Hong Kong: Government Printer, 1862), 240. 22. Stuart Wolfendale, Imperial to International: A History of St. John’s Cathedral, Hong Kong (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2013), 40.

Female Education and Early Development of St. Stephen’s Church

53

the opinion that the original aim to educate Chinese ministers would not be realized, given the situation in China at that time.23 A number of the graduates had risen to positions of importance and acquired wealth; though baptized as Christians, they did not necessarily maintain a close connection with the Anglican Church. Wu Ting-fang, twice Chinese ambassador to the United States and probably the most well-known graduate of St. Paul’s College, and Chun Oi-ting, first Chinese consul general in Havana, were two such cases discussed in Carl Smith’s study on early Chinese Christians.24

FES Missionaries and Baxter Vernacular Schools (1860–1880s) While the “experiment” of DNFTS turned out to be a scandal repeatedly referred to in education history and St. Paul’s College did not produce many “educated boys” in connection with the church, the vernacular schools under another FES missionary, Harriet Baxter, flourished and proved to be of significance to the evangelistic work of Bishop Smith and Mr. Lo Sam Yuen, ordained in Hong Kong in 1863 as the first Chinese deacon. Harriet Baxter (1828–65) came to Hong Kong in April 1860 from Doncaster in response to Mrs. Smith’s appeal for workers in female education in Hong Kong. She was the third of nine children of Mr. Robert Baxter, a parliamentary solicitor of Westminster and “a man of strong religious convictions and resolute character.”25 Bishops Smith and Alford were both influenced by Robert Baxter’s evangelical passion when they served in Doncaster in the 1840s and 1850s, respectively.26 It was recorded that Harriet had longed and prayed for the opportunity to be a missionary in China since she was young. When the dream of China did not seem feasible, she took on the challenge of Hong Kong as an honorary missionary of the FES on her own expenses. Upon her arrival she found that a Miss Wilson was already engaged by the ladies committee to manage the DNFTS. With the financial support of her family, she “boldly struck out a path of usefulness for herself,” as Bishop Smith commented.27 While Chinese girls were at the heart of her work, she also saw the need for education among children of British soldiers and abandoned Eurasian orphans. She started an English school on Mosque Street for 23. Chiu, History of the Grant Schools Council, 32–33. 24. Carl T. Smith, Chinese Christians: Elites, Middlemen, and the Church in Hong Kong, new ed. (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2005), 197–98. See also John Carroll, “Ng Choy,” in Dictionary of Hong Kong Biography, ed. May Holdsworth and Christopher Munn (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2012), 337–38; Elizabeth Sinn, “Chan Ayin,” in Dictionary of Hong Kong Biography, ed. May Holdsworth and Christopher Munn (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2012), 68–69. 25. “Highfield House,” Doncaster Civic Trust Newsletter, March 30, 1980. 26. Ibid.; George Smith, “A Memorial of the Late Miss H. Baxter, of Hong Kong,” FMI 8 (1865): 193–200. 27. Smith, “Memorial,” 196.

54

Patricia P. K. Chiu

these children, alongside a Chinese girls’ day school on Staunton Street, and a boarding school for orphaned children in her own house on Bonham Road. Baxter’s schools adopted a traditional Chinese curriculum taught by a young widow, Pong Shi, while Harriet Baxter herself taught them prayers and simple Scripture passages. In 1864, the FES sent out Miss Mary J. Oxlad to join Harriet Baxter, whose work had by then extended beyond the school walls. She regularly visited the wives of soldiers with Mrs. Smith and kept her company during Bishop Smith’s long absence from Hong Kong while visiting his extensive diocese. After acquiring the local dialect, she called on humble Chinese families in the city and visited rural villages in the company of Christian Chinese women.28 When the Smiths were compelled to return to England in 1864 because of Bishop Smith’s ill health, Baxter continued to support Eaton’s work at the DNFTS and frequently visited the school. Harriet Baxter played a significant role in forming a Chinese congregation before St. Stephen’s Church was officially founded. In 1861, the Reverend T. Stringer and his wife were sent by the CMS to assist Bishop Smith’s evangelistic work in the colony. The Stringers shared a part of Baxter’s house in their first year, and she served as Stringer’s translator when he prepared a class of Chinese girls from the DNFTS and Baxter’s schools for baptism.29 The baptism service held on August 29, 1862, in the cathedral saw the Chinese matron of Baxter’s school, six girls from her school and the DNFTS, and the matron’s son baptized by Bishop Smith. Baxter wrote to the FES saying that the matron was enthusiastic in sharing her faith with neighbors and friends.30 Apparently, Stringer’s personality and slow progress in mastering the Chinese language rendered him unfit for the job. It was through the work of the Chinese catechist, and later deacon, Lo Sam Yuen that a Chinese congregation was gradually built up.31 Before the church building was erected, Sunday evening services with Lo as preacher were held in the chapel of St. Paul’s College. Informal services conducted by Lo and a children’s service led by Baxter herself were held in her house on Bonham Road.32 With the arrival of Stringer’s successor, the Reverend C. F. Warren, the plan for building the first Chinese Anglican church came to fruition.33 Unfortunately, 28. Ibid., 198; Cf. Patricia Chiu, “Baxter, Susan Harriet Sophia,” in Dictionary of Hong Kong Biography, ed. May Holdsworth and Christopher Munn (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2012), 22–23. 29. Smith to Venn, February 11, 1862; Stringer to Venn, August 9, 1862, Church Missionary Society (CMS) Archive, University of Birmingham Library, Special Collections, CMS/C/CH/ M3 1859–62, 218–19, 236–38. 30. “Baptism of A-ku, the Chinese Matron of the Orphan and Ragged School in Hong Kong,” FMI 1 (January 1863): 2–4. 31. Smith, “A Public Official Letter,” June 1863, CMS/C/CH/O 3b/67b; Smith to Venn, February 26, 1864, CMS/C/CH/O 3b/85A. 32. M. J. Oxlad, “Reminiscences of Hong Kong,” FMI 15 (1895): 133–38. 33. Endacott and She, Diocese of Victoria, Hong Kong, 98.

Female Education and Early Development of St. Stephen’s Church

55

Baxter did not live to see this growing Chinese congregation worship in St. Stephen’s Church. She was struck down by fever and died within a fortnight, on June 30, 1865, not long after St. Stephen’s Church celebrated its founding on June 24. Baxter’s young colleague, Mary J. Oxlad, was keeping watch outside her sick chamber at the time the service was held. From the verandah of the Bonham Road house overlooking Taipingshan, the “Chinese town,” that gathering at Hollywood Road could be seen and the sound of hymns could be heard. On her sick bed, Baxter was still asking whether Oxlad had sent the girls to attend the service, Oxlad recalled.34 After Baxter’s death, Oxlad took on the responsibility devolved upon her unexpectedly and pledged to do all she could to take care of Baxter’s pupils and not to let her work die with her.35 Baxter’s schools were closed, but the DNFTS took in Oxlad and those Chinese and Eurasian orphans. There, Oxlad continued to teach and care for the children. Upon his arrival in 1867, Bishop Alford reopened Baxter’s Chinese girls’ day school. With the help of the Chinese teacher Pong Yan Oi and a former Eurasian student, Louisa Rickomartz, this Staunton Street School progressed steadily under Oxlad’s supervision. The DNFTS was restructured to become the DHO under a headmaster, and in October 1869 Oxlad requested home leave, bringing her own endeavor to carry on Baxter’s work to a close. The Staunton Street School carried on for a while under Rickomartz with some financial support from the FES. Harriet Baxter’s family, particularly her sister Nona, who was on the FES committee in London, was resolute to see her work among Chinese girls continue. Yet Harriet’s will to keep her schools nondenominational made it impossible to merge with the DNFTS, an Anglican institution. In 1872, Oxlad was sent back to Hong Kong to set up vernacular girls’ schools under the auspices of the FES and the Baxter Mission funded by Harriet’s family. St. Stephen’s Church had seen a period of transition as well during Oxlad’s absence from Hong Kong; Warren had left for mission work in Japan, and his successor, the Reverend J. Piper, stayed for only a year or so and went off to Japan as well. Bishop Alford left for home leave in 1871 and resigned in 1872. When Oxlad returned, the Reverend A. B. Hutchinson was holding down the fort during the interregnum. Oxlad revived the Staunton Street School and opened another two in Taipingshan (Hollywood Road) and Saiyingpun (Second Street). The three schools taught by Chinese teachers, Pong Shi, Wong Shi, and Chung Shi, respectively, were among the first cohort to join the government Grantin-Aid Scheme in 1873.36 The inspector of schools, Mr. Frederick Stewart, 34. Oxlad, “Reminiscences.” 35. Miss Oxlad, “Further Tidings from Hong Kong,” FMI 8 (1865): 202. 36. Miss Oxlad, “Vernacular Day Schools in Hong Kong,” FMI 16 (1873): 34–36. Hong Kong Blue Book for the Year 1873 (Hong Kong: Government Printer, 1874), 136. In 1876 the Taipingshan School was relocated to a new schoolhouse in the compound of St. Stephen’s Church and was renamed Baxter Memorial School, which became the St. Matthew’s Primary School in the 1960s.

56

Patricia P. K. Chiu

spoke highly of the schools as “well conducted, well superintended and well taught.”37 The arrival of another FES missionary, Miss Margaret Johnstone, in 1874 provided much-needed help for Oxlad when opportunities opened up under the new grant-in-aid system. The scheme offered capitation grants according to academic results to schools operated by voluntary efforts regardless of denomination, language, and race. Grants of land and money to subsidize building costs were made available as well. With Hutchinson’s help, funding was raised from the English and Chinese communities in memory of the late Miss Baxter to build a new school house in the compound of St. Stephen’s Church. The Taipingshan School was moved there from its overcrowded premises and renamed Baxter Memorial School.38 A new school on D’Aguilar Street was also added to the group of Baxter vernacular schools, as they were referred to in government reports. However, while the number of schools and girls was growing, Oxlad’s health was deteriorating. She was also embroiled in a dispute between Hutchinson and the newly arrived Bishop Burdon in 1876, which added further strain to her health.39 Later in 1877, it was announced in the Female Missionary Intelligencer (FMI) that Oxlad was transferred to the mission school in Japan, where the climate suited her better.40

FES Missionaries and the Fairlea School (1880s–1889) Margaret Johnstone, who served in Hong Kong from 1874 to 1907, was not just another British missionary woman longing to save her suffering sisters in the East. She had already seen the empire firsthand as a young girl. Johnstone was born in Hobart, Tasmania. Her mother died when she was a child. As the daughter of an Irish army officer, Johnstone spent her early years moving from one station to another. She accompanied her father on his posting to Hong Kong in the 1860s and enrolled in Baxter’s English school. From the time she first met Johnstone in 1864, Oxlad remembered her as “an interesting scholar, a keen Bible student, and impulsive, warm-hearted Irish teenage girl.”41 Johnstone returned with her father to Ireland when the regiment left Hong Kong. Miss Baxter’s warmth must have made Hong Kong, which she later chose as her permanent abode, a temporary home to her: it was recorded that her memory of Miss Baxter “had drawn her back.”42 After her father’s 37. Hong Kong Government Report of Education for the Year 1873, para. 23. 38. Oxlad to Webb, October 1, 1892, CMS Archive, CMS/G1/CH1/O/1892/210. 39. Endacott and She, Diocese of Victoria, Hong Kong, 95–107; FES Minutes, February 24, 1876, CMS Archive, Female Education Society (1834–1899), FES/AM4/6360–62. 40. Miss Oxlad, “Easter on the Japan Sea,” FMI 19 (1877): 98–103. 41. Mary J. Oxlad, “The Late Margaret Johnstone,” Church Missionary Review 60 (November 1909): 681. 42. Oxlad, “Reminiscences,” 137.

Female Education and Early Development of St. Stephen’s Church

57

death, Johnstone applied to the FES to be a missionary. Following a probationary period of training and examination, she set sail for Hong Kong in March 1874.43 With government grant-in-aid supplementing voluntary efforts in the development of girls’ education, the number of vernacular day schools multiplied under different missions. There was a great need for female Chinese teachers. At that time, there were only two Protestant boarding schools for girls under the Berlin and Basel Missions. Yet these two schools gave a European education in Chinese using the romanized system, not a method commonly used in Hong Kong. None of the three main British missions, the CMS, the LMS, and the Wesleyan Mission, operated a boarding school for girls, though each had a number of day schools. The 1870s also saw an extensive network of kidnapping developed to feed the market for domestic bond servants (mui tsai), concubines, and prostitutes in Hong Kong and California, both predominantly male migrant communities. Girls were kidnapped from their home villages in China to be sold in Hong Kong.44 The effort to curb such trafficking also drew public attention to the practice of buying and selling children, particularly girls, as servants in Chinese society. The Po Leung Kuk, an institution for the protection of girls and women, was officially set up by the government and Chinese community in 1882. The need to provide a home for impoverished girls and a boarding school to train teachers seemed imminent. Fairlea School was subsequently opened on Bonham Road in the early 1880s, which marked a turning point in the education mission of the FES.45 Fairlea served as the mission house of the FES missionaries, a training ground for vernacular day school teachers, and a refuge and home for orphans and girls of humble backgrounds, including a few rescued from abuse and servitude.46 Under the protection of the “home,” the missionaries saw these girls clothed and fed, educated, and respectably married, instead of being sold by their parents to be mui tsai or concubines of the wealthy.47 Through baptism, the orphan girls acquired new Christian 43. Patricia Chiu, “Johnstone, Margaret Elizabeth,” in Dictionary of Hong Kong Biography, ed. May Holdsworth and Christopher Munn (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2012), 215. 44. Elizabeth Sinn, Pacific Crossing: California Gold, Chinese Migration, and the Making of Hong Kong (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2012), 226–48; John M. Carroll, A Concise History of Hong Kong (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2007), 58–61. 45. The school was first started in tenement houses and later moved to “Fairlea,” a house with gardens on Bonham Road around 1886. 46. Names of orphaned girls from Fairlea can be found in the baptismal register of St. Stephen’s Church. The columns recording names of parents, birthplace, and province were all left blank. A new Christian name was often given at baptism, and Fairlea School was entered as current residential address. 47. “Bath Auxiliary—25th Anniversary Meeting of the Bath Auxiliary Held on Oct 24th,” FMI 1 (1881): 191–93.

58

Patricia P. K. Chiu

names, such as Love, Faith, Grace, Ruth, Martha, or Mary, symbolizing a new identity and future. Johnstone was keen to see her girls equipped to live “useful lives,” participating in education and evangelism in various capacities. News reports of graduates marrying catechists of the CMS and other mission societies, or taking up a teaching post in one of the mission schools, were frequently recorded in the FMI. In one of these reports, Johnstone stated, “I do hope most of those with us will be teachers, and so spread the Gospel among their own people. Seven of our old girls are now teachers in different Missions.” One of these “old girls” was Mui Kwai (also known as Faith), the wife of Bishop Mok Shau Tsang. Johnstone introduced Mui Kwai and her work: “[She was] married last December to a CMS catechist. She has charge of our Day School in a poor street not far from our Home. Two meetings are held there, two evenings in the week, for women; and a Sunday school taught by some of our girls. Five women who have attended these meetings and have been taught by Miss Eyre and the bible women are to be baptized shortly.”48 Other examples of girls from Johnstone’s schools becoming members of St. Stephen’s Church included Mung Yan (no. 122), a girl who had been ill treated. She was brought to Fairlea from China by Mrs. Grundy of the CMS. Ruth (no. 123) was a student from the To Kwa Wan School. Dorcas (no. 124) was an orphan left to the FES ladies by an Englishman with money enough to support her. One girl named A-Yung was mentioned in the FMI among the second generation of Baxter’s students; she was the daughter of a Wesleyan preacher. Her mother was rescued as an infant by Miss Baxter, brought up by Miss Oxlad, and remained at the Diocesan School until her marriage.49 With newcomers added to the team, including Miss Lucy Eyre (in Hong Kong from 1888 to1912) and Miss Helena Fletcher (in Hong Kong from 1892 to1920), Johnstone expanded her day school network and training of Bible women and teachers. Oxlad described her as someone who “could never have been content to plod quietly in a narrow groove, for it was in her to plan, to develop, to push forward, and thus she achieved success where more cautious natures might have hesitated.”50 Her eight day schools were scattered in different parts of the colony, such as Tokwawan and Yaumati in Kowloon, Stanley in the south, Shaukiwan in the east, and Saiyingpun Praya in the west of Hong Kong Island.51 When the FES closed down in 1899, all the schools were handed over to the CMS and became the CMS day schools. Johnstone, 48. Miss Johnstone, “Girls Married from the School at Fairlea, Hong Kong,” FMI 13 (1893): 183–85. 49. The Diocesan School mentioned referred to the DNFTS. Probably the girl stayed on after DNFTS was reconstituted to become DHO until she was old enough to get married. Miss Johnstone, “Work in Hong Kong,” FMI 13 (1893): 55–58. 50. Mary Jane Oxlad, “Words of Appreciation for the late Margaret Johnstone,” Church Missionary Review 60 (November 1909): 681. 51. See Education Report for the year 1899.

Female Education and Early Development of St. Stephen’s Church

59

Figure 10  A missionary lady and students of the Women’s School, St. Stephen’s Church, Hong Kong. Courtesy of St. Stephen’s Church Archives.

Eyre, and Fletcher carried on with their work in connection with St. Stephen’s Church as CMS missionaries until their respective deaths and retirement in 1909, 1912, and 1920.

CMS Missionaries and the Victoria Home and Orphanage (1880s–1900s) A history of female education and the development of St. Stephen’s Church would not be complete without discussing the first CMS boarding school and orphanage for girls, Victoria Home and Orphanage (the Home). The Home was opened in March 1888 on the grounds of St. Stephen’s Church by CMS missionary and vicar of St. Stephen’s Church, the Reverend John B. Ost, and his wife, Mary. Its first annual report stated that the Home was “installed for the boarding and education of the daughters of Chinese, whether orphans or not, and also for the reception and rescue of young girls who would otherwise in all probability be forced into a life of immorality.” In the first year they

60

Patricia P. K. Chiu

admitted thirty-five Chinese girls, including daughters of Christian parents and rescued girls sent by the Registrar General, as well as nine Eurasian girls who attended the DHO as day scholars receiving an English education.52 Strict discipline was applied to keep such a diverse community in control. It was believed the conduct of Christian girls could be a good influence to those girls “who have been rescued from slavery, but who have not been exposed to direct contact with gross sin.”53 Mrs. Ost took charge of the Home with the help of Mrs. Kwong, the wife of the Chinese pastor of St. Stephen’s, the Reverend Matthew Kwong Yat-sau. Subsequently, two single missionary women of the CMS, Misses Agnes K. Hamper and Mary Ridley, were sent to her assistance in 1888 and 1889, respectively. The distinctiveness of the Home as compared to Po Leung Kuk was explained in the first annual report: Po Leung Kuk was but a temporary shelter for girls and women once rescued. The Home was a home and school where girls came under “the softening influence of family life, and are placed under definite instruction until such time as they are suitably provided for, and sent out to fill useful positions in the world.”54 The Home provided a vernacular education with religious instruction. A number of the girls were baptized in St. Stephen’s Church. Backgrounds of some of these girls can be found in a list of inmates compiled in 1898. For example, Li Ho (no. 246, aged eighteen) was a slave girl cruelly treated by a mistress who sent her to the hospital and gave her up when she found she was not strong enough to work; Lo San Tsoi (no. 198, aged twenty) was a slave girl rescued by CMS missionaries in Pakhoi (Beihai); Lai Kam (no. 312, aged seventeen) was received from the Po Leung Kuk.55 Opinion was always split on the policy of running the Home as a grant-in-aid school for girls of Christian families as well as a home for those rescued from slavery. After the Osts were relocated to Pakhoi in 1892, Hamper found it too difficult to manage such a diverse student body and decided to concentrate on the destitute while transferring the Christian girls to Fairlea. In 1902, a site on a hill on the eastern end of British Kowloon next to the Holy Trinity Church was granted for the building of the Home. Thereafter, the missionary women and girls of the Victoria Home and Orphanage became part of the history of Holy Trinity Church.56 Despite its noble aim, the opening of the Victoria Home and Orphanage right next to the FES Fairlea School was in fact an initiative that marked a period of discord between the FES missionaries and the Osts. The Reverend J. B. Ost, accompanied by his wife, arrived in Hong Kong from Ningpo (Ningbo) in 1881 to serve as the vicar of St. Stephen’s. They were particularly keen to expand the 52. First Annual Report, Victoria Home and Orphanage 1888–1889. 53. Ost to Banister, CMS/G1/CH1/O/1899/84. 54. First Annual Report, Victoria Home and Orphanage 1888–1889; China Mail, October 23, 1889. 55. CMS/G1/CH1/O/1899/84. 56. M. A. Jennings, “A Peep into the Past: Victoria Home, Kowloon,” PRO/HKMS/94-1-5, Public Records Office, Hong Kong.

Female Education and Early Development of St. Stephen’s Church

61

education work under the church. As the FES schools were closely related to St. Stephen’s Church, and with Fairlea being the only boarding school connected with the CMS, Ost believed the work of Fairlea should be put under his supervision. As daughters of his congregation were students there, he considered himself obliged to supervise their education. However, that was not the way the FES ladies and CMS men had worked in the past, as a kind of division of labor. The CMS missionary might be invited to give Bible lessons in the schools and would prepare the girls for baptism. The FES missionaries attended Sunday service, played the harmonium, organized choir singing at special occasions, and visited Chinese women chaperoned by the Bible women. They participated in church work under the CMS missionaries but were fully independent in the running of their own schools. Between 1884 and 1888, a great number of letters were exchanged between the CMS and FES secretaries in London, Margaret Johnstone, Bishop Burdon and Mrs. Burdon, and John and Mary Ost in Hong Kong on this subject of “in co-operation.” The disagreement was also part of a major conflict between Ost and the Reverend J. Grundy over their postings.57 The Osts decided that, should the FES ladies choose to maintain their independent status, they would establish their own girls’ boarding school so they could themselves direct and educate the daughters of their congregation under a more effective model.58 They applied to the Church of England Zenana Mission Society (CEZMS) for single female missionaries to join as helpers to Mary Ost. Their action caused much distress to the FES committee in London. Even the CMS committee did not want to damage the long-term partnership with the FES on an issue they regarded not worthy of a debate. In a letter to Bishop Burdon on this matter, the CMS secretary Christopher Fenn wrote, “If Mr Ost thinks that Miss Johnstone is in the whole doing the work well I cannot help thinking that he is giving himself needless trouble if he suffers himself to be panicked by the fact that she does not ask his help so much as she might do. She is a lady of considerable experience and great ability.”59 In a reply to Ost’s complaints, Fenn commented that “our energies should be turned in some other direction.”60 The Osts did not wait for the conflicts to be resolved at senior level. They opened the Victoria Home and Orphanage right next to Fairlea School with money raised in the colony while Johnstone was on furlough in England. 57. Endacott and She, Diocese of Victoria, Hong Kong, 100–101; 鍾仁立：《中華聖公會華南教 區 百 年 史 略》 （香 港：中 華 聖 公 會 會 督 府，1951），頁 13–14。[Chung Yan Lap, A Brief Church History of the Diocese of Hong Kong & South China of the Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui 1849–1949) (Hong Kong: Bishop’s House, 1951), 13–14.] 58. Mary Ost to Banister, n.d., CMS/G1/CH1/O/1899/84. The Osts were adamant that Christian parents should pay for their children’s education and objected to Fairlea’s policy of free education. 59. Fenn to Burdon, May 28, 1886. 60. Fenn to J. B. Ost, May 28, 1887, CMS/G1/CH/L4/467–72; Webb to Fenn, January 10, 1888, CMS/G1/CH1/O/1888/14.

62

Patricia P. K. Chiu

Apparently, as far as records showed, the rift did not affect the co-operation between the FES ladies and the two new CMS missionaries, Misses Hamper and Ridley, after the Osts’ departure. It is not known in what ways the broken relationship affected the congregation and their view on women and ministry. When the FES was dissolved in 1899, all their schools and missionaries in Hong Kong were placed under the CMS, which officially put their independence to an end.

Conclusion The promotion of female education with the aim to nurture Christian wives and mothers was considered a significant part of the consolidation of missionary work. The case of St. Stephen’s Church in relation to female education under the FES and the CMS reveals the complexity and unique social and cultural factors that underlay the advancement of this mission in a colonial migrant society. Opportunities in the newly established colony of Hong Kong attracted a predominantly male immigrant population from coastal villages of South China. They were mainly artisans, carpenters, and unskilled manual laborers who took up residence in the “Chinese town” of Taipingshan and Saiyingpun. They, and not the educated elites, were the first people converted, as shown on the list of occupations of church members recorded in the baptismal register of St. Stephen’s Church. The training of young men as teachers and catechists at St. Paul’s College and later the “senior school” in connection with St. Stephen’s Church did not see their fruits till the 1880s.61 Girls brought up by the FES missionaries made suitable mates for these working-class converts, who would otherwise find it difficult to look for respectable girls for marriage in colonial Hong Kong. In contrast to the DNFTS’s practice, from the very beginning Harriet Baxter had chosen to educate the Chinese girls in their own language and culture instead of giving them an Anglicized English education. This approach proved effective in the specific social context and was adopted by all her successors, who also acquired the Chinese language and built up strong connections with local women. A boarding school system was often criticized in missionary studies as a device to remove native girls from their cultures in a colonial setting,62 yet, in the case of Fairlea, the adoption of the vernacular curriculum prescribed under the Grant Code kept the girls in touch with their cultural roots, though not the traditional degraded view of girls and women. As a matter of fact, marriages of girls to Christian men and their Christian weddings were frequently published in the FMI as illustrations 61. 鍾 仁 立 ：《華 南 教 區 百 年 史 略》，頁 13–16。[Chung, A Brief Church History, 13–16]; Endacott and She, Diocese of Victoria, Hong Kong, 100. 62. Cf. Fiona Bowie, Deborah Kirkwood, and Shirley Ardener, eds., Women and Missions: Past and Present: Anthropological and Historical Perceptions (Oxford: Berg, 1993).

Female Education and Early Development of St. Stephen’s Church

63

of the fruits of mission work. Also in the congregation were women who were not wives or mothers: the widowed Bible women and day school teachers who chose to remain single after resisting betrothal to non-Christians. A Christian education provided them with a “position of usefulness” beyond their traditional domestic role. The first two decades of St. Stephen’s history saw swift transitions of male missionaries, namely the Reverends Warren, Piper, Hutchinson, Davys, Grundy, and Ost, between 1865 and 1881. The FES missionary women, Misses Oxlad (in Hong Kong from 1864 to 1869, and 1872 to 1877) and Johnstone (in Hong Kong from 1874 to1907), and the network of women and girls they built up provided the continuity and stability a church community desperately needed in times of change. Their vernacular day schools in the neighborhood represented a constant Christian presence not affected by interregnum. Through the contact with parents and visits to women’s homes and hospitals, the missionary women, and the Bible women they trained, were the link between the church and the community. Though working in connection with the Anglican Church, the nondenominational nature of the FES facilitated friendship and cooperation across denominational barriers not necessarily appreciated by clergy and male leaders. For example, when Johnstone transferred their Staunton Street School to the LMS because of their strong network in the neighborhood, Hutchinson staged a fierce protest for handing over the interest of CMS to nonconformists.63 Mission school education also facilitated social mobility for girls and women, as discussed in Jessie Lutz’s study on girls’ education in China.64 Better marital prospects, cultivation of ambition, and preparation for leadership in public life are the aspects Lutz puts forward. She comments that social mobility became more obvious from the second generation on. Similar observations can be found in the St. Stephen’s Church–Fairlea alumni community, which nurtured the first generation of Chinese Anglican women leaders. They included Mrs. Fok Ching Shan and Mrs. Mok Shau Tsang, Mrs. Woo Yee Kai and her daughter Miss (later Dr.) Catherine F. Woo, Mrs. Lee Ding San, and Mrs. Ma Ying Biu and Mrs. Ma Wing Chaan, daughters of the Reverend Fok Ching Shan.65 The latter four formed the founding committee of the revived Young 63. Hutchinson to Nona Baxter, January 23, 1878, CMS/C/CH/O/50/43; Hutchinson to Wright, March 6, 1878, CMS/C/CH/O/50/40. 64. Jessie G. Lutz, “Women’s Education and Social Mobility,” in Pioneer Christian Chinese Women: Gender, Christianity and Mobility, ed. Jessie G. Lutz (Bethlehem: Lehigh University Press, 2010), 393–420. 65. Married women were referred to by their husbands’ names in the reference materials. Chinese names of the husbands and maiden names of these women (if known) are listed below: Mrs. Fok Ching Shan ( 霍靜山夫人吳雪容 )，Mrs. Mok Shau Tsang ( 莫壽增夫人王 忠信 [ 玫瑰 ])，Mrs. Woo Yee Kai ( 胡爾楷夫人 ) and her daughter Miss (later Dr.) Catherine F. Woo ( 胡素貞博士 )，Mrs. Lee Ding San ( 李鼎新夫人吳哈拿 ), and Mrs. Ma Ying Biu ( 馬 應 彪 夫 人 霍 慶 棠 ) and Mrs. Ma Wing Chaan ( 馬 永 燦 夫 人 霍 絮 如 ), daughters of the

64

Patricia P. K. Chiu

Women’s Christian Association (YWCA) in Hong Kong, which was officially established in 1920.66 I argue that while education and the role model of missionary women would have inspired in them a spirit of public service, it was the firsthand encounters with the poor, marginalized, and abused in the school and church community that fueled their vision. The participation of men and women from St. Stephen’s in the anti-mui tsai campaign in the 1920s and the education work for poor girls and women through the YWCA were but two examples. When Margaret Johnstone was compelled to return to England in 1908 after a stroke left her paralyzed, the Hong Kong Church Missionary Association published a statement in the St. John’s Church Notes to express their appreciation of her service: “The members of this Committee desire to express their sympathy with Miss Johnstone on her return home at the close of thirty-four years of faithful missionary service. They thank God for the work that she has been enabled to do among Chinese women and girls in Hong Kong, and believing that the Christian home is the foundation of a strong Native Church. They pray that God’s blessing may long continue to rest upon the fruits of her labours.”67 A review of the history of St. Stephen’s Church in the period studied suggests that it was indeed Christian women, in their positions in the Christian home and beyond, who built the foundation of a strong native church.

Reverend Fok Ching Shan. 66. The YWCA was originally founded as Christian meetings in Fairlea School around 1893 by Miss Eyre and Miss Hamper of the CMS. It merged with the Benevolent Society in 1912 after Eyre’s death. In 1920, the YWCA was revived as a branch of the National YWCA Movement under Chinese Christian women leaders. 67. St. John’s Cathedral, Church Notes, May 1908.

Chapter 3

R. O. Hall and the Christian Study Centre on Chinese Religion Fuk-tsang Ying

Introduction The year 1957 marked the Silver Jubilee Celebration of the consecration of the Rt. Rev. Ronald Owen Hall as Anglican Bishop of the Diocese of Hong Kong and Macao. Bishop Hall was the longest-serving bishop in Hong Kong, where he did a great deal for both church and society. He had an ecumenical spirit, and he cultivated deep and lasting friendships with Chinese Christians and people from all walks of life. After 1949, he devoted his energies to Hong Kong and brought together the church, social welfare, and education in his efforts to contribute to the reconstruction of the territory. By 1957, twenty-five years since his consecration, both Chinese and Hong Kong society had gone through tremendous changes. Moreover, the work of the Anglican Church (Sheng Kung Hui) in China and Hong Kong faced unprecedented challenges. The most significant of these were the establishment of People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1949 and the separation of the Hong Kong and Macao Diocese from the Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui (CHSKH) in 1951. Despite these challenges, under the leadership of R. O. Hall the diocese continued to develop steadily. On December 1, 1957, the Diocesan Echo (港澳教聲) published an article to celebrate Hall’s achievement and his contributions to the various aspects of work in his bishopric, Figure 11  Bishop R. O. Hall (1895– 1975), circa 1932. The Outpost, including social service, education, the October 1932, Special Number. Hong growth of the church, medical work, and Kong Sheng Kung Hui Archives. academic accomplishments.1

1. 〈何 明 華 會 督 任 內 二 十 五 年 的 成 就〉，《港 澳 教 聲》， 1957 年 12 月 1 日， 頁 2。 [“Achieve­ments of R. O. Hall’s Twenty-Five Years Bishopric,” Diocesan Echo (December 1, 1957): 2.]

66

Fuk-tsang Ying

But R. O. Hall was not one to rest on his laurels. As a missionary and a church leader living in Chinese society for a quarter of a century, he continued to be concerned about how to integrate Christian faith with Chinese culture, over and above the development of the various church ministries. Facing the failure of the Christian missionary movement on the Mainland, Hall reflected deeply on the lessons brought by history. On this basis, he proposed that the Christian Study Centre on Chinese Religion (CSCCR) (renamed the Christian Study Centre on Chinese Religion and Culture in 1963) be established on Tao Fong Shan, Shatin. As part of the Silver Jubilee celebrations for Hall’s own consecration, the CSCCR was officially founded in 1957. This chapter will investigate the history of the CSCCR from the period of preparation to its infancy, especially concentrating on the role that R. O. Hall played in this history. In the process we will consider his own views on the relationship between religion and culture. There have already been studies of R. O. Hall’s work in the areas of the church, education, refugee relief, and social welfare,2 but less attention has been paid to his reflection on issues of religion and culture.3 This chapter, therefore, will address a neglected area of research and help develop a fuller picture of Hall’s contributions.

The Founding of the Chinese Study Centre on Chinese Religion Strictly speaking, the CSCCR was not the pioneering Christian organization intending to communicate with Chinese religious culture. The Christian Mission to Buddhists (CMB), established in Tao Fong Shan in 1930, was actually the church organization in Hong Kong that first addressed the question of indigenization. Karl Ludvig Reichelt had started the CMB in Nanjing as Jing Feng Shan (景風山) in 1922, and its main objective was preaching to the Buddhists and Taoists. Because of the political instability in China in the 1920s, Reichelt decided to move the CMB to Hong Kong at the end of 1929. At first, he moved temporarily to Tai Po in the New Territories. However, soon thereafter he selected a barren hill in Shatin for the site of the CMB and completed the land purchase procedures in April 1930, naming it Tao Fong Shan (TFS).4 The architecture of the Christian monastery in TFS, especially its temple or chapel, which was named Christ Temple (景尊寶殿), fully demonstrated his commitment to integrating Chinese culture and Christianity. （香港大學碩士論文， 2. 曾國華：〈何明華會督（1895–1975）對香港社會及教育之貢獻〉 1993）。 [Tsang Kwok-wah, “A Study of Bishop R. O. Hall’s Contribution (1895–1975) to Hong Kong Education and Social Welfare,” master’s thesis, the University of Hong Kong, 1993.] （香 港 中 文 大 學 博 士 論 文， 3. 吳 青：〈何 明 華 及 其 與 中 國 關 係 之 研 究（1922–1966）〉 2008）。 [Wu Qing, “Study of Bishop R. O. Hall and His Relationship with China (1922– 1966),” PhD diss., the Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2008.] 4. Eric J. Sharpe, Karl Ludvig Reichelt: Missionary, Scholar and Pilgrim (Hong Kong: Tao Fong Shan Ecumenical Centre, 1984).

R. O. Hall and the Christian Study Centre on Chinese Religion 67

Figure 12  Christ Temple. Courtesy of Tao Fong Shan Christian Centre.

Reichelt’s vision was for Tao Fong Shan to operate as a place for monks to seek and learn the truth of Christianity. David M. Paton, a former missionary to China from the Church of England, addressed two important challenges of the early 1950s: (1) after the establishment of New China in 1949, the number of monks TFS received from the Mainland was decreasing, and (2) Reichelt died on March 13, 1952, after a short illness.5 In other words, within a few years TFS had to face the impact of a decreasing number of “service targets” and the death of its powerful and charismatic leader. After the death of Reichelt, the future development of CMB became an urgent issue. In early 1951, Gerhard M. Reichelt, son of Karl Ludvig Reichelt, said, “Although monasticism and the lifestyle of Monks will become historical memory, we still expect Tao Fong Shan to continue its tradition of research and learning.”6 In the meantime, the World Council of Churches (WCC) and the International Missionary Council (IMC) had become enthusiastic about promoting the establishment around the world of regional research organizations 5. David M. Paton, “R. O.”: The Life and Times of Bishop Ronald Hall of Hong Kong (Hong Kong: Diocese of Hong Kong and Macao and Hong Kong Diocesan Association, 1985), 178. 6. Lars Brinth:〈異象與現實 ―― 艾香德博士與道風山基督教差會（CMB）之歷史與傳統〉， 陳廣培編，《傳承與使命 ―― 艾香德博士逝世四十五週年學術紀念文集》 （香港：道風 山 中 心，1998） ，頁 29。[Lars Brinth, “Mission and Reality: Rev. Karl Ludvig Reichelt and the His­tory and Tradition of CMB,” in Heritage and Mission: Memorial Volume to Rev. Karl Ludvig Reichelt (1877–1952), ed. Chen Guangpei (Hong Kong: Tao Fong Shan Ecumenical Centre, 1998), 29]; since 1937, Gerhard M. Reichelt had become a missionary in Tao Fong Shan.

68

Fuk-tsang Ying

assisting churches in probing the relationship between church and society. Against this background, Christians and churches in countries such as Ceylon (Sri Lanka), India, and Burma (Myanmar) had established Christian study centers or similar organizations.7 In the spring of 1954, Rajah Manikam of the IMC—also the executive secretary of the Christian Council of India and Pakistan—visited Hong Kong, proposing the establishment of an organization which would be responsible for studying East Asian (Mahayana) Buddhism and discussing the possibility of setting up such an institute on Tao Fong Shan, in cooperation with the CMB. In November 1955, Stig Hannerz of the Tao Fong Shan Christian Institute invited some representatives of the missions and churches to discuss the feasibility of this idea.8 Hannerz prepared a proposal, pointing out that the purpose of such a venture would be “to help the Chinese churches in East Asia to relate their message to the Buddhists and others whose thought was more or less influenced by Buddhism.”9 Ronald Owen Hall was on Hannerz’s invitation list. Hall was invited not only because he was the bishop of Hong Kong. In fact, Bishop Hall had developed a close relationship with Reichelt and the CMB. Hall himself lived on Tao Fong Shan for most of his bishopric. He once said that the Christian monastery in TFS “has been an inspiration to the whole Christian movement in Hong Kong.”10 In the 1930s, the Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui (HKSKH) had built two new churches, Holy Trinity Church and St. Mary’s Church, both of which adopted a traditional Chinese architectural style that Reichelt had pioneered at Tao Fong Shan.11 Although the diocese was eager to respond to the social and educational needs of Hong Kong society, Hall had never given up on the idea of starting a research institute. In December 1955, Bishop Hall specifically responded to the plan for the research center. He affirmed the need for establishing a new institute, but he suggested that its target should take into account the “total religious background” of the Chinese people from around the world. With the usage of the terminology “total religious background,” he intended to shift emphasis away from Buddhism to the whole cultural and social life of the Chinese. On the one hand, he estimated that Buddhism had much less influence on the Chinese 7. Christian Study Centre of Chinese Religion Quarterly Notes (hereafter cited as QN) 1 (March 1957): 1. 8. Stig Hannerz to Loren Noren, November 16, 1955, Christian Study Centre on Chinese Religion and Culture (hereafter cited as CSCCRC) Archives. 9. “Proposed Study Centre on Buddhism to Be Set Up in Hong Kong,” CSCCRC Archives; “Suggestions Regarding a Study Centre on Buddhism at Tao Fong Shan,” CSCCRC Archives. 10. R. O. Hall, Hong Kong: What of the Church? (London: Edinburgh House Press, 1952), 17. （香港：基督教 11. 邢福增、劉紹麟：《天國．龍城：香港聖公會聖三一堂史（1890–2009）》 中 國 宗 教 文 化 研 究 社，2010），頁 71–74。[Ying Fuk-tsang and Lau Siu-lun, In Kowloon City as It Is in Heaven: A History of Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui Holy Trinity Church (1890– 2009) (Hong Kong: CSCCRC, 2010), 71–74.]

R. O. Hall and the Christian Study Centre on Chinese Religion 69

way of life than it had in Burma, Ceylon, Thailand, or even Japan. Therefore, it would be improper to focus only on Buddhist research without an understanding of the broader Chinese cultural and religious heritage. On the other hand, he suggested that the scope of the proposed institute should reach beyond what might normally be called “religion,” to questions of family relationships, traditional patterns of thought and customs, as well as the consciousness of the Chinese people. Hall thought that the problem the church needed to address was whether it should encourage the survival of the Chinese as Chinese or only as “Cosmopolitan Christians,” “intermarrying with other races and not attempting to preserve the Chinese languages and culture.”12 In January 1956, Hannerz accepted Hall’s suggestion and modified his proposal, pointing out that the research scope of the new study center should cover the “general religious background of the Chinese people overseas.” He indicated that the CMB was willing to support this proposal and allocated space at Tao Fong Shan for the research center to use. To implement these proposals, a provisional committee was officially established, with members including Prof. F. S. Drake (Institute of Oriental Studies, the University of Hong Kong), Rev. S. Withers Green (London Missionary Society), R. O. Hall, Stig Hannerz, Rev. Loren Noren (American Baptist Mission), Rev. Charles Reinbrecht (Lutheran United Mission), Rev. H. W. Spillett (Christian Literature Council), and Wang Ching Ch’ing (王景慶) (CMB).13 On November 16, 1956, the Provisional Management Committee held a meeting in the Kowloon YMCA. Those attending included Rev. S. Withers Green, Bishop Hall, Stig Hannerz, Loren Noren, Gerhard M. Reichelt, Rev. H. W. Spillett, and Wang Ching Ch’ing. Four other people were also invited: Rev. Paul Jefferies (Methodist Missionary Society), Douglas Lancashire, Rev. Lee Ching Ming (李貞明), and Prof. Wang Hsu Yao. The decisions made at the conference included: (1) assigning Gerhard M. Reichelt to be director of the study center; (2) confirming the English name of the new institute as Christian Study Centre on Chinese Religion, with discussion of the Chinese name postponed to a later time; (3) electing Bishop Hall as chair of the provisional committee.14 In January 1958, the Chinese name of the research institute was confirmed as Ching Feng Yen Chiu She (Jingfeng yan­ jiushe, 景風研究社),15 but it was modified to Chituchiao Chungkuo Tsungchiao 12. R. O. Hall, “Tao Fong Shan, Proposed Extension of Research Institute to Cover the Total Chinese Way of Life,” December 1955, CSCCRC Archives. 13. “Proposed Study Centre to Be Set Up at Tao Fong Shan, Hong Kong,” January 1956, CSCCRC Archives. 14. “Minutes of Meeting of the Provisional Committee of Management for the Proposed Study Centre in Hong Kong,” held on November 16, 1956, at the YMCA, Kowloon, CSCCRC Archives. 15. “Minutes of Meeting of the Committee of Management for the Christian Study Centre on Chinese Religion,” held on January 17, 1958, at the European YMCA, Kowloon, CSCCRC Archives.

70

Fuk-tsang Ying

Yenchiushe (Jidujiao Zhongguo zongjiao yanjiushe, 基督教中國宗教研究社) in April.16 On January 18, 1957, the provisional committee held another meeting and discussed the following issues: (1) the publication of “Observation and Notes,” followed by a discussion of relevant issues related to this publication, (2) the establishment of the Committee of Management with Bishop Hall elected as the committee chair, and (3) the drafting of a list of the committee members.17 In March, CSCCR officially published Quarterly Notes (QN), but the first volume only had four pages.18 Regarding the objective of the CSCCR, Bishop Hall drafted “A Suggested Definition of the Purpose and Basis of the Hong Kong Study Centre in Relation to the Contemporary Situation” for discussion at the committee meeting held on September 13, 1957. In addition to the representatives of the committee, Dr. H. Kraemer, the first director of the Bossey Ecumenical Institute of the World Council of Churches, also attended this conference.19 On September 21, the CSCCR held a gathering for Chinese and Western Christians at Tao Fong Shan to inform more people about its objective and work.20 In terms of personnel, Dr. Robert P. Kramers (Netherlands Missionary Council) participated in the work of the CSCCR in 1958.21 In January 1959, the library and the VIP room were officially opened. The major collections of books included Reichelt’s collection on Chinese religion and comparative religion studies, donated by Karl Ludvig Reichelt’s widow and his son, Gerhard M. Reichelt,22 as well as Kramers’s private collection of more than 750 volumes on theology and religion.23 16. “Minutes of Meeting of the Committee of Management for the Christian Study Centre on Chinese Religion,” held on April 18, 1958, at the European YMCA, Kowloon, CSCCRC Archives. 17. “Minutes of Meeting of the Provisional Committee of Management for the Proposed Study Centre in Hong Kong,” held on January 18, 1957, at the European YMCA, Kowloon, CSCCRC Archives. 18. QN, no. 1 (March 1957). 19. R. O. Hall, “Suggested Definition of the Purpose and Basis of the Hong Kong Study Centre in Relation to the Contemporary Situation,” September 1957, CSCCRC Archives. Also “Minutes of Meeting of the Committee of Management for the Christian Study Centre on Chinese Religion,” held on September 13, 1957, at the European YMCA, Kowloon, CSCCRC Archives. 《景風》，1958 年 4 月，頁 12–15。[“Report on the Task­ 20. 〈有關研究社工作會議之報告〉， force Meeting of the Study Centre,” Ching Feng (hereafter cited as CF) (Chinese version) 1 (April 1958): 12–15.] 21. 〈一 九 五 八 年 社 務 簡 報〉，《景 風》，1959 年 3 月，頁 6。[R. P. Kramers, “Brief Report of the CSCCR in 1958,” CF (Chinese version) 3 (March 1959): 6.] 22. “Minutes of Meeting of the Provisional Committee of Management for the Proposed Study Centre in Hong Kong,” held on November 16, 1956, at the YMCA, Kowloon, CSCCRC Archives. 23. Kramers, “Brief Report of the CSCCR in 1958,” 3.

R. O. Hall and the Christian Study Centre on Chinese Religion 71

In 1958, S. Withers Green succeeded Bishop Hall as chair of the CSCCR. Hall was re-elected in 1959, but he resigned in April of that year (although he still agreed to serve as a committee member). Eric Kvan was approved to succeed him.24 Because of the efforts of a group of missionaries in Hong Kong, many of whom were mentioned above, after several years of preparation the CSCCR was officially established in Hong Kong. In January 1958, the research society approved the first volume of a Chinese publication, Ching Feng (Jing Feng, 景 風), which was published in April.25 The name draws significance from the so-called Nestorians of the Tang dynasty, who were regarded as the earliest Christian contact with China and whose Chinese name was Jing Jiao (景教). The name also reminded churches of the need to take further steps to have “a new contact” with the broader Chinese environment, especially non-Christians.26 The first volume of the English Quarterly Notes published a report on the situation of traditional Chinese religions in contemporary Hong Kong.27 Other reports in this issue dealt with research and news about traditional Chinese religions in Taiwan, Macao, and Southeast Asia.28 In addition to traditional Chinese religions, the CSCCR paid much attention to the development of Confucianism. The most important of the early essays on Confucianism were the commentaries on “A Manifesto to the World on Behalf of Chinese Culture” (為中國文化敬告世界人士宣言) suggested by contemporary neo-Confucian scholars (Tang Junyi 唐君毅, Mou Zongsan 牟宗 三, Hsu Fu-kuan 徐復觀, Zhang Junmai 張君勱, and others).29

R. O. Hall and the Mission of the CSCCR Bishop Hall’s essay “A Suggested Definition of the Purpose and Basis of the Hong Kong Study Centre in Relation to the Contemporary Situation” elucidates his expectation of the CSCCR’s objective: The Centre exists primarily to help the Christian Church among the Chinese diaspora in its task of “communication.” To this end the special 24. “Minutes of Meeting of the Committee of Management for the Christian Study Centre on Chinese Religion,” held on January 17, 1958, at the European YMCA, Kowloon, CSCCRC Archives. “Minutes of Meeting of the Committee of Management,” held on February 3, 1959, at the European YMCA, CSCCRC Archives. 25. “Minutes of Meeting of the Committee of Management for the Christian Study Centre on Chinese Religion,” held on January 17, 1958, at the European YMCA, Kowloon, CSCCRC Archives. 26. 〈發 刊 詞〉，《景 風》，1958 年 4 月，頁 1。[R. P. Kramers, “Editorial Preface,” CF (Chinese version) 1 (April 1958): 1.] 27. QN, no. 1 (March 1957): 1–3. 28. Alan J. A. Elliott, “Chinese Spirit-Medium Cults in Singapore,” QN 2, no. 1 (1958): 5–8. 29. 〈基督教與中國文化〉，《景風》，1958 年 12 月，頁 3–17。[“Christianity and Chinese Cul­ ture,” CF (Chinese version) 2 (December 1958): 3–17.]

72

Fuk-tsang Ying

responsibility of the Centre is to examine and attempt to define the activity of God in contemporary Chinese society.

He defines the work of God in Chinese society as “total activity of God in His self-communication to the Chinese people, and their response to Him.” Hall believed that only on the foundation of this research could we “help those whose calling it is to preach the Gospel” to non-Christians.30 Bishop Hall emphasized the work of God in Chinese society and regarded it as the foundation of preaching to the Chinese because he believed in the “essential unity of spirituality and civilization.” This described not only “the core and fibre of Chinese life” but also “the place of Christ in the creative activity of the Godhead.” He contended that the basis of the CSCCR “must be the traditional faith of the Church as defined in the Nicene Creed”: 1. God eternally Three Persons and One God. 2. God made flesh in the Person of Jesus Christ and so revealed as Creative Self-Communicator to all creation. 3. Jesus Christ the Eternal Self-Communicating Person of God (by whom all things were made, as well as in whom all creation is redeemed). 4. The Holy Spirit eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit is therefore manifest wherever the mark of Jesus Christ is found in any human activity, personal, social, intellectual, artistic, all being religion activities in as far as they are obedient to (responsive to) God.31

Hall thought that the great deviation of Western Christendom was drawing the Godhead away from “civilization,” resulting in the divorce of spirituality from civilization. The “extreme fanatics” of the divorce of spirituality and civilization (including, in Hall’s terms, the “Bible Sects” and great “Roman Sect”) were more successful in rapid missionary expansion.32 In these suggestions and critiques, Hall drew on his own Anglo-Catholic theology. Bishop Hall also believed the missionary experience in regions like China and Japan reflected that “missionary success has been most marked among those weak in their sense of their own civilization,” such as Chinese tribal people and “the denationalized intelligentsia and commercial families of China’s port cities.” Hall worried that the “rapid missionary expansion” in Hong Kong, Formosa (Taiwan), and Chinese Malaya (Malaysia) would be the expansion of this same experience.33

30. R. O. Hall, “Suggested Definition of the Purpose and Basis of the Hong Kong Study Centre in Relation to the Contemporary Situation,” September 1957, CSCCRC Archives. 31. Ibid. 32. Ibid. 33. Ibid.

R. O. Hall and the Christian Study Centre on Chinese Religion 73

As bishop of the Anglican Diocese of Hong Kong and Macao, in further elaboration Hall presented his understanding of churches in contemporary Hong Kong: In spite of relatively rapid missionary expansion, the Chinese church faces considerable resistance from the great bulk of Chinese folk who still retain the bones and sinews of their inherited Chinese way of life, with its unity of spirituality and civilization (Christians are perhaps 200,000 out of 3 million). It is in this section of Chinese life that the revival of Lay Buddhism is taking place, Buddhism being more closely integrated than Christianity with part of China’s cultural life. The Church is also seriously weakened internally by the “civilization vacuum” in new Christians, who, in accepting the spirituality of Christ, have lost the traditional unity of their country’s way of life.34

In this circumstance, addressing Christian pastors and laypeople who “live at the front of this resistance to the Gospel,” the role of CSCCR would be to keep “in living touch” with the “front line.” This was essential if its “backroom” work was to be of any help at all to those at the front line: the churches. He believed that the “backroom boys” and “front line troops” were both integral parts of the church militant. As the front line is the only point of advance, the backroom work of CSCCR should be in the most sensitive and imaginative contact with the front line as day by day it faces the contemporary resistance to the evangelism of the Christian Church.35 In Hall’s view, the contribution of the CSCCR to the work of the church was quite clear. After Bishop Hall shared his views at the meeting, the committee members engaged in a lively discussion. Accessible records reveal the most controversial issue was the Nicene Creed. For example, in R. P. Kramers’s view, only God in Christ is the Unifier. When “God irrupts into a closed human society,” the Nicene Creed is a disturbing factor. Therefore, he argued that it would be inappropriate to confine the basis of the CSCCR to the Nicene Creed alone.36 H. Kraemer agreed that “we do not communicate the Christian way as a substitute for the Chinese way. . . . What we try to bring is Jesus Christ.” However, because the Christian message is of a prophetic-apostolic tenor, Christianity in its essence is a disturbing factor in civilization: Christ is the caller-intoquestion. Therefore, in his view, “A statement of purpose of the Study Centre . . . would not seem necessary.” If it proved indispensable he suggested using 1 Corinthians chapter 1, verse 30, because the whole being and work of Christ is summed up.37 Despite these objections Hall insisted that it was necessary to have the Nicene Creed as the fundamental basis for the Centre, because there it was 34. Ibid. 35. Ibid. 36. “Discussion on the Purpose of the Hong Kong Study Centre,” QN 3 (September 1957): 4. 37. Ibid., 4.

74

Fuk-tsang Ying

so admirably stated what he did not find in 1 Corinthians 1:30. That essential statement is “the Christ is He by whom all things are made, and the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world.”38 Further, Hall’s regard for the Nicene Creed reflected his expectation of the integration of religion and culture. During this discussion he pointed out the resistance Christian churches faced in the encounter with Asian religions. The basic resistance to the church (in those parts) was the feeling of the indissoluble unity in Asian religions of spirituality and civilization.39 Therefore, he believed that the basic structure of the Chinese pattern should come to life again in a new union of these two. A fellow Anglican, Canon A. P. Rose, expressed hope that the bishop could clarify whether this combination would preserve part of the old Chinese heritage for Christianity. Did Hall mean that instead of the inherent Judaist heritage, traditional Chinese culture should be seen as preparation for evangelism? The bishop responded by reiterating that the Judaist heritage was an integral part of the Christian message. What worried him was the divorce of spirituality and civilization.40 In contrast to the worry expressed by some Western missionaries about Hall’s suggestion of combination (or integration), the Chinese committee members had their own opinions. For instance, Anglican Rev. Lee Shiu Keung (李兆強) believed that Chinese religion had been pointing toward Christianity all along. He maintained that Christ came to fulfill what Confucius and other philosophers had tried to say.41 The committee did not at this meeting make any decision regarding Hall’s suggestion.42 This was probably because of the various and discordant opinions that had been expressed. Despite this, everyone seemed to be in agreement about the emerging direction of the CSCCR. As R. P. Kramers had noted in the first issue posted of the Chinese Ching Feng: We named this publication Ching Feng because its objective demonstrates “the present churches need to take further steps to have a brand-new encounter with the non-Christian environment. . . . The reason why the churches have to keep contact with the non-Christian environment is to avoid being isolated from the world . . . How do Christians witness for their faith in such an encounter? What are non-Christians’ opinion of Christianity in such an encounter? How can we deal with the public’s misunderstanding about Christianity?43 38. Ibid. 39. Ibid., 3. 40. Ibid. 41. Ibid., 4. 42. “Minutes of Meeting of the Committee of Management for the Christian Study Centre on Chinese Religion,” held on September 13, 1958, at the European YMCA, Kowloon, CSCCRC Archives. 43. Kramers, “Editorial Preface,” 1–2.

R. O. Hall and the Christian Study Centre on Chinese Religion 75

The objective in establishing the CSCCR was to put effort into reflecting on, and dealing with, these questions.

Conclusion On June 2, 1957, in a Commonwealth Day sermon, Ronald Owen Hall expressed his concern about the existing condition of Hong Kong churches: As for churches established by missionary work in the past 150 years, the isolation of religion is a common negative phenomenon. This negative phenomenon exists because Christians cannot be in step with their neighbor in the aspects of worship and custom. Therefore, they become isolated. It is the same as the isolation between the Pharisee and the other Jews (in the New Testament), resulting in the self-righteousness of the Pharisee and the formation of religious self-esteem. Likewise, the believers of the newly established churches in different regions become egoistic too.44

The problems of “isolation” and “egoism” refer to the relation between Christians and their own city, Hong Kong. Hall suggested that Christians should nurture a sense of civic responsibility in the society and care about its culture. Bishop Hall understood this kind of cultural concern as the responsibility of Christian missionaries. He emphasized the relevance of the missionary’s job in his pamphlet entitled The Art of the Missionary: Fellow Workers with the Church in China, published in 1942. Hall maintained that a missionary’s work demonstrates the close relationship between religion and daily life. At the core of this is what Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians chapter 1, verse 20: “For whatever promises of God there are, in him is the yea.” The bishop continued, God made the world, including China and the Chinese people. In Christ, God intervened to restore, redeem, fulfill, complete, and intensify what He had begun. That intervention is relevant first of all and finally because it is God’s intervention. I can best define what I believe this intervention to mean for China by emphasizing the word intensify. The relevance of the Christian movement in China is easiest understood as intensification of what God began when He made the Chinese people, and what He has gone on doing down the ages. God would not be God if China had ever been a god-forsaken country. And God would not be God, but a machine, if His dealings with every people were the same as His dealings with the Jews or with the European peoples. It is not easy for our Western minds steeped in the influence—direct and indirect—of the story of God’s dealings with the Jews, to imagine the same Eternal Love dealing very differently with another people.

44. 何 明 華：〈公 民 的 基 督〉，《港 澳 教 聲》， 1957 年 5 月 25 日， 頁 2。 [R. O. Hall, “Civic Christ,” Diocesan Echo 47 (May 25, 1957): 2.]

76

Fuk-tsang Ying

Hall reaffirmed the value of the Nicene Creed, but he criticized the danger present in Western minds of mistaking the creed for the great reality those simple words of masterminds have captured for us. We tend to believe in the creeds rather than in the infinite God whom the creeds with such consummate art represent to us.45 To examine Chinese culture and religion from this perspective, Hall embraced the Old Testament and the whole of its experience of God and humanity in all its folkways, its habits, its traditions, its art, its clothing, its common ways of life. Then he found that “all China’s past is her Old Testament.”46 It appears that Hall’s expectation of the CSCCR’s objectives and mission was a reflection of his thinking over many years about how the Christian movement witnesses to faith in the non-Christian world. He believed his view was strengthened after the beginning of Chinese Communist Party rule in China; this was a judgment on the church. In fact, in the 1950s, some European and American missionaries confessed that in the past missionaries had too easily equated Western culture with Christian civilization and criticized Chinese traditional culture for which they had no respect. How Christianity could embrace both “universal” and “local” elements was not only a reflection on some of the missionaries who had left China; it was also an important issue for R. O. Hall.47 After the founding of the CSCCR, Bishop Hall did not get involved in the Centre’s day-to-day work, and he could not attend every committee meeting. He expressed a last opinion on the development of the CSCCR in December 1960 in a memorandum sent to the chair of the committee. Unfortunately, the original memorandum has not been found in the archives. What survives is a little glimpse into Hall’s ideas, based on notes from it. First, he cared about how the CSCCR exerted its role when Christianity encounters Chinese religion. In his view, many groups of non-Christians are unwilling to have a discussion with the CSCCR because they perceive it as irrelevant to them. He further explained that the pattern of life of most Chinese in Hong Kong is essentially different from those in Singapore, Borneo, and Taiwan. He thought that any “generalization” on such a variety of situations would be unrealistic. In other words, the “local pattern” of Chinese in Hong Kong should be grasped properly. Second, Hall understood Christian faith as an internal personal and corporate matter, describing human beings’ relation to God. However, he was concerned with “what God is doing about man” more than “something man is doing about God.”48 45. R. O. Hall, The Art of the Missionary: Fellow Workers with the Church in China (London: Student Christian Movement Press, 1942), 18–25. 46. Ibid., 27. （香港：漢語基督教 47. 邢福增：《基督教在中國的失敗？―― 中國共產運動與基督教史論》 文 化 研 究 所，2008）， 頁 225–26。[Fuk-tsang Ying, Christianity’s Failure in China? Essays on the History of Chinese Communist Movement and Christianity (Hong Kong: Institute of Sino-Christian Studies, 2008), 225–26. 48. “R. O. Hall to the Chairman, Committee of Management,” December 6, 1960, CSCCRC

R. O. Hall and the Christian Study Centre on Chinese Religion 77

The existing archival records indicate that there were many discussions about the future development and direction of the CSCCR in the 1960s.49 Since its founding, the CSCCR had encountered several difficulties. How to establish a position for the CSCCR in Hong Kong was a problem that needed much attention. Early after the establishment of the CSCCR, Ching Feng was criticized as a new trick for assimilating others’ religions. This suspicion was primarily that of traditional religious circles in Hong Kong. The response of the CSCCR was that “we have never hidden our identity as Christians from the beginning and our aim is to spread the gospel to everyone, regardless of whether he is Christian or non-Christian.” At the same time, the CSCCR’s understanding of preaching the gospel was different from that of the traditional churches: The meaning of preaching the gospel is not something we do to change others’ faith. The message brought by preaching the gospel is about witnessing to Christianity, of establishing a real and faithful witness . . . For various reasons, other (Christians) can preach the gospel and witness to their faith in different ways. Sometimes it is possible for us to make mistakes but the message brought by the gospel will not thereby be changed. We relentlessly keep learning from the surrounding environment about how to witness to our faith. Therefore, it is indispensable for us to understand others’ thinking and their faith. Otherwise, all our efforts will be in vain.50

This stance unquestionably incurred criticism from the local church community. In 1962, when Richard Bush served as the CSCCR’s director, he considered the future development of the Centre. He pointed out that the CSCCR had been criticized and some doubted whether it could serve the churches. He responded, The implied message of the questions raised by those arrogant people is commonly about presuming our Centre cannot truly work for the churches. This attitude is not surprising at all. Besides having some scattered information about preaching (in the churches), do we really help those busy pastors in the many different aspects of their work? How can we serve the churches? Indeed, we do nothing about strengthening Sunday school or increasing the numbers of church members . . . In terms of Hong Kong, there are various religions: Buddhism, Taoism, the Confucian tradition, Marxism, as well as modern secularism. We know that this spirit of secularism has no systematic theory. The religion of this Archives. 49. R. P. Kramers, “Further Development of the Study Centre,” January 14, 1960, CSCCRC Archives; “On Prospects for the Future of the Study Centre,” CSCCRC Archives; “Christian Study Centre on Chinese Religion’s Future Plans and Proposals for Their Realization,” CSCCRC Archives. 50. 〈卷 頭 語〉，《景 風》， 1958 年 12 月， 頁 2。 [“Editorial Preface,” CF (Chinese version) 2 (December 1958): 2.]

78

Fuk-tsang Ying

kind of secularism is a real test for the church. In this over-populated metropolitan city with its industry and commerce, why do we establish the CSCCR rather than an institute for social research? Because of their lack of contact and problems between Christianity and other religions, churches are not interested in our work . . . Nothing is perfect in this world. . . . [T]he CSCCR has had a history of only six-years. These past years were full of complicated but indescribable difficulties. There is nothing more worth saying about this Centre now.51

We cannot know the response of Bishop Hall to the difficulties the CSCCR had encountered. However, the focus of his speech at the diocese’s Jubilee dedication ceremony, held on October 28, 1957, may reflect his thinking on the relevant questions. During the speech, entitled “My Vision and Calling,” Hall used the images of turtles, pine, crown of thorns, and knees to indicate his encouragement to the Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui. These four images can reflect persistence in a negative environment and the vision of obeying the Lord humbly.52 Facing various difficulties and criticism, perhaps the words of Bishop Hall to the CSCCR members would have been “the greatest prayer of Jesus is ‘May Thy will be done, not my will, but yours.’ We should always pray in this way: ‘Lord, please help us fulfill your will. Please give us the ability and courage to fulfill your will.’”53 How Christianity is to become integrated with Chinese religion and culture was the issue to which Bishop Ronald Owen Hall devoted his life. And he never gave up.

51. 〈本 社 的 將 來〉，《景 風》， 1962 年 10 月， 頁 70–72。 [Richard Bush, “Future of Our Centre,” CF (Chinese version) 6 (October 1962): 70–72.] 52. 〈我之遠象與呼召〉，《港澳教聲》，1957 年 11 月 1 日，頁 4。[R. O. Hall, “My Vision and Calling,” DE 52 (November 1, 1957): 4.] 53. Ibid.

The Prayer Book

Chapter 4

Rethinking Church through the Book of Common Prayer in Late Qing and Early Republican China Chloë Starr

A history of the Book of Common Prayer (BCP) in China has yet to be written. There are chronologies of texts and research into editions, but no long study devoted to this remarkable work as an entity in itself—and as a lens through which to view the history of church struggles and debates.1 This chapter considers the role of the Prayer Book in wider church life through an analysis of its textual evolution in the late Qing and through the murky politicking surrounding it. To produce a translation of the BCP was a rite of passage for Protestant missionaries second only to translating the Bible, and the form of language and choice of terminology opened up the same debates, and ire, as that of scriptural translation. But language debates and their concomitant theological positions were not the only issue to revolve around this text. The BCP in the late nineteenth century functioned as a test of denominational loyalty and partisanship. It was instrumental in deeply mundane disputes on liturgical authority and cathedral worship, an accessory to debates about college education, and a significant player in developing ideas about enculturation, or the creation of an innately Chinese church. Tracing the role of the BCP converges attention both on hard-fought philological and theological debates and on some very dubious affairs in church life. For Anglicans and Episcopalians across the globe, the BCP has long been a treasured tome, the centerpiece of private and public devotions. A love for the Prayer Book and desire for Chinese to be able to worship through it inspired missionary-priests to keep producing and perfecting new translations. The BCP took two millennia to mature into the English-language versions from which the majority of translations into Chinese were made. The ancient liturgical text began in a service form used in synagogues in New Testament times, with scriptural sentences, set prayers and benedictions, psalms, and readings 1. Studies on Chinese Prayer Books to date have mostly concentrated on providing a chronology of texts available or a history of the personalities involved in their production. On editions, see, for example, Michael Nai-chiu Poon’s comprehensive study. For the full text, see 潘乃昭：〈公禱書的翻譯與聖公命名的歷史關係〉[Michael Nai-chiu Poon, “Prayer Book Translation and the Birth of the Sheng Kung Hui,” http://doc.baidu.com/view/80f3df 7202768e9951e738fa.html (accessed November 5, 2014)]. Cf. Chloë Starr, “The Prayer Book in Nineteenth-Century China,” Monumenta Serica 56 (2008): 395–426.

82

Chloë Starr

from the Law and the Prophets. As Greek-speaking Christians outnumbered Hebrew-speaking ones, the Prayer Book was translated into Greek, later superseded by Latin. The English Prayer Book conformed to the Latin in its ordering, with the canticles following the sixth-century arrangement of St. Benedict, and the same form was adopted by the American colonies, with revised US editions in 1892 and 1928. Even a cursory history shows both the continuity and flexibility of the text and points to its historical functions in the Anglican Church: to protect from the need for continual creation and from maverick priests; to maintain a “measure of proportion,” being tested over centuries; and to encourage “true participation,” with its role for the people as well as the priest.2 The Prayer Book was for many decades central to Anglican and Episcopal worship in China. It served as a common liturgical language with the world church and was helpful in acclimatizing foreign clergy. Bishop Channing Moore Williams, the second Episcopal missionary bishop in China who had come to China as a deacon in 1856, could report home, in the rather carefree and paternalistic style common to much mission writing from the era: The first Sunday spent in a heathen land was far more delightful than I had imagined it would be. At nine o’clock I attended a service in Chinese at the chapel. With the aid of the Prayer Book in English I could follow the different parts. The chants were sung to tunes which had been familiar from youth. I had understood that no music but the most simple could be taught the Chinese. My surprise was great when they sang the Venite and Gloria in Excelsis in a manner that would have done credit to many of our churches at home.3

The admixture of misconception and faint praise in this anecdote aside, it is clear that the work of translating the Prayer Book, from Robert Morrison in the 1810s through to Bishop William J. Boone in the 1840s and Walter Medhurst in the 1850s, had paid its dividend in Protestant church services. By the early 1870s, the Chinese-speaking church had a well-translated and beautifully published Book of Common Prayer in Mandarin (官話, guanhua) produced by two future bishops, John Shaw Burdon and S. I. Joseph Schereschewsky, containing psalms, the Morning and Evening Prayer services, the communion service, burial, marriage and ordination services, various special occasion prayers, through to the Thirty-Nine Articles.4 Both Burdon 2. George Hodges, The Episcopal Church: Its Faith and Order (New York: Macmillan, 1932), 34. 3. The Bishops of the American Church Mission in China (Hartford, CT: Church Mission, 1906), 19. 4. For a list of the exact contents of each major Prayer Book edition, see Poon (2005), 9. Poon seems to suggest this edition is a wenli text (see p. 3), but Burdon and Schereschewsky’s 〈公禱書的翻譯與聖公命名的歷史關係〉 。 wenli editions came several years later. 潘乃昭： [Poon, “Prayer Book Translation and the Birth of the Sheng Kung Hui.”]

Rethinking Church through the Book of Common Prayer

Figure 13  Bishop Samuel Isaac Joseph Schereschewsky (1831–1906).《中華聖公 會江蘇教區九十年歷史》 （江蘇：江蘇教 區 議 會， 1935）[The 90 Years History of the Diocese of Kiangsu, CHSKH (Kiangsu: Synod of the Diocese of Kiangsu, 1935)]. Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui Archives.

83

Figure 14  Bishop John Shaw Burdon (1826–1907). Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui Archives.

and Schereschewsky were long-term China missionaries, translators, and church leaders; both were involved in developing major educational institutions (St. Paul’s College, Hong Kong and St. John’s College, Shanghai); and both weathered controversy over Episcopal jurisdictions, Schereschewsky in Shanghai and Burdon in the See of Victoria.5 Having collaborated on the Mandarin Prayer Book, they agreed to further collaboration on a joint wenli (文 理, classical language) BCP text. They eventually published separate editions, Burdon in Hong Kong in 1879 and Schereschewsky in Shanghai a year later. Their collaborative 1872 text fed substantially into the 1917 Sheng Kung Hui Book of Common Prayer. The differences between these two texts show how church polity, rather than linguistic advances, exercised a role in the life of the Prayer Book.

Visions of Church: Schereschewsky and Burdon Joseph Schereschewsky’s heroic perseverance with translation work for decades after an immobilizing heat stroke is well known.6 Schereschewsky, who was 5. For a not entirely positive appraisal of Burdon and St. Paul’s, see George B. Endacott and Dorothy E. She, The Diocese of Victoria, Hong Kong: A Hundred Years of Church History, 1849–1949 (Hong Kong: Kelly and Walsh, 1949). 6. For biographies of this Lithuanian-born naturalized American, Jewish-born Christian convert, see James Muller, Apostle of China: Samuel Isaac Joseph Schereschewsky, 1831–1906 (New

84

Chloë Starr

priested in China in 1860, concentrated from the outset on translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, drawing on his earlier rabbinic training and language skills. Three factors stand out in the ministry of this missionary-scholar, the same factors that are seen in the work of his collaborator Burdon, and which ground their texts in church and society. The first is an insistence on the quality of language acquisition and a deep scholarly commitment to understanding Chinese, and therefore China, in Chinese terms. Schereschewsky did not spare those who “almost immediately after their arrival, having picked up a few broken phrases, commenced, as they supposed, to preach the gospel to the heathen, but which preaching most likely consisted of nothing more than uttering some sounds wholly unintelligible to the hearers,” whose “incomprehensible gibberish” did little to honor the Gospel.7 Schereschewsky reckoned on around eighteen months of “very hard study” before a missionary could express him- or herself on all but the most basic of topics, and he held that a good knowledge of the written language could not be acquired without “extraordinary diligence” spread over four to five years, and preferably at the same rate of eight to nine hours a day he himself expended on the task.8 By 1861, while still engaged in full-time language study, he was translating the Psalms into “Shanghai colloquial,” presaging a long career in translating both dialect and literary language work. The second element in Schereschewsky and Burdon’s great contribution to Prayer Book and Bible translation was a commitment to collaborative work.9 Their joint BCP, the result of a decade of cooperation, was brought about through the serendipity of their both residing in Peking when the city opened up to foreign residents in the 1860s and a common commitment to Anglican worship. Schereschewsky also worked with Joseph Edkins on Mongolian translations, and together with three others, including Burdon, as the Peking Translation Committee, to produce a Bible in the “northern vernacular,” published in 1870–72.10 The Peking Translation Committee has been given less York: Morehouse, 1937); and Irene Eber, The Jewish Bishop and the Chinese Bible: S. I. J. Schereschewsky (1831–1906) (Leiden: Brill, 1999). 7. Muller, Apostle of China, 44. 8. Ibid., 45. 9. Michael Poon rightly points to the importance of the collaboration between Schereschewsky and Burdon and their commitment to a greater church unity (especially in the light of American Episcopal invention of its own identity). Poon perhaps underestimates the degree of cooperation that went on between mission societies and across Anglican-Episcopal boundaries before this joint production, however; cf. Starr, “Prayer Book in NineteenthCentury China,” 419. Also see 潘乃昭：〈公禱書的翻譯與聖公命名的歷史關係〉[Michael Nai-chiu Poon, “Prayer Book Translation and the Birth of the Sheng Kung Hui,” http://doc. baidu.com/view/80f3df7202768e9951e738fa.html (accessed November 5, 2014)]. 10. On the Peking Translation Committee, its work methods, principles of translation, friendships, and the success of the Mandarin Bible produced, see Eber, Jewish Bishop and the Chinese Bible, 107–23; Jost Oliver Zetzsche, The Bible in China: The History of the Union Version or The Culmination of Protestant Missionary Bible Translation in China (Nettetal:

Rethinking Church through the Book of Common Prayer

85

prominence by scholars than the Delegates or Union versions and committees,11 but this underestimates the quality of the texts produced and the influence of these translations on later editions. Although the hard work of translation was done by individuals in concert with Chinese translators, scribes, and assistants, the Peking Translation Committee members submitted each line of work to each other for feedback and approval. During meetings, the translations were read aloud, verse by verse—a method that surely accounts for the more fluid and colloquially accurate rendering than in previous translations. (The collaborators were not quite so assiduous when it came to Schereschewsky’s Old Testament sections, with only Henry Blodget offering a critical reading.) A willingness to use Roman Catholic terminology at a time when “Romish” was a serious insult to a Protestant attests to Schereschewsky’s and Burdon’s broad-mindedness. Schereschewsky’s favoring of Tianzhu (天主) over Shangdi (上帝) or Shen (神) for God is well documented. Linguistic grounds were the prime reason, but ecumenical considerations were certainly present. Both Schereschewsky and Burdon corresponded at length with their respective church authorities over terminology.12 Schereschewsky argued that Tianzhu was best, had become naturalized in Chinese, and had been adopted by the Eastern Orthodox; the fact that others were against it because of Romish associations was not adequate grounds for rejection.13 Had such wisdom prevailed, much of the interminable soul-searching on terminology at the turn of the century might have been avoided. However, the element of naturalization has proved decisive in the long run: Shangdi has become a name of the Christian God in modern Chinese and refers only rarely to the supreme classical deity. No missionary in China in the 1860s could immerse him- or herself in language or local evangelism and remain oblivious to world affairs. The third factor in the ministry of prayer book translation was negotiating political realities in particularly turbulent times at home and abroad. Of the cohort of twelve American missionaries who had arrived with Schereschewsky in 1859, only two remained alive and present in China four years later. At the sending end, the American Civil War all but cut off funding to foreign missions, and Sankt Augustin, 1999), 145–51. Also see Marshall Broomhall, The Bible in China (London: China Inland Mission, 1934), 83–86. As Broomhall notes, the committee produced several similar but different editions for the American Bible Society and British and Foreign Bible Society in accordance with preferences for the term for God. 11. Thor Strandenaes, for example, skips from the Delegates straight to the Union in his important study of translation principles. Thor Strandenaes, The Principles of Chinese Bible Translation (Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1987). 12. “Shangti is but the chief god in this Pantheon, and as such the name is, in my opinion, utterly unsuitable to be applied to ‘Jehovah of Hosts.’ Shangti, Jupiter, Baal are according to this of the same general kind.” John Shaw Burdon, “A Letter to His Grace the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury” (Hong Kong: St. Paul’s College, 1877). 13. S. I. J. Schereschewsky, The Bible, Prayer Book, and Terms in Our China Missions (New York: W. F. Humphrey, 1888), 13.

86

Chloë Starr

retraction was widespread. Cooperation with both their own legations and local government was a necessity for missionaries in this era, as it had been in Robert Morrison’s time. Burdon was in Peking as quasi-chaplain to the British legation, and the opportunity for Schereschewsky to be based in the north came when he interpreted for the American minister Ansom Burlingame. Close ties to political authority were nothing new for an English priest with aspirations to advancement, but Schereschewsky’s reading of the situation in China suggested that he too felt political involvement need not be in opposition to nationality. Far from alienating citizens of heaven from their earthly state, the BCP that Schereschewsky and Burdon edited included daily prayers for those in political leadership. They saw no problem in substituting “Emperor” for the “King” of the English version. (The 1917 Chinese BCP is also noteworthy in this respect, with its prayer for grace, faith, and adherence to God’s holy laws for the president of the Republic.14 The expectation of regular textual revision was clearly still present.) In light of events of the early twentieth century and revulsion at missionaries’ relations with imperial powers, this stance may seem naïve, but it highlights the complex interplay between local experience, national identity, and a universal church.

Evolving Editions By 1862, Schereschewsky could report to the Board of Missions that “Mr Burdon and myself have jointly translated the most important portions of the Prayer Book into the Mandarin dialect, which I am now using every morning in chapel.”15 The occasional services and prayers took another decade. For Schereschewsky as for Burdon, translation projects were understood as firstorder mission work, opening up the Gospel and the possibility of relation to God through texts. The Bible Society supported this stance, praising in 1903 the Peking Committee’s Bible for giving new impetus to missionary work and enabling the Church to “train an efficient native ministry and raise up an intelligent church.”16 It is not far-fetched to see how the painstaking work of study, scholarship, and verse-by-verse translation of the late Qing was linked to the great growth in Chinese theological thought and church expansion in the 1910s and 1920s. Schereschewsky did not permit himself to be diverted by “frequent preaching, teaching, itinerating or any other sort of mission work.” The American Bible Society not only made allowances for his avoidance of normal mission tasks but also paid for a Chinese assistant for him (and, in fact,

（聖公會：1917），頁 19。[“The Prayer 14. 〈為總統和一切執政者禱文〉，《公禱文：附詩篇》 for the President and All the Rulers,” in The Book of Common Prayer with Appendix of Psalms (Sheng Kung Hui, 1917), 19.] 15. Muller, Apostle of China, 64. 16. Ibid., 90.

Rethinking Church through the Book of Common Prayer

87

he had two copyists at work: one for the day and one for the five to ten p.m. shift). For Schereschewsky and Burdon, the work of Prayer Book translation was concurrent with Bible translation and subject to the same debates on terminology. Both argued emphatically with their boards for Mandarin and literary-language texts. Schereschewsky had lived in the north and traveled far inland early in his time in China (including an expedition for several thousand kilometers up the Yangtze River, curtailed only by the headless bodies floating downriver); his perspective on Mandarin versus southern dialects was broader than that of many missionaries.17 The Prayer Book in Mandarin was a statement of belief in the vernacular as a sacred language some forty years ahead of the New Culture Movement’s acceptance of it as a literary language. As the Prayer Book gradually evolved from the late Qing into the Republican era, the multiplicity of variant texts persisted, despite frequent and well-intentioned calls for unity. This was in part a function of proliferating mission boards and church groups in China, but it was also due to the growing appreciation for the need for materials across language registers and to the changing nature of the language itself. Committed Prayer Book translators continually revised and improved their texts, with new dialect and register editions appearing. That said, there is a surprising degree of uniformity and closeness across texts by different translators within a given language style, suggesting a ready circulation of editions and an appreciation for the goal of unity. Differences between two texts of an individual could be as great as those between two different translators, as in the case of Schereschewsky’s 1872 and 1880 texts versus Schereschewsky’s 1872 and North China Mission partner Henry Blodget’s 1888 text. There was no necessary reuse of an individual’s Bible translation; the Decalogue of Burdon and Schereschewsky’s 1872 edition, for example, does not reproduce the translation from Schereschewsky’s own earlier translation of Exodus. When an edition was reprinted, or blocks recut, editors took the opportunity to update or revise. Henry Blodget’s Responsive Readings (共讀 經文) Prayer Book of 1888, for example, saw the trespasses (罪) of the Lord’s Prayer switched to debts (債) when a new edition was set.18 17. On Mandarin, Schereschewsky wrote, “This dialect is in fact the general language of China. In three-fourths of the Empire it is, with more or less modification, the common speech of both Mandarins and people. And in those regions where peculiar dialects are spoken, it is generally understood by the educated classes, and is, moreover, the official language throughout the whole empire,” adding “a version of the Scripture into this dialect is almost beyond comparison in point of importance and usefulness to versions into other dialects. It will really be the scripture in the living spoken language of the country.” 18. Compare Blodget (1888) with Blodget and Wilder (1907). Although the date and place of publication suggest this might be a very different text, the alterations are minimal in the （北 京：美 華 書 prayers and passages that are reproduced. See Henry Blodget:《共 讀 經 文》 館， 1888）[Henry Blodget, Responsive Readings from the Bible for Public Worship (Peking: American Presbyterian Mission Press, 1888)]; Henry Blodget and George Wilder:《共 讀 經

88

Chloë Starr

Figure 15  The first full Chinese translation of the Book of Common Prayer, Peking, 1872. Hong Kong Sheng Kung Kui Archives.

A second factor in the continued development of Prayer Book translations over the turn of the century was their increasing formality and “churchiness,” as editions were modeled ever more directly on the source text(s). This can be seen in what is included in the translation of the paratextual material: footnotes, rubrics, prefaces, and appendices. Burdon and Schereschewsky had prefixed their 1870–72 text with some simple explanatory notes for a Chinese readership, making clear, for example, that although the translation used Tianzhu for God, this was not a Roman Catholic text, and explaining some of the transliterations like “A men” and “A le lu ya,” and—in a comment on earlier translations of Schereschewsky—that the Yehehua (耶和華, Jehovah) of the Psalms was indeed Tianzhu. In later Prayer Books, such as the Sheng Kung Hui 1917 edition, no allowance is made for novice readers, and the rules and regulations (定章) that preface the texts tell Chinese priests and congregations exactly what English readers are told: which sections of Morning or Evening Prayer may be omitted on given days, what happened to the cycle of Psalms in a month of thirty-one days, and so on.19 The 1917 BCP begins with more than thirty pages of tables of readings for Sundays and festivals throughout the year, details of rules on chanting the Psalms and canticles, the dates of moveable feasts, and lists of when festivals such as Rogation Sunday or Pentecost were 文》 （通 州： 協 和 書 院 印 字 舘 印，1907）[Henry Blodget and George Wilder, Responsive Readings from the Bible for Public Worship (Tongzhou: Xiehe, 1907)]. 19. 《公禱文：附詩篇》，頁 19。[Book of Common Prayer with Appendix of Psalms, 19.]

Rethinking Church through the Book of Common Prayer

89

to be celebrated. Eyebrow notes in the main text indicate which scriptural sentences in the text are read at which festivals. The overall feel of the text is of a highly regulated and ordered service framework: a church life in book form. Linguistically, the text is close to Burdon and Schereschewsky’s BCP, but in an increasingly confident Mandarin, replete with binomes and fluid sentences. Textually, Schereschewsky’s wenli edition of 1880 and Burdon’s 1879 BCP form a bridge to the 1917 BCP. Both include more explanation around the translated passages, such as a list of exceptional days when the Apostles’ Creed is not said. Burdon transformed the basic Prayer Book into a full Book of Common Prayer, adding not only the creed and the set prayers for various occasions, but the collects, epistle, and Gospel readings for Sundays and major festivals. In his much slimmer wenli Prayer Book, Schereschewsky translates notes, such as posture directions for the priest (who has by this point reverted to a phonic miniside, minister20). In their respective revised editions, both Burdon and Schereschewsky add the Athanasian Creed. The Athanasian Creed supports the direction in which the Prayer Book was heading, toward use as a formal teaching tool. The Prayer Book, more than the Bible, incorporates the theology of the church. The Athanasian Creed—gradually discontinued over the course of the twentieth century on all but Trinity Sunday, in Roman as well as Protestant churches, in good part because of its insistence on the eternal damnation of those who do not follow church teaching—presents a more refined Christology than the Apostles’ or Nicene and more detailed exposition of the Trinity. It is easy to see why it was not included in earlier translations of the Prayer Book; not only are there seemingly logical inconsistencies, but also translation of Greek philosophical terminology for “substance” and “Person” remained problematic.21 Linguistically, there was not a unidirectional move. Terms went out and came back into vogue; new texts incorporated composite elements from prior ones. The 1917 BCP relied heavily on the joint 1872 text, but not uniformly. For some passages (e.g., the Invitation to Confession), it followed Schereschewsky’s 1880 text almost exactly; in others, borrowings from elsewhere dominate. Even 20. Michael Poon notes that Schereschewsky translates “priest” as 比 理 斯 德 in the 1880 BCP; in the instructional notes and small font instructions where the text has minister, miniside ( 弥 呢斯德 ) is used. 21. A brief comparison of a back translation of the Chinese with the original English makes clear the scope of the task: “In terms of his divine nature, he is equal to the Father; in terms of his human nature, he is secondary to the Father. As for his single being as Christ, it is not that God’s nature changed into flesh, but that God took human form and became one Christ. He is truly one; it is not that in the body they are mutually tangled confused, but that he is one in Person.”《公禱文：附詩篇》[The Book of Common Prayer with Appendix of Psalms]. “Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead : and inferior to the Father, as touching his manhood; Who, although he be God and Man : yet he is not two, but one Christ; One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh : but by taking of the Manhood into God;  One altogether; not by confusion of Substance : but by unity of Person” (1662 BCP).

90

Chloë Starr

in the Lord’s Prayer new readings continually surface. The phrase “lead us not into temptation” suffered the greatest diversity across editions.22 In Prayer Book translation the cadence of the language is arguably more important than in Bible translation. Even though almost the entire Prayer Book is Scripture, it was still often translated anew. Memorizable phrases and fluid scansion were key. Editions of the 1870s clearly surpassed earlier versions. In Burdon and Schereschewsky’s 1872 edition, an abundance of four-character phrases goes a long way toward creating an elegant and poetic scansion.23 That the phrasing has a hymnic quality is not surprising; both Burdon and Schereschewsky also composed hymns. A notable feature of this publication is how close to current usage many of Burdon and Schereschewsky’s phrases are; they have stood the test of time and of language evolution. Tweaking a syllable or two of the Doxology, we could be in a church in Beijing on a twenty-first-century Sunday morning.24 Even though the BCP itself did not survive into the People’s Republic of China (PRC) era, many of its phrases are still echoed in services. The choir’s opening song sung at each service in Haidian Church, Beijing, for example, takes its words directly from the scriptural sentence from Habbakuk that began Evening Prayer.25 The cultural otherness of the Prayer Book is difficult to escape; metaphors taken from the Psalms and the Galilean landscape (“we are the sheep of his pastures”) sit awkwardly among more readily translatable images. The emphasis on sin, salvation, and the eventual reward of eternal joy (永遠的安 樂) appears particularly pronounced in a new liturgical setting. Some of the Scripture sentences, familiar to English Prayer Book users, must have sounded alien to new congregants. Recited out of context, phrases about old leaven, or not using leavened bread,26 are grammatically intelligible but semantically barely so, while the romanized cherubim and seraphim (基路冰同西拉冰) who “continually do cry” to the Lord in the Te Deum are really neither. This cannot be read as a stand-alone text in Chinese; it can only be understood in context. A worship service creates that context and initiates individuals into the tradition, but, as in any language, the Prayer Book service can remain obscure or bizarre 22. For example, the 1872 BCP has “ 保佑我們不被引誘 ”; the 1880 wenli BCP “ 保佑我免受誘 惑 ”; the 1917 BCP “ 保佑我們不遇試探 ”; the 1919 Union ( 和合本，heheben) Bible “ 不叫 我們遇見試探 ”. 23. The end of the confession, for example, reads “ 叫 我 們 以 後、 尊 奉 天 父、 公 義 待 人、 安 分 守 己 ”. 《教 會 禱 文》（北 京： 美 華 書 館，1872） [John Shaw Burdon and Samuel Schereschewsky, trans. The Book of Common Prayer (Peking: American Presbyterian Mission Press, 1872), 7]. 24. The doxology reads, “ 但願榮耀歸於聖父、聖子、聖靈，起初這樣，現在這樣，以後也這 樣，永無窮盡，阿門。” 25. In Schereschewsky’s wenli edition, this reads, “ 主在聖殿中，普天下之人在主前，俱當肅 然寂靜。” 26. “ 我們守這個節、不可用舊酵、就是暴恨惡者，只當永無酵的餅，就是真正誠實 ” (1 Cor 5:8).

Rethinking Church through the Book of Common Prayer

91

to outsiders. Those who love the cadences of the BCP do so after a long training and familiarization process. The decision by Burdon and Blodget to publish a literary-language New Testament, having completed their Mandarin one, and for Schereschewsky to push ahead also with his wenli Old Testament and a wenli Prayer Book, clearly required a great deal of explanation for the Mission Board. Schereschewsky argued as fervently in the 1880s for a wenli Bible as he had for a Mandarin Bible in the 1860s; for him, the literary language was “the embodiment of the Chinese mind.” His speech to the American Episcopal House of Bishops in November 1888 set out at length the reasoning behind a wenli Prayer Book and explained why this did not contravene the Twenty-Fourth Article, which prohibited public prayer “in a tongue not understanded of the people.” A literary Prayer Book was a bulwark against proliferating regional texts, since “it would be as incongruous to multiply Prayer Books in the different Chinese dialects and patois, as it would be incongruous to put the Prayer Book into the different English dialects and patois.”27 As Schereschewsky explained to his fellow bishops, his wenli Prayer Book had been in use for several years, and he had combined the American and English Prayer Book texts into one volume so that they might be used by both churches (the prayer of consecration and the different terms for God in use—Tianzhu/Shangdi/Shen—being the greatest obstacles to a single text). One Prayer Book would give authority to whichever set of terms were used in it. While Burdon and Schereschewsky had been as guilty as anyone of experimentation with new language forms, and therefore multiple editions, the logic of his argument was strong. The changed stance was also a function of political necessity, as arguments among missionaries over terms for God grew to an all-encompassing crescendo in the 1880s. Having reiterated the reasons for his preferred terms for God, church, bishop, and priest, Schereschewsky pointed out that some had begun to reuse alternatives and noted rumors of a division in missionary jurisdiction, with “one set of terms and one type of Churchmanship in Shanghai, and another set of terms and type of Churchmanship at Wuchang.” Asking the bishops to legislate on the matter was an adroit move to prevent disunity. As will be seen in the next section of this chapter, the ecclesial political landscape of the 1880s was especially fraught, and, in appealing to the bishops in this way, Schereschewsky was deliberately drawing on his authority as doyen translator to draw the church into an unequivocal position on translation and its politics—with the honorable aim of fostering unity but at the cost of its imposition. The ostensible issue of language register (wenli or Mandarin), a matter of relatively little dissent among missionaries even as it was perceived as a potential force for disunity from outside China, was about to be dwarfed by another aspect of liturgical praxis. 27. Schereschewsky, Bible, Prayer Book, and Terms in Our China Missions, 7.

92

Chloë Starr

The Prayer Book as Litmus Text As the common text of the Anglican Church(es), the Prayer Book has long been invested with the capacity to foster belonging and the potential to be manipulated for factional interests as a tool of exclusion. In the 1880s, the Prayer Book in China was caught up in deeply political maneuvers surrounding the election of Schereschewsky’s successor, the third American bishop to China. The debate related to two wider contentious issues: the relationships of mission partners to their home boards, and churchmanship. As the protracted correspondence in the North China Herald and the Star of the East surrounding the incident shows (gathered by one of the more fractious participants and published under the wonderful title Correspondence in Connection with the Protest against the Consecration of Rev. W. J. Boone as Missionary Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church of America in China: Also Letters Referring to the Wretched Management of the Mission28), the Prayer Book was brought into debates as a litmus test to define orthodoxy. The correspondence sheds light on the difficulties of operating remotely for both missionaries and their sponsors when letters took weeks or months to arrive but where delegated decisions were not always retroactively approved. The force of personalities emerges clearly from the documents, and it is not difficult to sense the exasperation of long-term missionaries at the lack of understanding among both patrons in the United States and young missionaries in the field of how things worked on the ground in China. This distance between theory and practice is important, in part because it links the debates in China with their precursors in England and shows how arguments that had been simmering away in the sending churches and the wider church were brought into China. Back in the 1830s and 1840s, the Oxford Movement had gathered pace in England; no longer confined to a small group of Tractarians or Puseyites, over the next decades the Catholic revival was to challenge many assumptions of what constituted post-Reformation Protestantism and to diffuse older ritual practices throughout the Church of England. For many of the Anglo-Catholic pioneers accused of “ritualism,” their defense was the pastoral need encountered, as these holiness movement participants set out to work in urban slums and preach among the poor. Rituals such as anointing for those dying of cholera or communion by reserved sacrament were reintroduced for practical purposes. Other aspects, such as vestments, bright stoles, or candles on altars, which now seem commonplace and innocuous, were the subject of bitter and divisive argument. Just as innovations in mid-nineteenth-century England were seen as aping Papist ways, the same 28. Correspondence in Connection with the Protest against the Consecration of Rev. W. J. Boone as Missionary Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church of America in China: Also Letters Referring to the Wretched Management of the Mission (Shanghai: 1885). No author’s name is given, but the text makes clear that it was Ferdinand McKeige.

Rethinking Church through the Book of Common Prayer

93

debates played out among clergy in China provoked high anxieties and were predicated in part on the tension between the needs apparent in the field and the beliefs of those directing operations from afar. As a reading of the debates around the ordination of William J. Boone Jr. shows, the pretext for the debate and the passion surrounding it soon outstripped the initial cause. After the founding of St. John’s College, Shanghai, by Schereschewsky in 1879, succeeding bishops became ex officio head of this institution set up to train clergy and to inculcate Christian values in young students. The link between mission and education projects was now so strong as to have quelled most dissenting voices and been accepted as a given of Protestant work in China. William J. Boone Jr. (whose father had been the first American Episcopal missionary bishop in China) was perhaps not an ideal candidate for the episcopal office; even a diplomatic critic like Schereschewsky was unimpressed by his intellectual caliber, and the debates surrounding Boone’s ordination might have given the committee pause for thought. There was suggestion that the ordaining bishops, two of whom were English bishops drafted in for the occasion, were also unhappy. However, the accusations against Boone, denials and counterdenials, have more than a touch of the opportunistic about them. One Ferdinand McKeige sought to halt the ordination on the grounds of uninvestigated charges, largely collated by McKeige himself, against Boone. The essence of these accusations was the poor management of the mission under Boone and his allowance of “ritualism” to pervade services at St. John’s, principally, but not exclusively, in the services over which the Reverend Sayers presided. This Reverend Sayers, meanwhile, stood by his “ritualist” inclinations and was unwilling that others should defend him in the press if this meant minimizing his acts, a position for which he was bilaterally admired.29 The public nature of the case broke when newly arrived missionary George Appleton wrote to the Southern Churchman (of Richmond, Virginia) in July 1883 detailing the ritualism he had observed at St. John’s—colored stoles, the signing of the cross on each piece of bread, the mixing of the chalice—and deploring the employment of “heathen” Chinese as classics teachers in the college. In denying the charges of ritualism and defending the employment of “heathen” teachers and the teaching of English, F. R. Graves (later bishop) wrote in a letter carried in the same publication in September of that year: This is not the only time the accusation of “ritualism,” meaning Romanism, has been openly made against the China Mission. Speaking for myself and the other clergy, I can only say that we repudiate any charge of teaching what the church does not teach or practicing what is not allowed by the law of the church on the Reformation settlement. 29. Sayers had his own axe to grind and formed a strange alliance with the antiritualists in their common complaint against Boone; the documents suggest he made unauthorized sorties into the students’ dormitories at night and found boys playing cards and gambling, which to him was clear-cut evidence of the lax Christian management of St. John’s.

94

Chloë Starr

We stand by the Prayer-Book and by the church as that book gives it to us . . . To me the services at St John’s seem cold and stiff. We walk in the fetters of Western ideas and formulas unsuited to an Asiatic nation. To their minds our services must seem cold. To their minds used to the outward expression of religious sentiment an ornate ritual which we could not use would seem inexpressive, and the scanty symbolism which we actually offer must be greatly inadequate.

Another retired missionary weighed in, defending the mission and stating that Bishop Schereschewsky, still on furlough in America, had told him in private communication how disappointed he was with such practices—but this attempt to rebuff the charges merely fanned the flames and, given the widely aired suggestion that Bishop Schereschewsky was a high churchman, did little to soothe the perturbed. An editorial response in the Southern Churchman combined an antiritual stance with a much more liberal view on contextual theology and began to point to the wider reverberations of the debates: One would have supposed that among missionaries there would have been so strong a desire to bring the gospel to bear upon the consciences of the heathen, they would have no desire for any ritual over and above that of the Book of Common Prayer . . . Christians take the sects of Protestant Christianity to the heathen, and with them their way of looking at things; but it is not likely that our way is going to be their way. They will work out for themselves their own forms. We must remember that theology is only our way of looking at the Bible. Theology, therefore, is not inspired; the Bible is inspired, but not our way of looking at it. Each Christian nation has its own theology, and the Chinese will have their way, when once they begin to think for themselves and read the Bible with their own eyes. Our Western modes of thought are not going to be their methods; but both will be true.30

In the series of letters that followed in the same publication, both sides use the BCP as a yardstick. As one American-based writer concedes: I suppose that no-one, aware of the wide differences between us and the Chinese, and of the utility, not to say need, of a certain measure of concession to race traits, will be disposed to quarrel with our missionaries for adopting, in accordance with the spirit of the preface to the Book of Common Prayer, “forms and usages” suitable to the people among whom they are laboring, “provided the substance of the faith be kept entire.”31

The writer goes on to suggest that George Appleton’s description of life at St. John’s in Shanghai indicates that these boundaries had been crossed. A certain amount of ritual is to be expected among the Chinese, he writes, but 30. Correspondence in Connection with the Protest, 14. 31. Ibid., 15.

Rethinking Church through the Book of Common Prayer

95

the Romish doctrine of Eucharistic sacrifice—as evidenced by the signing of the cross on each piece of bread—is a “tumor” on the church’s body, sapping its strength. A subsequent editorial in the Southern Churchman formed common cause with the letter writer: Now if Mr. Sayers wants to introduce a ritual of which this church knows nothing, then he is not catholic, but a self-willed man, who, going outside the Prayer-book, gets up what he thinks is catholic, but which is not. . . .  [I]f Mr. Sayers is teaching doctrine not in the Bible he is not catholic, and if he is using a ritual not in the Prayer-book he is not catholic. . . . Alas! For our foreign missions, to have poor heathens introduced into the mysteries of the proper colors for Easter, while they know not Christ nor the salvation offered by him.32

The editorial raises several points. The Prayer Book is raised in status for ritual orthodoxy to that of the Bible for doctrinal orthodoxy. Those liturgical rituals not explicitly stated in the Prayer Book (gestures, the sign of the cross, positioning of candles) are now taken to be outlawed by omission. In this light, it is interesting that Chinese Prayer Books toward the end of the nineteenth century do include translation of all rubrics (who stands where, and when), which had often been omitted earlier. Excessive ritual, meaning that outside of the Prayer Book, is set against true evangelism. The hyperbole is not, one assumes, intended to amuse. Proper ritual inculcates faith—even though the editorial writers have previously allowed that the Chinese may form a very different theology to their own—whereas excessive ritual misleads the “poor heathen.” The distinctions are, for those on the inside, clear cut. While the Southern Churchman shows, if not consistency, a measure of latitude in understanding that the Chinese should develop their own theologies, editorial writers of the Star in the East were more acerbic and personal in their attacks, as further skirmishes erupted between the Star in the East and the North China Herald. As George Appleton, the initiator, soon realized and regretted, a public questioning of the ritual practice (and therefore theology) of missionaries could soon lead to a blanket condemnation of missions and a cessation of funds from concerned Christians in the motherland. The letters, which continued for some months, do not make for edifying reading, with ad hominem attacks continuing on Boone’s “extreme” ritual and sacerdotal practices. The lack of awareness that all mission comes clothed in foreign garb is evident from the sharp distinctions made between “Church millinery” and “teaching gospel truths.” A question that correspondents approached from different angles but did not articulate fully at this point is the link between a Chinese Prayer Book and a Chinese church or, indeed, the assumption that one would lead to the other. The lavish attention in Prayer Book translation to rendering every last detail of 32. Ibid., 20.

96

Chloë Starr

posture, every seasonal prayer, and every proper preface supports a belief that the church itself was transplantable, that the linguistic and liturgical frame could be reproduced in different settings and cultures, and that this transplantation would itself constitute and ensure the unity of the catholic church. Yet, at the same time, those involved in this Herculean task were some of the most pro-China scholars, those most voluble in respecting and acknowledging the positive qualities of “heathen” learning. There were many prophetic voices in the late Qing who recognized the tension and foresaw a different way forward in the era of a “Chinese” church. The true litmus test was not going to be whether one favored a more or less ritualized, higher or lower sacramental liturgy, but whether that liturgy could be seen to be authentically Chinese—and how it could be both Chinese and belong to the world church. Robert Stewart, recruited to the Dublin University Mission in 1876, was one of those pioneering the systematic, selective training of catechists with the intention of creating an educated, self-supporting network of Bible teachers and church leaders. He perceived that “China could never be evangelized save through the Chinese.”33 H. B. Rattenbury believed that only when Chinese had done the work themselves could the Bible text be considered a translation.34 During his short episcopacy, Bishop James Addison Ingle of Hankou, consecrated in 1902, wrote: There will come a time when foreigners are no longer needed, perhaps will not be tolerated, but the Chinese church will never be able to dispense with the ministry of its own people. . . . An ideal should be to have such a body of Chinese workers, that if, at a moment’s notice, we should all be withdrawn, the church in all her various activities would go on steadily without us.35

In light of the disputes over ritualism, it is little surprise that the day came sooner than many foresaw.

Into the Twentieth Century: Centrifugal and Centripetal Tensions If the Prayer Book was caught among competing tensions in late Qing China— between a proliferation of editions, revisions, and regional dialect texts and the centrifugal tendencies toward uniformity in a single, all-encompassing edition, and between the ritual function of a unifying text and the divisive potential of nonverbal ritual—in Hong Kong, another form of tension circled the Prayer Book. 33. A History of the Dublin University Fuh-Kien Mission, 1887–1911 (Dublin: Hodges, Figgis, 1911). 《譯經溯源》 （香港：中國神學研究院，1993），頁 45。[Zhao Weiben, Trac­ing 34. 趙維本： the Roots of Bible Translation: A History of Five Major Versions of the Chinese Bible (Hong Kong: China Graduate School of Theology, 1993), 45.] 35. Bishops of the American Church Mission in China.

Rethinking Church through the Book of Common Prayer

97

A bishop without jurisdiction over a church, a bishop who has expended considerable energy in the translation of liturgical texts but cannot determine their use in his own cathedral, is in a difficult position. When John Shaw Burdon was consecrated the third Anglican bishop of the Diocese of Hong Kong in 1874, a celebration was delayed because of wrangling over the division of the bishopric (he retained the area of China south of the twenty-eighth parallel). The colonial context shaped the life and liturgy of the Hong Kong church in a different manner than it did the mainland church, though the participants were in many cases the same people and their texts translated by the same hands. A society where “parishioners have a claim to be seated according to their rank and station”36 was unlikely to encourage interracial equality in church or foster a unity based on a shared heritage. More immediately, the question of establishment profoundly affected Burdon’s period of ministry. Court rulings in the United Kingdom had recently established that (Crown) appointment by Letters Patent was not tenable in colonies with their own legislatures. Appointment by the Archbishop of Canterbury, even by Royal Warrant, did not give the bishop the same legal standing as bishops had previously enjoyed with regard to either local government or the church, and it left a grey area with regard to the relationship between the colonial chaplain (the equivalent of a cathedral dean) and the incoming bishop. The question of who would determine the rights of the bishop in the cathedral in Hong Kong (i.e., the trustees or the governor) was also not clear. While Bishop Burdon was clearly a capable incumbent—and by all accounts successfully fulfilled the post of colonial chaplain as well as bishop during an interregnum, thus getting to run his own cathedral as well as diocese—questions over the division of financial responsibility between church and (Hong Kong colonial) government remained. When, against the wishes of the trustees, the cathedral was fully disestablished in 1892, matters were ostensibly settled in favor of church governance, only to bring new questions as the seat holders and subscribers demanded greater powers in line with their greater giving. Although translated with the aim of allowing full local participation in the one universal church, the background context to the liturgical life of the diocesan cathedral in Hong Kong shows how the meaning of the Prayer Book was itself contextual. There was an inevitable tension between drawing the congregation into the life of the universal church and into that of the particular mother church in England represented by this text, a tension with especial resonance in Hong Kong. While the Prayer Book could represent the church catholic in China, its authority in Hong Kong came with an overlay of state association. The Prayer Book represented state and ecclesial authority. It took an act of Parliament (For the Uniformity of Common Prayer, and Service in the Church, and Administration of the Sacraments) to bring into force and effect the form of the Anglican Prayer Book, and each revision had to be agreed by 36. Endacott and She, Diocese of Victoria, Hong Kong, 37.

98

Chloë Starr

Parliament. The authority of the church, as invested in its archbishops and bishops, was represented by the maintenance of the liturgical order set by the text of the BCP. Tensions between missionary bishops and the creation of formal dioceses across China in this era, as experienced by both Burdon and Schereschewsky, formed part of the same debate on the transition between local, in situ, authority and the imposition of external norms. At the same time, debate continued to draw force on the transition to Chinese authority within the Chinese church. The history of the BCP cuts across these intersecting debates. At a level distinctly removed from diurnal pew life but equally real, Bishop Burdon enjoyed neither the authority of the British state nor, by right, the powers invested in him by the archbishop. The church had taken for granted the freedom to create its own liturgies in China as a practical necessity during the many stages of translation work that it had taken to reach a full translation of the BCP. But in the last few decades of the nineteenth century, the church in China had chosen to forge upstream. Regional diversity and a mission-by-mission framework for translation had ceded to the drive for editions that could be used across the whole country. At its best, this was the fruit of a belief in the catholicity of the church, coupled with better communication networks and rapid printing facilities. Linguistically, the move was prescient. Mandarin did become the national language, and a simplified form of written literary Chinese emerged as the sole writing medium barely two decades later. Theologically, however, the future looked less certain. The need for Chinese Christians to adopt the Prayer Book for themselves was clear, but whether a fully translated and standardized text left the necessary leeway for this was much less clear. Did the translated BCP militate against creativity? Was learning to conform all that congregants could do? Was the centralizing wenli version, in fact, a misreading of events? The history of the Prayer Book in China shows the need to tread carefully around terms such as “sinicization” and “enculturation.” Michael Poon writes, “A Chinese Prayer Book never became inculturated,” and, as his history of committees, edition planning, and the lack of new texts from the 1920s through to the 1950s shows, this was true. The Chinese-run church in Republicanera China intended to compile, but never quite completed its “own” prayer book.37 But what it might mean for the Prayer Book to become enculturated is less obvious. By 1870 the Chinese church had a prayer book whose language, phrases, and terms were as close to intrinsically Chinese as might be possible for a translation. A translation of the same source matter by native Chinese speakers might not have effected a greatly more “Chinese” text. As a composition of scriptural writings, and therefore a text tied to contemporary concepts of biblical translation grounded in source-text accuracy as well as readability, it is difficult to see how the process of enculturation could really take place at 37. 潘乃昭：〈公禱書的翻譯與聖公命名的歷史關係〉。[Poon, “Prayer Book Translation and the Birth of the Sheng Kung Hui.”]

Rethinking Church through the Book of Common Prayer

99

the textual level. That had to happen in the worship life of the church. The enculturation that the Prayer Book demands is more than a translation by native speakers, and more than an adoption in liturgy, or even a commitment to developing that liturgy in line with the needs of the local congregation. It is arguably an accession to its worldview. The Prayer Book was a gift of labor, of lives expended in precisely making this a “Chinese” text, progressively developing the most natural Chinese to express the worship. The Prayer Book was the gift of a vision of church, of a church universal with a certain history. It was this that the Chinese church had to choose whether to accept. Burdon and Schereschewsky labored under a vision of a universal church with a shared liturgy. Figure 16  The first Prayer Book It was the changing understanding of how published in Hong Kong, 1855. Hong that universal church was to function Kong Sheng Kung Hui Archives. locally that opened up space for debate over the Prayer Book, rather than the perceived need for sinicization. A combination of practical wisdom, such as had prevailed in the nascent Chinese church, and the international ecclesial situation changed the context itself. The Lambeth Conference of 1920 resolved: While maintaining the authority of the Book of Common Prayer as the Anglican standard of doctrine and practice, we consider that liturgical uniformity should not be regarded as a necessity throughout the Churches of the Anglican Communion, the conditions of the church in many parts of the mission field render inapplicable the retention of that Book as the one fixed liturgical model.38

After decades of effort to produce generic volumes for use across China, and of guiding the church in the direction of uniform liturgy, the way was officially (re)opened for diversity and local creativity.

38. Lambeth Conference, 1920, Resolution 36. Also cited in Paul M. Collins, Christian Inculturation in India (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007), 36. As Collins notes, the outcome of this and earlier resolutions on the topic in 1867, 1879, and 1908, together with the emerging Liturgical Movement, meant that experimental rites across Asia and Africa were gradually becoming fixed as authorized forms of worship.

100

Chloë Starr

Conclusion At the turn of the twentieth century, there was a paradoxical movement away from a diversity of Prayer Book texts tailored to local audiences toward nationwide texts, as translation skills were honed and new BCP editions built on their predecessors. The movement toward a unified Prayer Book in China came just as the worldwide church (as well as Chinese theologians) was beginning to theorize the need for locally enculturated service forms. The vast size of China and the sheer number of mission societies and nationalities had encouraged a plurality of texts and local service forms from the beginning of the translation era. The movement toward liturgical uniformity was intended to promote the reality of one church incarnate, but the motivation cannot be separated entirely from the desire, however well intentioned, to impose a certain set of terms, and their theological resonances, on all. In China, the process was articulated as a vision of unity, but it can also be seen as the product of linguistic and liturgical debates among the community of missionary translators and their divisive effects on the church. While it seemed to Schereschewsky and Burdon’s generation that the Anglican Church in China had successfully negotiated the politics of belonging, allowing Chinese to worship in Chinese, as Chinese nationals, and pray for their own political leaders and future, a different perception of unity grew to trouble this vision. The parameters of the debates in the 1920s on an independent, national, and self-supporting church were set and elaborated much earlier, as this chapter shows. They were inextricably tied to the practical realities of liturgical worship, and not just expressed at the level of ideology, as often construed. The debates on ritualism suggest how fear of otherness was a factor for many of the users, if not creators, of the Prayer Book: that a common text was a means to restrain divergence, not just from Protestant evangelicalism but from potential Chinese innovations in texts and worship too. Sinicization becomes, in part, a reaction to the excess of these debates, and to the vision of mission that liturgical uniformity had come to represent. This chapter concludes in the early Republican era, just as movements toward denominational mergers and the creation of the National Council of Churches were reaching a decisive stage, and long before the journey toward a new Prayer Book documented by Bishop Shen Zigao (沈子高, T. K. Shen) in the 1940s, which is discussed in the following chapter. The perceived need to have a Prayer Book in contemporary language has continued to present a conundrum for liturgists. Much of the debate over the translation of early Bibles as well as Prayer Books was one of register: finding an appropriate form of language that allowed for accurate, sacred, and easily intelligible texts. It was the impossibility of holding these three elements together that led to the appointment of three committees to produce three versions of the Chinese Bible in 1890. Although these moves coalesced into two versions in the 1900s

Rethinking Church through the Book of Common Prayer

101

(“easy wenli” and Mandarin) and then to one (Mandarin) in the following decade, in line with changing national patterns of language use, the debate has still not been entirely resolved throughout the Chinese-speaking Anglican world. Classical Chinese and dialect prayer books continued to be used alongside modern editions throughout the twentieth century in nonmainland and diasporic communities. As Wan Sze-kar has noted, discrepancy between contemporary language forms and written liturgical texts produces a certain dissociation for worshippers, a problem “further compounded” by continued use of classical Chinese Prayer Books. Wan notes that “when the written and spoken words diverge, performers and hearers alike must always make a mental if not oral ‘translation’ whenever a text is performed in public.”39 This was a problem that missionaries in non-Mandarin areas in nineteenthcentury China had understood well, and it was the original motivation for dialect translations. Underlying this analysis is the assumption that liturgical language should be readily intelligible, but this may prove a relatively recent concept (and calls to mind Qur’anic Arabic, church Slavonic, or the archaic admixture of Portuguese and Latin in Japanese kakure Christian liturgies). The very term “Prayer Book language” in English connotes archaism. We all have to learn Prayer Book language because rapidly changing language forms and the semicanonical nature of editions mean that the cadences of authorized versions quickly diverge from everyday speech. The problem, then, is not so much compounded by classical Prayer Books as highlighted by it. As comparisons of Mandarin and literary-language Bibles have shown, classical-language editions may be more fluent, more mellifluous, and sound more natural to the ear than modern-language editions.40 The tension has not disappeared; even the 1979 Taiwanese-produced East Asian Prayer Book had its detractors, with complaints about the “plebian” qualities of the modern Chinese. In Japan too, many felt nostalgia for the 1959 literary Japanese edition as it was slowly rewritten into a 1990 edition.41 The decision to persevere with updating and recreating the Prayer Book is ultimately a choice about belonging. For all sorts of well-grounded historical and political reasons, as denominational identities were undergoing a thorough rethinking, the Anglican-rooted church in Republican China chose not to follow the vision of universality that the BCP offered. Its service forms and 39. Wan Sze-kar, “The Chinese Prayer Book,” in The Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer, ed. Charles Hefling and Cynthia Shattuck (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 397–401. 40. Zetzsche, The Bible in China; 馬紅莉：〈《官話和合譯本》與《文理和合譯本》中新約的 翻譯原則比較〉，《基督教文化學刊》，頁 229–59。[Ma Hongli, “Comparison of the Dif­ ferent Translation Principles in the Mandarin Union Version and Wenli Union Version,” Journal of Chinese Christian Culture 28 (Autumn 2012): 229–59.] 41. John M. Yoshida, “Japan: Nippon Sei Ko Kai,” in The Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer, ed. Charles Hefling and Cynthia Shattuck (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 393.

102

Chloë Starr

structures remained inspired by Prayer Book liturgy but in a manner that those who did not grow up in the Prayer Book might not realize. We might speculate now what effect the current slow reintegration of the Chinese and world churches will have on the development of future liturgical forms in the PRC, especially as closer ties with the Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui develop, and how the vision of universality that inspired the late Qing prayer books might again be translated in China.

Chapter 5

An Analysis of the Compilation and Writing of the Book of Common Prayer in the Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui Feng Guo On April 18, 1912, delegates from the eleven juridical areas of the mission societies of the Church of England, the American Protestant Episcopal Church Mission (PECM), and the Church of England in Canada assembled in Shanghai. They declared their unity, and, on April 26, the General Synod of the Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui (CHSKH) was inaugurated.1 From its inauguration in 1912 until the Tenth General Synod (1947), the CHSKH prioritized the writing and compilation of a Book of Common Prayer (BCP). This emphasis stemmed from the recognition on the part of the General Synod of the Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui that the BCP was the most important expression of the Anglican-Episcopal spiritual tradition. The process within the CHSKH of developing a Chinese version of the BCP is the subject of this chapter.

The Chinese Prayer Book before 1912 As a guideline for church doctrine and Christian worship, the Book of Common Prayer has historically been a source of unity for churches in the AnglicanEpiscopal tradition.2 However, in the nineteenth century, the varying backgrounds of missionary boards working in China, the complicated and diverse vernacular languages (or different Chinese dialects), and the lack of uniform linguistic systems of translation led to different Chinese dioceses adopting prayer books divergent in format, language, and content. These problems were elucidated by Chloë Starr in the previous chapter of this book. Efforts aimed at the integration and compilation of a unified BCP began a decade and a half before the inauguration of the CHSKH. The first Conference of Bishops of China and Korea, held to coordinate the work of the Church of England missionary societies and the PECM, took place in 1897. The report

（上海：美華 1. 中華聖公會總議會：《中華聖公會總議會首次集會報告 / 安立甘合會議案》 書 館，1912）。[CHSKH General Synod, Report on the First General Synod / Anglican Joint Conference Report (Shanghai: American Presbyterian Mission Press, 1912).] 《聖公會報》，第 29 卷第 12 期，1936， 2. 魏希本：〈我們的一個願望 ―― 統一的公禱書〉， 頁 4。 [Wei Xiben, “Our Petition—Union Prayer Book,” Chinese Churchman 29, no. 12 (1936): 4.]

104

Feng Guo

from this first joint meeting of bishops reveals the centrality of their concern for the BCP: This Bishop’s Joint Meeting was initiated in 1895 when several clergy wrote to their bishops about the edition of a common prayer book, attempting to translate and revise a nationwide standard Chinese language common prayer book based on the BCP of the Church of England and the American Episcopal Church BCP. The prayer book translated by Bishop Burdon was used widely in China, but its inappropriate lexical order made it necessary to be revised and amended repeatedly before it was adopted in a standard version. Now the American Episcopal Church has continuously been revising its own BCP and its publication is expected soon. This new version increases the possibility for a standard version for China.3

A goal of the conference may have been to select, for future reference, a standard BCP from the versions in circulation. This, however, did not happen. The second and third Conferences of Bishops of China followed in 1899 and 1903. The participation of clergy and laity fostered the convening of the subsequent Anglican joint meetings of 1907 and 1909. (This last Anglican joint meeting passed a draft constitution initiating the first General Synod of the CHSKH in 1912.4) Each of these conferences attached importance to the compilation of the BCP and took steps toward its production. In 1907, the Committee on Prayers for Special Occasions was established to edit special occasion prayers for inclusion in the BCP. Further, in light of the desire that a common prayer book could be popularized in Mandarin-speaking areas, this committee was also given the task of investigating the possible use of a Mandarin BCP in the diocese in northern China.5 In 1909, the conference asked the committee to investigate the usage of special occasion prayers in other dioceses and to produce new prayers for the Ching Ming (Qingming) Festival, the Mid-Autumn Festival, and the first day of the Chinese New Year. The committee was also asked to compile and publish occasional prayers in the classical Chinese text (wenli) and to translate the Anglican BCP used in British missionary territories into wenli. Together with the version of the PECM, the wenli Prayer Book was considered the ultimate reference for both doctrine and liturgy. Finally, the committee was responsible for listing the distinctions between the British and American Prayer Books and producing a Mandarin Prayer Book that could somehow combine both.6 （上海：美華書館，1897），頁 3。[Draft Report on Bishops Joint Meeting 3. 《主教集議初稿》 (Shanghai: American Presbyterian Mission Press, 1897), 3.] 4. 魏希本：〈中華聖公會之起源及發展〉，《聖公會報》，第 23 卷第 19 期，1930，頁 1–4。 [Wei Xiben, “The Origin and Development of Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui,” Chinese Churchman 23, no. 19 (1930): 1–4.] （上海：美華書館，1907），頁 4–5。[Report on the Anglican 5. 《安立甘教會合會報告書》 Joint Conference (Shanghai: American Presbyterian Mission Press, 1907), 4–5.] 6. 《安立甘教會合會報告書》，頁 6–7。[Report on the Anglican Joint Conference, 6–7.]

Analysis of the Compilation and Writing of the Book of Common Prayer

105

Thus, even before the First CHSKH General Synod in 1912, three groups of specialists associated with the Committee on Prayers for Special Occasions were involved in BCP compilation in China. This classification of BCP-related ministries continued until the Second CHSKH General Synod modified the structural roles of committees. After the First General Synod, the Committee on the Book of Common Prayer went out of existence; only the Standing Committee on the Mandarin Prayer Book remained. The House of Bishops took over for the Committee on Prayers for Special Occasions after the committee submitted “The Occasional Prayers” at the Second General Synod (1915).7 Although the House of Bishops remained in charge of BCP-related ministry over the Second General Synod, its further development was not mentioned in the subsequent General Synod reports. This confirmed speculation that it had been included with the Standing Committee on the Book of Common Prayer, although no evidence for this has been found in Synod records.

Three Periods in the Writing and Compilation of a CHSKH Prayer Book Following the establishment of the CHSKH, the process of compiling the Book of Common Prayer may be divided into three phases. The first phase, in which Lambeth Conference Resolutions 36 and 37 exerted a deep influence over the Chinese church, lasted from 1912 until 1920. Spanning the 1920s, the second phase was characterized by the Lambeth Conference’s passage of Resolution 57, which signaled that the Anglican Communion officially recognized the Japanese Anglican Church and the CHSKH. The third phase, 1930 to 1958, witnessed the further development of work on the BCP. In 1958, CHSKH dioceses and parishes began to participate in union worship alongside other local Protestant churches, leading to the end of separate denominational organizations. Before 1920, the CHSKH General Synod ardently supported the production of a prayer book in Mandarin. The Anglican Joint Conference of 1909 had entrusted this work to the Committee on the Mandarin Prayer Book, and the 7. The content: The Admission of a Communicant; The Admission of Lay Ministers and Officers such as catechists, teachers, readers, acolytes; The Form for the Setting Apart of Deaconesses; The Collect for the Lunar New Year Day; The Installation of a Church Wardens; The Blessing of Interfaith Marriage; The Order for Burial; Order of Laying of the Corner Stone of a Church; Litany; The Memorial Service; The Preparation for the Holy Communion; The Opening of a Maternity Hospital; The Prayer at the End of the Day; The Founding of the Theological College; The Order of Funeral Service; Noon Prayer; The Litany for the Mission Work; The Breaking Ground of a Church; The Installation of the Rector of a Parish. 中華聖公會總議會：《中華聖公會總議會第二次會議報告書並錄憲章 規 例》 （上 海： 美 華 書 館，1915）， 頁 119。[CHSKH General Synod, The Report on the Second General Synod with Constitutions (Shanghai: American Presbyterian Mission Press, 1915), 119.]

106

Feng Guo

resulting Union Prayer Book (1917) was completed at the time of the Third General Synod in 1918. The Union Prayer Book was an amalgamation of the Anglican and Episcopal Prayer Books, with the distinguishing contents of the two versions paralleled and version origins clearly labeled. It was a bold but ultimately unsuccessful attempt. Immediately following its publication, the Kwangsi-Hunan Diocesan Synod, in a letter to the General Synod, expressed opposition to this new and inconvenient format. Thus, the Third General Synod did not recognize the Union Prayer Book and, furthermore, Resolution 33 of the Fifth General Synod (1924) established the British Anglican Book of Common Prayer (1924) translated by Bishop G. E. Moule (1828–1912) and the translation of the American Episcopal Book of Common Prayer as the standard versions for reference. However, although the Committee on the Book of Common Prayer did not adopt the Union Prayer Book as a nationally circulated version, the Union Prayer Book promoted the use of Mandarin and prepared the path for future publication of an authoritative, standard Chinese Prayer Book.8 Two resolutions from the 1920 Lambeth Conference set the stage for the 1921 Fourth General Synod’s ushering in of what I term the second phase of BCP compilation work. The first, Resolution 36, was as follows: While maintaining the authority of the Book of Common Prayer as the Anglican standard of doctrine and practice, we consider that liturgical uniformity should not be regarded as a necessity throughout the Churches of the Anglican Communion. The conditions of the Church in many parts of the mission field render inapplicable the retention of that Book as one fixed liturgical model.9

The second, Resolution 37, read: Although the inherent right of a diocesan bishop to put forth or sanction liturgical forms is subject to such limitations as may be imposed by higher synodical authority, it is desirable that such authority should not be too rigidly exercised so long as those features are retained which are essential to the safeguarding of the unity of the Anglican Communion.10

The Fourth General Synod welcomed these resolutions and appointed the Standing Committee on the Book of Common Prayer to contextualize its content and adapt the Prayer Book to Chinese culture and philosophy. This 8. 中華聖公會總議會：《中華聖公會總議會第二次會議報告書並錄憲章規例》，頁 117。 [CHSKH General Synod, The Report on the Second General Synod with Constitutions, 117.] 9. Lambeth Conference, “Resolutions from 1920: Resolution 36,” Lambeth Conference official website, http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1920/1920–36.cfm (accessed November 5, 2014). 10. Lambeth Conference, “Resolutions from 1920: Resolution 37,” Lambeth Conference official website, http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1920/1920–37.cfm (accessed November 5, 2014).

Analysis of the Compilation and Writing of the Book of Common Prayer

107

was an extremely important decision that made possible the popularizing of the BCP in Chinese churches. The Synod also granted each juridical territory the right to supplement and revise the prayer books in use and deter the amending of Eucharist Liturgy until the diocesan bishops arrived at an agreement. Furthermore, because the General Synod implemented Lambeth Conference Resolution 47 restoring the diaconate of women, the General Synod also entrusted the Standing Committee with the task of producing prayers for the ordination of a deaconess. The Lambeth Conference Resolutions of 1920 provided a serendipitous solution to the stalemate the Fourth General Synod faced because of the unsuccessful promotion of the Union Prayer Book in each juridical area.11 There was no longer a need to manage and promote the unpopular Union Prayer Book. Rather, the Synod had reason to shift focus to the indigenization of the BCP and to cast off the chains of the “holy and inviolable” British and American mother churches. It was now possible to produce more materials that were characteristically Chinese. The worries in individual CHSKH dioceses that their prayer books would be replaced were eased, and they could now commit themselves to the revision and amendment of their own diocesan prayer books. In the decade between the Fourth General Synod (1921) and the opening of the Seventh General Synod (1931), the Standing Committee on the Book of Common Prayer divided its work. The committee shifted the focus on the compilation of a complete prayer book to an emphasis on special occasion prayers, such as prayers for peace in times of civil war and healing in areas affected by epidemics, as well as the liturgy for the ordination of a deaconess. These were clearly important in the Chinese context. In light of the need to contextualize the BCP and incorporate Chinese customs, the Fifth General Synod established a Standing Committee on the Funeral Liturgy and Holy Vestments.12 However, the required report presented by this committee was not accepted by the House of Bishops. The Standing Committee on the Book of Common Prayer then shifted attention to editing a series of prayers for the ancestor commemoration ritual (Resolution 20). The passion to revise the BCP was present in all of the dioceses and missionary areas. According to F. L. Norris (1864–1945), bishop of North China, eight versions of the Chinese Prayer Book circulated in the eleven CHSKH “territories” (renamed “dioceses” after 1928) in 1923.13 The most renowned of 11. The Report on the Third and Fourth General Synod did not mention General Synod’s recognition of the Committee on Book of Common Prayer. Instead, the report included KwangsiHunan diocese’s letter expressing the opposition to Union Prayer Book, which reflected the Fourth General Synod’s stalemate. 12. 中 華 聖 公 會 總 議 會：《中 華 聖 公 會 總 議 會 第 六 屆 總 議 會 報 告 書》（上 海：美 華 書 館，1928）， 頁 223–33。[CHSKH General Synod, The Report on the Sixth General Synod (Shang­­hai: American Presbyterian Mission Press, 1928), 223–33.] 13. W. K. Lowther Clarke, ed., Liturgy and Worship (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1932), 725.

108

Feng Guo

these may have been the Book of Common Prayer promoted by Bishop Norris himself for use in North China. In The East and the West (April 1927), Norris recommended the North China Book of Common Prayer on the grounds of the endorsement of the Lambeth Conference and a translator’s membership in the Imperial Academy of the former Qing dynasty.14 This would ensure both the acceptance of the Prayer Book in Anglican tradition and its enculturation within the Chinese literary tradition.15 The success of the Prayer Book in China would ultimately depend upon its acculturation and acceptance by people in the churches. As Diocese of Kiangsu (Jiangsu) deacon Montgomery H. Throop pointed out in “On Prayer Book Revision,” published in the CHSKH official journal The Chinese Churchman (聖公會報), Some Anglicans intend to revise the BCP for its further adaptation to Chinese culture, which was extremely important. In my perspective, many parts needed revising, such as the beginning of confirmation prayers and prayers for those receiving baptism. These prayers conformed to the American and British social context, but they are not applicable for Chinese adult baptism. Besides, the existence of a burial liturgy but the absence of a liturgy of placing the body of the deceased in a coffin does not conform to the Chinese tradition, where the latter is emphasized more than the former.16

In addition to proposals on BCP revision, The Chinese Churchman published a substantial number of prayers composed by clergy for churches’ tentative trial use and discussion. These included Bishop F. L. Norris’s “The Administration of Holy Baptism” (Chinese Churchman 14, no. 12, 1921); “Liturgy for All Saints Day in Nanjing Victory Church” by Bishop T. K. Shen (1893–1982) (Chinese Churchman 20, nos. 21 and 22, 1927); the Reverend Wei Xiben’s “Memorial Service” (Chinese Churchman 30, no. 9, 1930); occasional prayers by the Reverend Lei Haifeng of Central Theological College (Chinese Churchman 17, no. 8, 1924); and an anonymously written essay, “The Office of Instruction” (Chinese Churchman 21, no. 5, 1928). The third phase of BCP revision began with the passage of Resolution 57 at the 1930 Lambeth Conference. It stated: The Conference recognises with thankfulness the provincial organisation attained in Japan and China, whereby the Nippon Sei Kokwai and the Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui have become constituent Churches of the Anglican Communion, and welcomes the Japanese and Chinese bishops 14. F. L. Norris, Prayer Book Revision, in the East and the West (London: SPG Press, 1927), 118. 15. Norris, Prayer Book Revision, 119. 16. 都 孟 高：〈公 禱 書 應 行 改 良 之 點〉，《聖 公 會 報》，第 17 卷 第 16 期（武 昌：聖 公 會 報 社，1924）， 頁 9。[Montgomery H. Throop, “On Prayer Book Revision,” Chinese Church­ man 17, no. 16 (Wuchang: Anglican Newspaper Press, 1924): 9.]

Analysis of the Compilation and Writing of the Book of Common Prayer

109

now present for the first time in the history of the Lambeth Conference as bishops of these Churches.17

With this resolution, the CHSKH officially became an autonomous province of the Anglican Communion.18 Resolution 57 also elucidates why the Standing Committee pleaded with the Seventh General Synod (1931) to produce an authoritative, standard prayer book in Chinese text and to introduce detailed regulations, as well as related suggestions, on the BCP after ten years. In comparison with the committee’s ambition, the General Synod action was rather prudent. However, the report indicates that the proposal was not laid aside. Instead, it took gradual and practical measures to realize the Standing Committee’s ambition step by step. Because of the difficulty of uniting prayer books in excessive haste, the task was divided into multiple stages. The Standing Committee on the Book of Common Prayer was first required to translate the Lord’s Prayer; Morning Prayer; Evening Prayer; the prayers for confession, absolution, and holy orders; and the Apostolic and Nicene Creeds. These translations would simplify the production of a nationwide Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer text.19 The wording of the resolution, such as “for the circulation in all dioceses” and “for all churches in China,” implied that the General Synod preferred the precedence of the uniformity of common prayers over the uniformity of the BCP. From the Seventh General Synod to the Ninth, succeeding synods would continue with what had been entrusted to them. The Lord’s Prayer and confirmation prayers were translated, and the structural framework of the Morning and Evening Prayer services were drafted. According to J. W. Nichols (1878–1940), assistant bishop of Shanghai from 1934 to 1938, these constituted the fundamental criteria with which each diocese must comply and on which additional materials would be allowed.20 In light of the political and social chaos in the 1930s, related literature on the General Synod did not mention the compilation of the order of Holy Communion framework proposed at the Ninth General Synod. The drafted framework of the order of Holy Communion produced by the Kiangsu Diocesan Committee on the Book of Common Prayer 17. Lambeth Conference, “Resolutions from 1930: Resolution 57,” Lambeth Conference official website, http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1930/1930–57.cfm. “Resolutions from 1930: Resolution 57,” trans. T. K. Shen, Chronicles of Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui (Shanghai: Central Office of General Synod), 10. 18. The name first appeared in F. L. Norris, “The Origin and Development of Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui,” Chinese Churchman 23, no. 22 (Shanghai: Anglican Press of St. John’s University, 1930): 1. （上海：美華書館， 19. 中華聖公會總議會：《中華聖公會總議會第七屆總議會報告書》 1931），頁 114–16。[CHSKH General Synod, Report on the Seventh General Synod (Shang­ hai: American Presbyterian Mission Press, 1931), 114–16.] 20. 聶 高 萊：〈為 修 改 早 晚 禱 文 事 請 求 海 內 同 道 參 加 討 論〉，《聖 公 會 報》，第 27 卷 第 19 期，1934，頁 1。[J. W. Nichols, “Plea for a Global Discussion on Morning and Evening Prayers,” Chinese Churchman 27, no. 19 (1934): 1.]

110

Feng Guo

can be found only in the report of the twenty-eighth Kiangsu diocesan session meeting. Because of the participation of several prominent figures, such as Bishop J. W. Nichols, Montgomery H. Throop, and Wei Xiben, this version must have had a deep impact on the General Synod Committee on the Book of Common Prayer. The draft framework for the Eucharist Liturgy was as follows: The Formula of the Order of Holy Communion 1. The Preparation 1.1 The Collect for Purity 1.2 The Commandments, Kyrie Eleison 1.3 Gloria in Excelsis 1.4 The Collect, Epistle, Gospel 1.5 The Creed 1.6 Homily 2. Holy Communion 2.1 The Offertory A 2.2 The Offertory B 2.3 The Invitation 2.4 The Confession and Absolution, and the Comfortable Words 2.5 The Dialogue of Salutation, 2.6 Sursum Corda, Proper Preface, the Sanctus 2.7 The Prayer of Consecration 2.8 The Prayer for the Church and Faithful Departed, Lord’s Prayer 2.9 The Prayer of Humble Access 2.10 The Communion, the Agnus Dei 2.11 The Thanksgiving 2.12 The Blessing21

The original version was a joint translation of the British order of Eucharist Liturgy (1549), the American Episcopal Eucharistic Prayer translated by the Dioceses of Kwangsi-Hunan, Anking, and Kiangsu, and the CHSKH draft framework of the Eucharist Liturgy. Despite the CHSKH’s vigor for the production of a Chinese prayer book, the chaotic and turbulent political circumstances of the 1930s rendered these aspirations fruitless. There was no report to be made on the Chinese edition of the BCP at the opening of the Tenth General Synod (1947). The Synod appointed Bishop T. K. Shen and several delegates as the council members to draft a textual Chinese prayer book. This Book of Common Prayer Research Council—a loose-knit organization composed of seventeen members— replaced the Standing Committee on the Book of Common Prayer. In his 21. The Report on the 28th Kiangsu Diocesan Synod (Shanghai: Kiangsu Diocese Office), 63–65.

Analysis of the Compilation and Writing of the Book of Common Prayer

111

On the Principles of New Prayer Book Revision, issued in 1949, Bishop Shen expounded six collective suggestions for the revision and compilation of a Chinese prayer book: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Regain the essence of common prayer and encourage lay participation Emphasize both contextualization and the needs of the believers Allow a certain amount of flexibility in writing and adaptation Uphold the equal importance of holy doctrine and the sacraments Reflect the truth of the faith through worship Modify diction, rhetoric, and style in the language of the prayer book

Bishop Shen’s monograph on a new prayer book did not stand alone. In this third phase of BCP translation, a number of essays were written to explore the reasons why the Chinese Prayer Book had continually failed at uniformity. These works included the Reverend Lin Pu-chi’s (Lin Buji) “On the Revision of the Book of Common Prayer” (Chinese Churchman 27, no. 19, 1934), Reverend Wei Xiben’s “Our Petition—A Union Prayer Book” (Chinese Churchman 29, no. 12, 1936), and “On the 400th Anniversary of the Book of Common Prayer” (Chinese Churchman 38, no. 1, 1949). All of these essays had the common goal that the CHSKH should issue an authoritative and standard Chinese Prayer Book before the four hundredth anniversary of the Anglican BCP in 1949. However, the civil war and political change impeded progress, and a new Chinese Prayer Book would not be produced before 1950.22 From this point until the end of CHSKH denominational activities in 1958, there was little news about a new BCP. Two exceptions appeared in Sheng Gong, the official journal of the General Synod in the mid-1950s. (Additional documentation of Chinese Prayer Book framework may be found in the relevant Figure 17  Bishop T. K. archives from the 1950s.) An excerpt from one report Shen (1895–1982). reads: The initial framework for a Chinese Prayer Book has been drafted. There was no uniform prayer book for the CHSKH dioceses, each of which accepted the traditions and the BCP used by the Church of England or the American Protestant Episcopal China Mission. For the past decades, notwithstanding the General Synod’s effort to produce a union prayer book through the Standing Committee on BCP and promote its use in the various dioceses, the foreign mission boards’ deep-rooted influence was so strong that it hindered the publication of a CHSKH prayer book in Chinese. After Bishop T. K. Shen’s ten years of painstaking translation, the primary parts （上海，1949），頁 4。[T. K. Shen, On the 22. 沈子高：《中華聖公會新公禱書之原則芻議》 Principles of New Prayer Book Revision (Shanghai, 1949), 4.]

112

Feng Guo

of the CHSKH prayer book were drafted, including the Eucharist Liturgy, Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer. For such a fundamental work crucial for the next generation, the quality of the text is the priority. Therefore, it is necessary to collect suggestions extensively and discuss them repeatedly. The current framework is a memorable event despite the fact that revision continued even up to its ultimate publication. The General Synod will distribute the framework to each diocese for reference and analysis. Suggestions and discussions are encouraged at all levels.23

From the second mention, we read: The first part of the Chinese Prayer Book has been drafted. Bishop T. K. Shen, the convener of BCP Research Council has drafted the chief parts, namely Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer after ten years’ effort, together with appendixes containing the Apostle’s, the Nicene Creed, a revised translation of Lord’s Prayer, collects, a lectionary, and various hymns. This draft will be printed, presented to the BCP Research Council and distributed to each diocese, in order to collect extensive feedback [from the churches].24

Unfortunately, this was just before the beginning of the unification of worship in the churches, and the cessation of all denominational activities ended all future work on a Chinese Prayer Book. The evaluation of the Chinese Prayer Book cannot exclusively depend on its influence and ultimate outcome. Rather, the process must be examined in its entirety. The first phase witnessed the confirmation of an authoritative and standard Chinese translation of the British and American Books of Common Prayer as the benchmark for nationwide doctrinal and worship reference. In the second phase, a substantial number of occasional prayers fit for Chinese settings were composed. Finally, the third phase entailed the step-by-step standardization of a single prayer book. All three phases exemplified the commitment to church unity and liturgical clarity on the part of the intellectuals within the CHSKH who were working on the Prayer Book.

Why a CHSKH Book of Common Prayer Was Never Produced Since the 1930s, inquisitive Anglicans perplexed by the extensive delay in the production of a nationwide prayer book in light of the commitment and zeal of each General Synod have sought an explanation as to why such a prayer book was never produced. On the basis of this investigation, I would conclude that there were three internal factors that impeded the production of the Chinese Prayer Book over and above the external factors associated with the large 23. 〈公禱書初步方案擬成〉，《聖工》，創刊號，1955，頁 5。[“The Preliminary Proposal for Common Prayer Book,” Sheng Gong 1 (1955): 5.] 《聖工》，第 2 期，1955，頁 34。[“The News for the Preliminary 24. 〈公禱書初步方案消息〉， Proposal for Common Prayer Book,” Sheng Gong 2 (1955): 34.]

Analysis of the Compilation and Writing of the Book of Common Prayer

113

geographic expanse of China, the plurality of local and regional dialects, and the turbulent history of the times. First, the compilation and writing of a nationwide prayer book was inhibited by the different backgrounds of the Anglican and Episcopal missionaries. In “On the Revision of the Book of Common Prayer,” published in The Chinese Churchman in 1934, the Reverend Lin Pu-chi noted that in spite of its twenty-year history as a church, the divisions in the CHSKH, a result of the diversity of missionary backgrounds, were still strongly entrenched.25 The nominal union among the missionary societies of the Church of England, the American Episcopal Church, and the Canadian Anglican Church could not conceal the reality of their separation. This separation is highlighted by the following resolution passed by the Chekiang Diocesan Synod (established by the Church Missionary Society) upon the publication of the first and second volumes of the Union Prayer Book in 1914: The Union Prayer Book, a combination of British Anglican and American Episcopal BCP, has not yet been completed, so the Diocesan Synod is determined to defer its extensive usage in the Chekiang diocese. However, individual parishes may retain their right to use the union version. Bishops should instruct priests to adopt the British Anglican parts of the Prayer Book, in expectation of the future union.26

Here, “union” does not refer to the union of national liturgy. Rather, it means that all the clergy should comply with the Anglican liturgy in spite of the parallel typesetting of the British and American versions. This resolution reflected the prevailing impact of missionaries from diverse backgrounds, which was repeatedly cited as the principal reason for the lack of uniformity in the Chinese Prayer Book. Second, another factor inhibiting the publication of a Chinese Prayer Book was hesitation on the part of the CHSKH itself. In historic terms, the British Anglican and American Episcopal Prayer Books were considered the parameters for any Anglican rite. According to the editorial “On the 400th Anniversary of the Book of Common Prayer,” published in The Chinese Churchman in 1949, as long as mother churches continued to utilize the archaic version, it would be impossible for Chinese dioceses and parishes to transform the Prayer Book.27 An example of this had been when, in 1928, the British House of Commons vetoed a proposal to revise the 1662 BCP, which exerted deep influence on the Chinese church. A second example was when Bishop F. L. Norris revised the prayer book of the diocese in North China. He had intended 25. Lin Pu-chi, “On the Revision of the Book of Common Prayer,” Chinese Churchman 27, no. 19 (1934). （9 冊 3 號），頁 31–32。[Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui Bao 9, no. 3: 31– 26. 《中 華 聖 公 會 報》 32.] 27. 〈由公禱書四百週年紀念說起〉，《聖公會報》，第 38 卷第 1 期，1949，頁 12。[“On the 400th Anniversary of Common Prayer Book,” Chinese Churchman 38, no. 1 (1949): 12.]

114

Feng Guo

to wait for the publication of the newly revised BCP for further guidance, but the veto necessitated that he drop his original plan.28 Though one among multiple factors impeding progress, this hesitant attitude brought on by the Church of England’s failure to produce a new prayer book and the slow pace of the Western churches to revise their own prayer books exerted a negative influence on the compilation of the Chinese Prayer Book. Third, the linguistic competence of the writers and translators—and the organization of translation work—impeded progress. When we look back on the activity of the CHSKH Committee on the Book of Common Prayer, it now appears far from rational. Tracing the history of the CHSKH’s ten General Synods, it is clear that Westerners, as chairs of the committee, were in charge of translation work. The sole exception was the Ninth General Synod, which designated Bishop T. K. Shen as chair. It should come as no surprise that the Chinese Churchman editorial published in 1949 argued, in a remark reflecting the essence of the problem, that it was impossible for the Chinese church to produce a single nationwide prayer book when it could not even agree on liturgies for burial and funeral services.29 In addition, the lack of opportunity for the translators, who resided in every corner of China, to gather and discuss their work resulted in inefficiency. Frequent face-to-face discussion and negotiation over issues of translation were necessary. As Chloë Starr has observed, in nineteenth-century China, the translation of the BCP was more akin to a personal activity than to the large-scale translation committee activity popularized in the West.30 In China, the occasional meetings held before the opening of CHSKH General Synod were not effective.31 Translators not only lacked adequate opportunity to collaborate, they also often lacked the high level of competence in Chinese that was necessary for the task. A deficiency in literary capability required the Westerners in charge of the Committee on the Book of Common Prayer to solicit the assistance of Chinese intellectuals. But who would evaluate their work? This assistance, moreover, did not provide full resolution to the problem at hand; at the Ninth General Synod, the Standing Committee on the Book of Common Prayer presented a report citing the lack of Chinese translators and the inadequacy of the available literary competence as the chief reasons for the failure to translate and revise the Nicene and Apostle’s Creeds.32 In an attempt to change course, the Tenth General Synod appointed 28. F. L. Norris, Prayer Book Revision, in the East and the West (London: SPG Press, 1927), 119. 29. 《主教集議初稿》，頁 3。[Draft Report on Bishops Joint Meeting, 3.] 30. Chloë Starr, “The Analysis of Chinese Textual Prayer Book in 19th Century,” trans. Zhang Jing, Theological Aesthetics—Christian Journal (Beijing: Religious Culture Press, 2008): 232. Also see Starr’s chapter in this volume. 31. 魏 希 本：〈我 們 的 一 個 願 望 ―― 統 一 的 公 禱 書〉， 頁 4。[Wei, “Our Petition—Union Prayer Book,” 4.] （上海：美華書館， 32. 中華聖公會總議會：《中華聖公會總議會第九屆總議會報告書》 1937），頁 94–95。[CHSKH General Synod, Report on the Ninth General Synod (Shanghai: American Presbyterian Mission Press, 1937), 94–95.]

Analysis of the Compilation and Writing of the Book of Common Prayer

115

Bishop T. K. Shen to draft the CHSKH Prayer Book. However, as the question was raised by Archdeacon Chung Yan Lap of the Diocese of Victoria, that such a demanding task should be given to him alone echoed the misguided nineteenth-century idea that translation should be an individual rather than a committee activity.33 It is therefore no wonder that a common Chinese Prayer Book was never produced.

Conclusion The CHSKH merged into unified worship in 1958, but the tradition of Prayer Book worship did not completely disappear. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, when churches in Mainland China resumed activity after the end of the Cultural Revolution, churches and seminaries in Nanjing, Shanghai, Fujian, and Henan retained the Eucharist service—now called “liturgical Holy Communion” rather than “Anglican worship”—with a Book of Common Prayer liturgy. In Henan Province, at least one version of Book of Common Prayer liturgy, including Morning Prayer, Evening Prayer, the order of baptism, liturgical Holy Communion, the marriage blessing, and funeral rites originating from the CHSKH prayers, was republished in 1989. (However, it is uncertain whether all of these prayers originated from the former Henan Diocesan Prayer Book.) In 1993, the China Christian Council published Worship Orders and Liturgical Uses in Churches, which included the Eucharist Liturgy as the Liturgical Eucharist Rite IV.34 Both the Henan prayer book and the China Christian Council publication included a copy of the CHSKH order of the Eucharist. This was most likely because the Reverend Peng Shengyong, ordained by Bishop R. O. Hall (1895–1975) in the Diocese of Victoria, a priest familiar with the rites of the no longer existent Diocese of Kiangsu, was associated with Shanghai churches after 1949, and was instrumental in compiling this book. In addition, some churches in Fujian Province continued to use their own version of the prayer book after the reopening of churches in the late 1970s. Although the compilation of a prayer book in Mainland China came to a halt with the implementation of union worship, Anglicans in overseas Chinese communities witnessed further developments. The Diocese of Hong Kong and Macao republished the Kiangsu Diocesan Prayer Book for the Diocese of Taiwan which, in 1953, was still in its preparatory stage of formation. In ，第 38 卷第 7 期，1949，頁 33. 鍾仁立：〈對編輯中華聖公會公禱文的建議〉，《聖公會報》 16–17。 [Chung Yan Lap, “Proposals on CHSKH Prayer Book Compilation,” Chinese Churchman 38, no. 7 (1949): 16–17].〈由公禱書四百週年紀念說起〉，《聖公會報》，第 38 卷第 1 期，1949，頁 12。[“On the 400th Anniversary of Common Prayer Book,” Chinese Church­man 38, no. 1 (1949): 12.] （上海：中國基督教協會，1993），頁 44–61。[Peng 34. 彭聖傭：《崇拜聚會程序與禮文》 Shengyong, Worship Orders and Liturgical Uses in Churches (Shanghai: Chinese Christian Council, 1993), 44–61.]

116

Feng Guo

1956, the Diocese of Singapore and Malaysia edited and published the Fukien Diocesan Prayer Book of 1949, which later became the foundation for that diocese’s Chinese Prayer Book. In 1957, the Diocese of Hong Kong and Macao re-edited its own BCP, first published in Hong Kong in 1938. According to the Reverend Canon Michael Poon, the compilation of the BCP in overseas Chinese communities after 1949 was mainly based on the Anglican and Episcopal Prayer Books. The single exception was the Prayer Book published by the East Asian Anglican Conference in 1976. This rejected the dominant Anglican and Episcopal liturgies and tried to produce a Chinese liturgy and prayers for the twenty-four Chinese seasons, which were adapted to traditional Chinese thinking and festivals.35 However, this Prayer Book, never fully accepted in the Diocese of Hong Kong and Macao or in overseas Chinese communities, remains controversial. In the last few years, the Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui General Synod resolved to publish a new BCP for use in Hong Kong and Macao, a proposal that would realize a long-standing dream of Chinese Anglicans. Although a unified BCP for Chinese Christians in the Anglican and Episcopal traditions has never been produced, the large number of translated and written prayer books offer an historical reminder of their importance. In addition, they can still be used for liturgical worship on the Mainland, in ways that are consistent with the tradition they represent.

35. 潘乃昭：〈公禱書的翻譯與聖公命名的歷史關係〉。[Michael Nai-chiu Poon, “Prayer Book Translation and the Birth of the Sheng Kung Hui,” http://doc.baidu.com/view/80f3df 7202768e9951e738fa.html (accessed November 10, 2014).]

Parishes

Chapter 6

Christianity and Chinese Nationalism St. Peter’s Church in Shanghai during the War against Japan* Qi Duan Shanghai’s St. Peter’s Church was originally located at the intersection of Beijing West Road (formerly Aiwenni Road) and Chengdu North Road. Because of the construction of the Chengdu Road overpass, it was torn down in 1994. The church was an edifice of great historical significance. Had it survived it would be more than one hundred years old today. The church is famous not only for its architecture but, more importantly, for producing many persons of great historical influence in the history of the Chinese Christian church. Several leaders of the Chinese Christian Three-Self Patriotic Movement came from St. Peter’s, including Bishop Ding Guangxun (K. H. Ting). Rev. Hong Deying, father-in-law of Bishop Shen Yifan, once pastored the church. Former presidents of the National Christian Council of China, Zhong Ketuo and Yu Rizhang, served as pastor of St. Peter’s in the 1920s and as the church’s board chair. In addition, there were two “red priests” from St. Peter’s, Pu Huaren (H. J. Paul Pu) and Dong Jianwu. People’s Republic of China diplomat Gong Peng was once a member of the church’s youth group. This abundance of talent from St. Peter’s Church is closely related to the church’s tradition of caring for society and for the nation.

Figure 18  Rev. Paul Huaren Pu (1887– （上海：青年 1974). 浦化人：《半生之回顧》 協會書報部，1921）[Pu Huaren, The Review of My Life (Shanghai: Youth Association, 1921)]. Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui Archives. * Translated by Brian O’Keefe.

120

Qi Duan

The origins of St. Peter’s can be traced to 1857. At that time it was primarily a place for evangelizing, a preaching outpost, and not a formal church. It became the third church, after the Church of Our Savior and Christ Church, built in the city of Shanghai by the American Episcopal Church. In 1897 Bishop Frederick Graves (1858–1940) hired the London Missionary Society professor John Lambert Rees to manage the new parish’s religious activities. Rees exhibited keen insight as a pastor and was determined to purchase land on which to build a new church. In 1898 he selected the location, and on October 28, 1899, the building was completed and named St. Peter’s Church. The church’s board of directors put St. Peter’s on the path to be a self-governing and selfsupporting Chinese church led by Chinese Christians themselves. On October 29, 1914, they decided to become independent of foreign funding, and, on November 11, they invited board president Ge Piliu to become their priest.1 As an Episcopal church, it was part of the Kiangsu (Jiangsu) Diocese of the Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui (CHSKH). Around the time of the Mukden Incident of September 18, 1931, Rev. Yu Ensi took over as priest-in-charge. Only a few months later, on December 8, Shanghai was bombed by the Japanese air force. From then on, the situation in the city became unstable. Nevertheless, St. Peter’s made tremendous improvements in all areas of church life under the leadership of Pastor Yu. It continued to manage its own affairs very successfully. At the same time, emphasis was placed on nurturing a consciousness of service among believers, including service to the church and service to society. Various Christian youth groups were established for this purpose, and they made great contributions to the Shanghainese people in this time of crisis. The work of St. Peter’s during the War against Japan was twofold. On the one hand, the church emphasized developing the spiritual life of believers to increase their enthusiasm for evangelizing and serving church and society. On the other, it stressed putting this spirit into practice through concrete action. Economically, this meant not simply making donations to the church but giving generously to the greater society in its time of need. It also meant actively contributing one’s time and energy to help the needy, especially through practical service to the war refugees. This was in itself a concrete expression of patriotism. The following pages will detail the ways in which the membership of St. Peter’s Church expressed their sense of service and nationalism during China’s War against Japan.

（江 蘇 教 區 議 會， 1. 林 步 基 等 編：《中 華 聖 公 會 江 蘇 教 區 九 十 年 歷 史（1845–1935）》 1935），頁 82。[Jiangsu Diocesan Council, Ninety Years’ History of the Jiangsu Diocese of the Chinese Episcopal Church (1845–1935), ed. Lin Buji et al. (Jiangsu Diocesan Council, 1935): 82.]

Christianity and Chinese Nationalism 121

Figure 19  St. Peter’s Church, Shanghai, circa 1933.《上海聖彼得堂二十週年自立紀念 刊》 （上海：聖彼得堂，1933）[The Memorial Issue for the 20th Anniversary of the Indepen­ dence of St. Peter’s Church, Shanghai (Shanghai: St. Peter’s Church, 1933)]. Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui Archives.

Figure 20  Bishop Yu Ensi (d. 1944).《上 海 聖 彼 得 堂 二 十 週 年 自 立 紀 念 刊》 （上 海： 聖 彼 得 堂，1933）[The Memorial Issue for the 20th Anniversary of the Independence of St. Peter’s Church, Shanghai (Shanghai: St. Peter’s Church, 1933)]. Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui Archives.

122

Qi Duan

Aiding War Refugees China’s War against Japan can be divided into two main phases: first, the initial period from the Mukden Incident of September 18, 1931, to the Marco Polo Bridge Incident of July 7, 1937; second, the period of all-out war between China and Japan from 1937 to 1945, during which Shanghai was under Japanese occupation. For Shanghai, these phases correspond to the January 28, 1932 Incident and the August 13, 1937 Incident. These two events both had a profound effect on St. Peter’s, which was situated within the foreign concession territory. While the church itself did not suffer bombing, because of its central location many refugees from the districts that had been bombed poured into the concession, turning the church into something of a refugee camp. At 11:30 p.m. on January 28, 1932, the Japanese army suddenly began shelling the Zhabei district of Shanghai in the area around the Wusong River, rendering it a war-ravaged wasteland. Innumerable civilian lives and much property were lost. Churches in the area suffered heavy damages. Within the CHSKH, St. Paul’s Church and St. Stephen’s Church were reduced to rubble. St. James’ Church in Wusong and St. Paul’s Church in Zhabei also sustained heavy structural damages. After the bombing, residents to the north of the Suzhou River fled the area, and some two hundred to three hundred people sought refuge in St. Peter’s Church. By March 2, Japanese forces had advanced into Qingpu, Kunshan, and Suzhou, and even more refugees fled to St. Peter’s. The church, originally small in size, quickly became overcrowded. Moreover, since the refugees had fled in a hurry, they had no food or personal belongings with them. St. Peter’s found itself under a great deal of pressure. In the face of these extraordinary circumstances, the leadership of St. Peter’s showed great resolve. Right away they set up a committee for wartime refugees with Yu Ensi as chair. The committee was divided into several subgroups, including general affairs, spiritual life, children’s affairs, health, and business, with responsibility for each divided among pastors, church finance staff, church committee members, and even some select refugees. Thus, it was said, “We work in concerted effort, sharing and helping one another in our burdens, all in perfect order.”2 Economically, St. Peter’s mobilized the generous assistance of its parishioners. Many donated money, clothing, and other items of daily use. The church also connected with the local Shanghai Civic Affairs Association and received rice, vegetables, bedding, and other materials. At the same time, the parish continued to hold services as usual, to “ensure that all refugees are one, lacking in neither food and clothing, nor spiritual sustenance.”3 2. 〈本堂收容戰區避難同道之概況〉，《上海聖彼得堂月刊》，1932 年 4 月，第 5 期，頁 2。 [“Overview of the Church’s Sheltering of Parishioners in the War Zone,” Shanghai St. Peter’s Monthly, no. 5 (April 1932): 2.] 3. 〈本 堂 收 容 戰 區 避 難 同 道 之 概 況〉， 頁 2。 [“Overview of the Church’s Sheltering of Parishioners in the War Zone,” 2.]

Christianity and Chinese Nationalism 123

At the end of March, the fighting subsided and businesses began returning to normal. The church issued a notice that it would provide assistance until the end of April for refugees to either move home or find new housing. Over the course of the three-month aid campaign, St. Peter’s Church expended more than six hundred yuan taking in four to five hundred refugees and townspeople.4 In addition to the aid given to refugees, at a parish board meeting in December 1932 Yu Ensi proposed the “Northeast China Compatriot Relief Plan.” He noted: Since the disasters of war at the hands of the Japanese invaders, three provinces in the northeast have also faced severe flooding, so their suffering has been particularly acute. They are also nearing a severe winter, so they will face even more hardship and are even more worthy of our sympathy. A special collection basket should be placed in the church entrance for funds on their behalf.5

This motion did not merely pass by a simple majority; it received unanimous support.6 From then on parishioners at St. Peter’s actively gave funds for this relief effort. Refugee aid after the August 13, 1937 Incident posed an even greater challenge for the church. St. Peter’s again suffered no damage during the attacks by the Japanese military, but, because they were in the combat zone, churches in the area east of Huade Road—namely the Church of the Resurrection—had no time to move materials out. When their main halls were destroyed, all preaching and teaching came to a halt. Consequently, St. Peter’s Church took in half of the congregation of the Church of the Resurrection.7 Because St. Peter’s was undamaged, it began preparing to take in refugees from the start of the Shanghai attacks on August 12. Experienced in housing refugees after the January 28 Incident, St. Peter’s was able to respond calmly when, again, people began pouring in. By August 20 a total of 327 men, women, and children had come to the church for shelter. Because of the large numbers, the church had to turn the worship space into a temporary housing area at night. Yu Ensi’s living quarters were also filled to capacity. The church did its best under these conditions to improvise, turning the gatehouse into a temporary shower room, setting up a temporary kitchen, and searching for ，《上海聖彼得堂月刊》，1933 年 1、2 月，第 14、15 期合刊，頁 4. 〈本堂年會禮拜記錄〉 2。 [“Minutes of the Church’s Annual Meeting Service,” Shanghai St. Peter’s Monthly, nos. 14/15 (January/February 1933): 2.] 5. 〈十二月份兩次區董會議紀要〉，《上海聖彼得堂月刊》，1932 年 12 月，第 13 期，頁 3。 [“Summary of the Two December Board of Directors Meetings,” Shanghai St. Peter’s Monthly, no. 13 (December 1932): 3.] ，頁 3。[“Summary of the Two December Board of Direc­ 6. 〈十二月份兩次區董會議紀要〉 tors Meetings,” 3.] 7. 《上海聖彼得堂月刊》，1937 年 8 月，第 69 期，頁 3。[Shanghai St. Peter’s Monthly, no. 69 (August 1937): 3.]

124

Qi Duan

ways to obtain basic durables like fuel, rice, oil, salt, and simple vegetables to provide for the refugees. As the war expanded, the number of refugees at St. Peter’s grew, reaching 399 by September 21. Again, because most had fled their homes in a hurry, they brought only thin, light clothing with them. The weather started growing colder at the end of September, so St. Peter’s “urgently appealed for donations of used clothing and produced cotton padded clothes to give to each refugee.” In addition to this warm clothing, 250 individuals received grain from the church. St. Peter’s sought not only to help refugees with food and shelter but also to provide medical treatment and prevent epidemics from arising. Because of its special relationship with Guangren Hospital (also known as St. Elizabeth’s Hospital, established by the American Episcopal Church in 1903), the nurses and doctors there provided medical consultation for the refugees, and nearly every day women and children visited the hospital for treatment. One refugee even underwent abdominal surgery at the hospital and made a full and speedy recovery. Another woman during this period was close to giving birth, so members of St. Peter’s escorted her to the temporary maternity clinic set up at Jue Min Primary School. The clinic provided free care, and the child was delivered safely. Because of the large numbers of refugees in the settlement, the area was especially at risk for the outbreak of an epidemic. The government’s Ministry of Works paid special attention to preventing infections, and St. Peter’s actively cooperated in these efforts. On August 31 and September 11, refugees and church workers were given two successive vaccinations against smallpox and other diseases. Because the national government had resolved to fight a protracted war of resistance against Japan, St. Peter’s could not remain a refugee camp indefinitely and had to think of potential solutions to the housing problem. The church provided loans to refugees capable of making a living to start small businesses and rent rooms elsewhere with their income. Other churches sought to provide comparable housing options; St. Paul’s, which had resumed activities in September, offered housing to twenty-four parishioners. Other refugees were given travel subsidies by St. Peter’s to return to their ancestral homes. Even as the refugees found places to settle, new refugees continued to seek shelter in St. Peter’s, so the work of taking in the displaced population continued. By November St. Peter’s had taken in 504 refugees.8 Parishioners generously donated more than two thousand yuan, which covered related expenditures until the end of the second phase of sheltering in January 1938.9

，1938 年 1 月，第 74 期，頁 2。[“Board of Direc­ 8. 〈區董會報告〉，《上海聖彼得堂月刊》 tors Report,” Shanghai St. Peter’s Monthly, no. 74 (January 1938): 2.] 9. 俞恩嗣：〈今年的年會〉，《上海聖彼得堂月刊》，1938 年 1 月，第 74 期，頁 1。[Yu Ensi, “This Year’s Annual Meeting,” Shanghai St. Peter’s Monthly, no. 74 (January 1938): 1.]

Christianity and Chinese Nationalism 125

St. Peter’s came up with several ways to raise these donations. First, it appealed to each church member to donate clothing, cloth, flour, coal, money— essentially whatever one could afford, so long as it might help the refugees.10 Second, in November 1937, Yu Ensi launched the Three Yuan to Save One Life Movement to motivate believers to donate three yuan per month toward assisting a refugee.11 The church decided not to spend any money at Christmas and, likewise, encouraged members and their relatives not to exchange gifts but, instead, to contribute any money intended for gifts to the church’s refugee ministry. In fact, since 1934 St. Peter’s had simplified its Christmas celebrations, annually allocating all donations toward philanthropic efforts. This tradition lasted through the end of the War against Japan. Third, the “Self-Control Jar” was proposed. Each believer, including baptized children, would make a Self-Control Jar using items such as cigarette containers. Members would place the money they saved each day there, and, when the church needed donations, members would empty out their jars. In February 1938 the church board of directors decided the collection from that year’s Self-Control Jars would go toward refugee efforts.12 Through the above-mentioned methods, St. Peter’s raised unprecedented funds to help the displaced. Figures from the “Church Relief Fund Report” published in the August 1941 issue of St. Peter’s Monthly reveal that the 1937–40 cash income for the church’s relief fund budget totaled 20,478.64 yuan. In the end, a surplus of 2,579.50 remained.13 In this four-year period, St. Peter’s spent nearly 18,000 yuan on relief. The majority of these funds went toward helping refugees, while a smaller amount was used for disaster aid. Moreover, St. Peter’s enthusiastically answered the government’s appeal for donations through the purchasing of government bonds. A resolution item in the minutes of the October Parish Board of Directors meeting of 1937 touted government bonds as “the first priority in saving the nation and resisting the enemy.” Further, the resolution “called upon all members of the board of directors to serve as fundraisers” and “selected Sun Jiaxiang to represent St. Peter’s in the Shanghai Federation of Christian Churches’ Government Bonds for National Relief Committee.”14 Concurrently, St. Peter’s Monthly posted an announcement encouraging members to purchase government bonds: 10. 《上海聖彼得堂月刊》，1937 年 9 月，第 70 期，頁 6。[Shanghai St. Peter’s Monthly, no. 70 (September 1937): 6.] 11. 《上海聖彼得堂月刊》，1937 年 11 月，第 72 期，號外。[Shanghai St. Peter’s Monthly, no. 72 (November 1937): extra edition.] 12. 〈二 月 份 區 董 常 會 記 錄〉，《上 海 聖 彼 得 堂 月 刊》，1938 年 2 月， 第 75 期， 頁 2。 [“Minutes of the February Regular Board of Directors Meeting,” Shanghai St. Peter’s Monthly, no. 75 (February 1938): 2.] 13. 《上 海 聖 彼 得 堂 月 刊》，1941 年 8 月，第 117 期，頁 1。[Shanghai St. Peter’s Monthly, no. 117 (August 1941): 1.] 14. 《上 海 聖 彼 得 堂 月 刊》，1937 年 10 月，第 71 期，頁 4。[Shanghai St. Peter’s Monthly, no. 71 (October 1937): 4.]

126

Qi Duan

In this time of invasion by the cruel aggressor, our government has determined to sell 500 million in government bonds to raise money for the War against Japan. Citizens from all walks of life caught wind of this announcement and rose up. One after another they answered the government’s call, and even Chinese abroad rushed to purchase the bonds. Because these bonds are part of the plan to save the country, our church cannot simply stand by. The resolution passed by our board of directors has already called upon each church committee member and other ardent church members to take charge of fundraising and meet our patriotic duty. We pray that each member will enthusiastically offer to purchase bonds so that all will be quickly sold. And in so doing our government will be more confident in succeeding against the enemy, ensuring that our beloved motherland shall not always remain vulnerable to invasion.15

Because of the emphasis the church placed on government bonds for national relief, by November St. Peter’s Church had raised more than 1,900 yuan.16

Helping Impoverished Fellow Christians through the Sale of Subsidized Rice St. Peter’s always maintained a tradition of helping the needy in its community and especially emphasized this work after the start of the war. With the war’s development the price of goods in Shanghai, including that of rice, soared. The August 1941 “Church Relief Fund Report” reveals that, after aid given to refugees, the second-largest expenditure was the sale of half-priced rice to help poor parishioners. If helping refugees mainly focused on people outside St. Peter’s, this second form of relief aimed primarily at church members. By 1940, the church was engaged in the purchasing and distributing of rice to its members lacking a family or the means to self-support.17 In May of the same year, in promotion of St. Peter’s work for the needy, Shanghai’s Bishop William “Billy” Roberts (1888–1971) proposed “allocating four-hundred yuan toward helping poor parishioners, under the condition that the church should raise another four-hundred for the same purpose.”18 St. Peter’s accepted the bishop’s challenge, thus beginning its internal aid efforts in June 1940. In July, after raising 988 yuan, the church reached a decision on how to help the poor: the funds raised would be used to purchase twenty dan (1,000 kilograms) of rice, which St. Peter’s would then sell to its parishioners in need at half price.19 According to St. Peter’s Monthly, “The church’s half-priced 15. Ibid., 6. 16. 《上 海 聖 彼 得 堂 月 刊》，1937 年 11 月，第 72 期，頁 3。[Shanghai St. Peter’s Monthly, no. 72 (November 1937): 3.] 17. 〈本牧區年會區牧報告〉，《上海聖彼得堂月刊》，1940 年 5 月，第 102 期，頁 2。[“Parish Annual Pastor’s Report,” Shanghai St. Peter’s Monthly, no. 102 (May 1940): 2.] 18. 〈本牧區年會區牧報告〉，頁 2。[“Parish Annual Pastor’s Report,” 2.] 19. 〈濟貧運動辦法〉，《上海聖彼得堂月刊》，1940 年 7 月，頁 4。[“Poverty Relief Cam­paign

Christianity and Chinese Nationalism 127

rice was reserved for the middle-wage, working-class parishioners now facing special hardships and lacking family support.”20 This plan gained the support of the parish, and many members jumped at the chance to contribute. By August, this relief campaign had made considerable achievements. Within a month, rice was sold to more than eighty families. While expanding this campaign, St. Peter’s reduced its expenditures. For example, the minutes of the Church Affairs Committee show that, because the price of coal was too high, the church office and the pastor’s office both canceled the use of their heaters. The church decided to keep heating on in the sanctuary because many church members were not used to the cold, but it replaced its furnaces with smaller ones.21 In November, the church committee’s notice regarding collections toward the selling of half-priced rice explained the state of donations in the months since the campaign began and the situation of those church families receiving help. It also proposed a further requirement of the campaign: sustaining the support of “poverty-stricken believers” would require contributions of three thousand yuan.22 Moreover, in a special Christmas celebration notice, the church announced that the increasing severity and difficulty of each passing day, with disasters more frequent and starvation filling the streets, precluded the church from holding any celebrations. Instead, all funds would go toward the half-priced rice campaign.23 And, indeed, collections for the relief campaign exceeded the original goal more than tenfold. At Christmas, many parishioners answered the call in the Church Affairs Committee’s bulletin and donated all money saved from not exchanging gifts to St. Peter’s. A large portion of the donations went toward the purchase of rice to help the poor. According to the annual expense report of 1940, many projects existed to help poorer church members, such as “funding for winter clothing,” “partial funding for seminary students,” “funding for funeral expenses of the poor,” “funding for poor congregants,” “funding for each church charity organization,” and so on. Among these, funding for the half-priced rice totaled the highest, at 7,026.75 yuan.24 This method of helping the poor received an enthusiastic response not only from adult congregants but from youth members as well. In 1941 the St. Peter’s youth group proposed the January One-Bowl-of-Rice Dinner. Tickets Method,” Shanghai St. Peter’s Monthly (July 1940): 4.] 20. 〈濟 貧 運 動〉，《上 海 聖 彼 得 堂 月 刊》，1940 年 8 月， 第 105 期， 頁 2。[“Poverty Relief Campaign,” Shanghai St. Peter’s Monthly, no. 105 (August 1940): 2.] 21. 《上海聖彼得堂月刊》，1940 年 11 月，第 108 期，頁 3。[Shanghai St. Peter’s Monthly, no. 108 (November 1940): 3.] 22. Ibid., 2. 23. Ibid., 3. 24. 《上 海 聖 彼 得 堂 月 刊》，1941 年 1–2 月， 第 111 期， 頁 4。[Shanghai St. Peter’s Monthly, no. 111 (January–February 1941): 4.]

128

Qi Duan

for the dinner brought in 180 yuan and, postreduction of food expenditures, the 62.90 yuan profit went toward the rice campaign.25 Through the half-priced rice campaign, the compassion of Jesus Christ was extended, helping the parishioners of St. Peter’s living in crisis or in enemyoccupied areas feel the love of God. This effort also strengthened the cohesion among parishioners facing a difficult period in the War against Japan.

The Youth Group, the Women’s Group, and Service for National Salvation To develop a spirit of service among the youth so that they could mature into people of moral integrity, from the time of its establishment the youth group organized all kinds of colorful activities, including lectures, tours, social gatherings, book clubs, a choir, drama performances, sports competitions, and so forth. They participated in service within the church on behalf of neighborhood children (not necessarily the children of the church), opening Sunday school classes and a school with an annual summer camp. They also took part in charitable relief work. After the July 7, 1937, Marco Polo Bridge Incident, the St. Peter’s youth group became wholeheartedly invested in the National Salvation Movement (救亡運動). This movement had begun all over China in 1931 after the Japanese invasion and occupation of Manchuria. The fate of the nation was at stake, and many groups joined together to resist Japanese aggression. The National Salvation Movement was intensified in 1937 after the full-scale Japanese invasion of China. In the October 1937 issue of the church magazine, an article entitled “Recent Developments of the Youth Group” reported: Seventy days have passed since the beginning of the all-out War against Japan, and the morale of the people is high; their spirit is unified. Under such extraordinary circumstances we are aware of our responsibility for carrying out a great mission. Therefore, a meeting of the executive committee members unanimously decided on a proper course for saving the nation. First, on the October 10 “Double Tenth” festival a special service was held, and money collected on that day was used to thank those soldiers on the front lines. The money went toward purchasing knitting wool, and each member helped knit a neck warmer for the valiant soldiers fighting there. Second, on October 24 the choir held a plenary meeting, and the wife of Li Diyun was selected  .  .  . (among others) as advisor and secretary. They expanded the choir dedicated to songs for the survival of the country, and they planned to visit wounded soldiers in the hospital, using music to express their gratitude. Third, they decided to visit the refugee 25. 《上 海 聖 彼 得 堂 月 刊》，1941 年 3 月，第 112 期，頁 3。[Shanghai St. Peter’s Monthly, no. 112 (March 1941): 3.]

Christianity and Chinese Nationalism 129

camps—especially those opened by religious organizations—and speak about the sacrificial spirit of Jesus, the resolve of the government in the War against Japan, the recent international situation, and so on, bringing refugees essential knowledge. Fourth, members of the survey group taking part in either implementation or behind the scenes work were given more encouragement and help. In the end the youth sincerely hoped that their fellow congregants might provide suggestions, economic guidance, and any other form of assistance in their efforts.26

From this report we can see the work of the young on behalf of their nation. One way of showing their support for soldiers on the front lines was by making neck warmers and giving music as a gift to the wounded. A second was spreading resistance against Japan among the public by expanding their choir and speaking to refugee camps about the domestic and international situation as well as the government’s resolve in the war. In addition to the above-mentioned efforts, St. Peter’s youth group was also quite effective in its philanthropic work. In 1938 they utilized the Christmas holiday to set up a charity market event and raise funds. According to St. Peter’s Monthly, through this event the group “cleared 2,010 yuan in earnings.” They “appropriated the funds as principal loans to help unemployed church members earn a living,” not only helping “forty to fifty members of thirteen churches” but even aiding “a small number of nonbelievers.”27 Moreover, young Christians in the Guangren Hospital also joined St. Peter’s youth group. Among them was a group of nurses who volunteered to work in inland China from 1939 to 1940 and assisted directly in the war. When they reached their destination, the nurses wrote letters back to St. Peter’s, revealing the hardships they faced on the way. After reaching Yunnan, Kwangsi (Guangxi), and other destinations, they were assigned to different nursery schools and public health clinics to serve refugee children. Some of the young Christians mentioned above directly supported resistance efforts in the war, while others did so indirectly through helping poor congregants or children with their needs or education. In addition to the achievements of the youth during the war period, the women’s group also contributed to the welfare of refugees and to church charity work. Taking the year 1939 as an example, this service group not only continued its usual weekly gatherings and projects but also started an hour per week literacy class serving sixty participants. According to “This Year’s Women’s Group” in St. Peter’s Monthly, group members paid visits to preach to the refugee hospital and Number 100 Temporary Shelter. In addition to this work, their biggest project was making clothing for impoverished children 26. 《上 海 聖 彼 得 堂 月 刊》，1937 年 10 月，第 71 期，頁 6。[Shanghai St. Peter’s Monthly, no. 71 (October 1937): 6.] 27. 《上海聖彼得堂月刊》，1939 年 5 月，第 90 期，頁 3。[Shanghai St. Peter’s Monthly, no. 90 (May 1939): 3.]

130

Qi Duan

in the Guangren Hospital. In just two weeks, the group “sewed a massive batch (570 items) of diapers, baby wraps, light clothing, and so forth.”28 The exceptional generosity of the St. Peter’s women’s group included not only the funds they themselves gave directly but also the funds they raised through charity bazaars to support church philanthropy. For instance, their December 13, 1941, charity bazaar “offered for sale goods vouchers, sewing assistance and donated clothing,” collecting more than 1800 yuan, “all allocated toward various philanthropic efforts.”29 In the difficult circumstances of the war, the charity contributions of the St. Peter’s women’s group greatly exceeded those of the men’s group.

Welcoming National Day and Other National Commemorations St. Peter’s always had a tradition of nationalism, and this was evident in its attitudes toward National Day. Especially during the painful war period, celebrations of National Day expressed the parishioners’ deep feelings of patriotism. On the second National Day after the Mukden Incident of September 18, 1931—that is, in 1932—the Rev. Lin Buji (Lin Pu-chi) made “National Day in a Time of National Crisis” the theme of his October 9 sermon, encouraging the congregation and embodying a spirit of patriotism. He declared: The annual National Day is once again before us. . . . This year we cease all our festive activities. We have worry on our faces. We feel the national crisis in our midst. We have no cause for celebration.  .  .  .  This national crisis is certainly a source of heartache. We, all without exception citizens of the Republic of China, take Japan’s invasion of three provinces in the Northeast as an occasion of great shame. We must inure ourselves for future trials, and we swear that one day we will wipe out this humiliation. I feel we must maintain a positive and optimistic spirit if we are to rid ourselves of this shame. Many believe that Manchuria has already been completely forfeited to Japan. I believe this is a major misconception. If we 400 million Chinese do not allow Manchuria to be lost, then who can take it? If we maintain a spirit that we will “stage a comeback,” how can we say that Manchuria will not be again a part of China? We Christians, on this National Day with nothing to celebrate, still have one thing worthy of celebration. We believe God is just and is the advocate of justice. We cannot depend only on friendly nations. What we can depend on is our determination and our God.30 《上海聖彼得堂月刊》，1939 年 9 月，第 94 期，頁 1。[“This Year’s 28. 〈一年來之女服務團〉， Women’s Group,” Shanghai St. Peter’s Monthly, no. 94 (September 1939): 1.] 29. 〈本堂女服務團舉行義賣〉，《上海聖彼得堂月刊》，1941 年 11、12 月，第 120 期，頁 3。 [“Church Women’s Group Holds Charity Bazaar,” Shanghai St. Peter’s Monthly, no. 120 (November/December 1941): 3.] 30. 林步基，〈國難中的國慶〉，《上海聖彼得堂月刊》，1932 年 10 月，第 11 期，頁 1–2。 [Lin Buji, “National Day in a Time of National Crisis,” Shanghai St. Peter’s Monthly, no. 11

Christianity and Chinese Nationalism 131

With this sermon, filled with faith in the righteousness of God, Lin Buji imparted hope to the members of St. Peter’s Church. During the War against Japan, the parishioners of St. Peter’s harbored special feelings about the Chinese National Day, October 10. Taking the 1939 National Day as an example, the church organized a special service in commemoration of the Republic of China’s twenty-eighth anniversary. St. Peter’s Monthly provides an account of the celebration: That day’s service began at nine-thirty in the morning. Everywhere inside the church were hung national emblems, and all who attended were filled with enthusiasm. The church’s own pastor, Rev. Yu Ensi, led the worship in a grand ceremony. Psalm 67 was read, and its spirit offered encouragement to the congregation. The service included special songs by the choir, and the collection totaled 40.64 yuan that was set aside for Christmas charity work. At the close of this commemorative service, Holy Communion was offered as well.31

With the daily intensification of the war, the pressure of Japanese occupation limited the celebration of National Day of Shanghai citizens living in occupied areas. In a 1940 issue of St. Peter’s Monthly the church could only post a simple “National Day Service Announcement,” stating “October 10 (Thursday) is our National Day. Our church on that day at 10:00 a.m. will hold a special National Day Eucharistic Service. Baptisms will begin at 9:30 a.m. We strongly urge all members to arrive at that time and pray for the country.”32 In 1941 a similar, smaller “National Day Service” announcement was made, reading: “October 10 (Friday) of this year (1941) is our country’s thirtieth anniversary. In this time of national crisis, we Shanghai citizens cannot celebrate as fervently as in the past. Our church will hold a special National Day Service at 10:00 a.m. that day to thank God for His grace and to pray for our country, asking God to bring an end to the war, that we might soon have peace again.”33 Reading between the lines, the pain of church parishioners during this National Day Service is evident. In addition to expressing patriotism through its National Day celebration, St. Peter’s also held a memorial service on the anniversary of the Marco Polo Bridge Incident. On July 7, 1938, St. Peter’s held Holy Communion at 7:30 a.m. and a worship service, attended by 250 people, at 10:00 a.m.34 The Rev. (October 1932): 1–2.] 31. 〈本 牧 區 年 會 區 牧 報 告〉，《上 海 聖 彼 得 堂 月 刊》，1939 年 10 月， 第 95 期， 第 3 頁。 [“Parish Annual Pastor’s Report,” Shanghai St. Peter’s Monthly, no. 95 (October 1939): 3.] 32. 《上 海 聖 彼 得 堂 月 刊》，1940 年 9 月，第 106 期，頁 1。[Shanghai St. Peter’s Monthly, no. 106 (September 1940): 1.] 33. 《上 海 聖 彼 得 堂 月 刊》，1941 年 9 月，第 118 期，頁 4。[Shanghai St. Peter’s Monthly, no. 118 (September 1941): 4.] 34. 《上海聖彼得堂月刊》，1938 年 7 月，第 80 期，頁 3。[Shanghai St. Peter’s Monthly, no. 80 (July 1938): 3.]

132

Qi Duan

Yu Ensi delivered the sermon “The Suffering God,” the main idea of which was as follows: In this year we do not know how many brave soldiers and innocent compatriots have died so that our country might endure and our nation might be free. In order to commemorate those soldiers who have sacrificed their lives and those compatriots who have died, our government is holding a July 7 memorial today and starting a national vegetarian movement to mourn those killed in action. The money saved from the vegetarian movement will go toward supporting the country or the refugees and families of those who have given their lives in the war. After the North China (Huabei) Incident, others looked down on China as extremely weak and likely to collapse at the first blow. However, in the year since China has maintained its existence. The whole country is unified in spirit. This proves that China is a country of resilience and not to be looked down upon. The martyr spirit of the loyal and brave soldiers who died this year will endure down through the ages. We who remain, especially we Christians, can only be of one heart and one mind, for we are all in the same boat to complete this great mission. We can never believe that only the strong powers in the world will be victorious, and even more so we cannot believe that God is far from us or is indifferent to our pleas. We believe that God is a loving God and a God who stands for justice; therefore, we should love others with the love of God.35

In 1940, on the third anniversary of the July 7 Marco Polo Bridge Incident, Pastor Yu Ensi took God’s love as his sermon’s theme: Today is July 7. Three years ago today an unfortunate event occurred at the Marco Polo Bridge. The destruction and loss of life in the subsequent three years has been incalculable. We have no way of predicting the near future of Shanghai. We are currently isolated and easily frightened and anxious, plagued even by imaginary fears. St. Paul says that the Scriptures are written to teach us. With the forbearance and patience that comes from the Scriptures, we can have hope. In this time of national commemoration, I have nothing to comfort you with, but I still want to share these two Scripture passages with you. Through them we can learn three points. First, in the great love of God everyone has a share. God cares for every person. Because of the war, our country has lost at least two million lives either directly or indirectly. The war is still at its peak, and our adversary is still bent on harm, repeatedly bombing Chongqing. The war-torn bodies of the innocent are too horrible to behold. We find ourselves in this situation, and we must entrust our unfortunate compatriots to the love of God and ask God to comfort and deliver them. Second, we can never be separated from the love of God. The more we suffer, the closer God draws to us. Third, God’s love is constant; it is unconditional, absolute, and unchanging.36 35. Ibid., 1–2. 36. 《上 海 聖 彼 得 堂 月 刊》，1940 年 7 月，第 104 期，頁 1。[Shanghai St. Peter’s Monthly, no. 104 (July 1940): 1.]

Christianity and Chinese Nationalism 133

This sermon by Rev. Yu not only expressed deep sympathy for the sufferings of soldiers, the nation, and the people, but it also, at the same time, allowed the faithful to believe firmly in God’s justice in a time of hardship. God, according to Rev. Yu, would never let this situation last, and this provided a stream of hope for all people. The patriotism Yu Ensi spoke of is evident not only in his sympathy toward suffering compatriots but also in his profound thoughts on “how China descended into such a situation as today.” His words allowed the members of St. Peter’s to each feel their own responsibility to persevere. His sermons on two occasions in particular are pertinent—the first anniversary (in 1932) of the September 18 Incident of National Shame and the 1939 commemoration of the May Month of National Shame. In the 1932 sermon, Yu argued: Our country should possess a true spirit of patriotism, in reality and in practice, and not be just all talk and no action. This aforementioned true spirit comes from knowing God. We don’t on the one hand shout slogans and wear black armbands to remember the dead, while at the same still wasting our lives away, forgetting what is important.37

In the 1939 sermon, he suggested that “the most urgent task is to search for a fundamental way of wiping away this shame.”38 Yu criticized degeneration and apathy, believing that each citizen was responsible for bringing about this national shame and that all should reflect, repent, and correct their mistakes. If each person acted unselfishly on behalf of others and the country, China would never have descended to this point, and there would be no such national humiliation. Thus, he proposed “people’s bounden duty,” a concept that does not mean we cannot save others but that, in saving others, we especially pay attention to saving ourselves. The means of saving ourselves is to “totally forsake all wicked thoughts and behavior, and from now on become a just and honorable new self.” He continued, “Compatriots with ambition to save the country . . . if we cannot be resurrected in ourselves, can we still hope in the possibility of delivering our nation or transforming our society?” Nevertheless, Yu believed that to “save ourselves” it is unreliable to depend only on ourselves in meeting our duties. We also need the power of God.39 Perhaps there were those who did not agree with Yu Ensi, but his patriotic feeling that “in times of national difficulty, everyone has a responsibility” cannot be disputed. In light of the leadership of patriots like Rev. Yu Ensi and Rev. Lin 37. 俞恩嗣：〈國難紀念〉，《上海聖彼得堂月刊》，1932 年 9 月，第 10 期，頁 2。[Yu Ensi, “Commemorating the National Crisis,” Shanghai St. Peter’s Monthly, no. 10 (September 1932): 2.] （上海聖彼得堂堂務委員會刊行，1939 年 7 月 38. 《苦難的上帝 ―― 俞恩嗣牧師講道錄》 ，頁 132。[The Suffering God: Sermons of Pastor Yu Ensi (Shanghai St. Peter’s Church 19 日） Affairs Committee, July 19, 1939), 132.] 39. Ibid., 91–97.

134

Qi Duan

Buji, we can see why St. Peter’s did such excellent work for the nationalist cause, whether in aiding refugees or working directly on behalf of the nation.

Conclusion With the outbreak of the Pacific War between the United States and Japan in December 1941, the situation of St. Peter’s Church in the foreign settlement grew progressively worse. The lives of parishioners deteriorated almost daily. Because CHSKH bishop Roberts was an American, by remaining in Shanghai he risked being sent to a concentration camp. And so he left China. A Chinese clergyman who could assume responsibility for leading the CHSKH in the enemy-occupied diocese was needed to become bishop. In May 1942 Rev. Yu Ensi was consecrated bishop. As the only Chinese bishop in the enemy-occupied territory (all other Chinese bishops had either left China or fled inland), he took charge of eleven parishes while also having to deal with the Japanese.40 This put him under tremendous pressure, both spiritually and physically. Bishop Yu passed away in May 1944, his poor health exacerbated by stress. Because St. Peter’s fell under the constant watch of the Japanese invaders and because “prices soared and life was difficult,” attendance at Sunday services declined. However, throughout this trying time members of St. Peter’s Church “continued in their prayers for guidance, and at long last they received consolation from God.”41 The Japanese were finally defeated, and the war ended on September 9, 1945. St. Peter’s Church resumed its normal activities after the end of the war and continued in its work during the Chinese Civil War over the next four years. After Liberation in 1949, St. Peter’s Church continued as before. In 1958 it was selected to be one of the “unified” churches for the newly demarcated Shanghai city district. This was a time when many churches were closed and only those churches “unified” for worship remained. In the early 1960s after city redistricting, St. Peter’s became part of Huangpu District, serving as the church for unified worship in Huangpu. At the start of the Cultural Revolution in 1966, the church was closed and never again resumed operation. The property was taken over by the Shanghai Chest Hospital. In 1994, to make way for the Chengdu Road overpass, the Shanghai municipal government tore down the church.42 Such an historically important church thus vanished forever. Nevertheless, on the basis of this study, we believe that the faith and patriotism of St. Peter’s Church will have an enduring influence on the Chinese church. 40. 2012 年 1 月 17 日 蘇 德 慈 訪 談 記 錄。[Su Deci, interview by the author, Shanghai, January 17, 2012.] 《上海聖彼得堂月刊》，1946 年 7 月，第 124 期，頁 2 。 41. 楊樹芬：〈本堂事工的發展〉， [Yang Shufen, “Development of Church Ministry,” Shanghai St. Peter’s Monthly, no. 124 (July 1946): 2.] 42. 見 2010 年 10 月 15 日 田 文 載 訪 談 記 錄。[Tian Wenzai, interview by the author, Shanghai, October 15, 2010.]

Chapter 7

Contextualization and the Chinese Anglican Parish A Case Study of St. Mary’s Church, Hong Kong (1912–41) Philip L. Wickeri and Ruiwen Chen St. Mary’s Church has a history of more than a century. Since its founding in 1912, church and society in Hong Kong and in China as a whole have experienced dramatic changes. But the parish has maintained a sense of continuity through the faith of the people, the life of the diocese, and the work of the church. This chapter examines the early history of St. Mary’s in the period between its founding and the beginning of the Japanese occupation in 1941. We will show how the parish developed from the Eyre Diocesan Refuge to a contextualized Chinese Anglican church within the Diocese of Victoria and South China (Kong-Yuet Diocese) of the Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui (CHSKH). In terms of methodology, we will use an approach to parish history in which the history itself is interpreted as a process of contextualization.1 Drawing primarily on local parish records, we will demonstrate how a particular church responded to the local society and the Christian gospel. Beginning in the 1920s, Chinese Christians and Western missionaries became increasingly interested in the indigenization of Chinese Christianity.2 One way of speaking of indigenization was the promotion of self-government, self-support, and self-propagation in the church. Christians in the AnglicanEpiscopal tradition looked back to the ideas of Henry Venn (1796–1873), who had been secretary of the Church Missionary Society (CMS) from 1841 until 1. For a full history of St. Mary’s Church, see 魏克利、陳睿文：《萬代要稱妳有福 —— 香港 聖 公 會 聖 馬 利 亞 堂 史（1912–2012）》 （香 港：基 督 教 中 國 宗 教 文 化 研 究 社，2014）。 [Philip L. Wickeri and Chen Ruiwen, All Generations Shall Call You Blessed: The History of Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui St. Mary’s Church (1912–2012) (Hong Kong: Christian Study Centre on Chinese Religion and Culture, 2014).] Contextualization has become a popular approach to the study of the history of Christianity in China. See Peter Chen-Main Wang, Contextualization of Christianity in China: An Evaluation in Modern Perspective, Collectanea Serica (Sankt Augustin, Germany: Institut Monumenta Serica, 2007). On theology, see Stephen Bevans, Models of Contextual Theology, rev. ed. (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2002). （北京：商務印書館，2004）。[Duan Qi, 2. 段琦：《奮進的歷程：中國基督教的本色化》 The Struggle Forward: The Indigenization of Christianity in China (Beijing: The Commercial Press, 2004)]; Also see Sumiko Yamamoto, History of Protestantism in China: The Indigenization of Christianity (Tokyo: Tōhō Gakkai, 2000).

136

Philip L. Wickeri and Ruiwen Chen

just before his death.3 Venn and his followers promoted self-government, selfsupport, and self-propagation in CMS mission work and looked to the early establishment of a national church. Although this remained an elusive ideal in mission work up to the mid-twentieth century, it did shape the pattern of what we term contextualization. In this chapter’s discussion of St. Mary’s Church, we see Venn’s idea of “Three-Self” as one expression of contextualization.

From the Eyre Diocesan Refuge to St. Mary’s Church St. Mary’s developed from the Eyre Diocesan Refuge for Destitute Women, which was established by a British missionary, Miss Lucy Eyre, in 1898. The Refuge in Tai Hang, Causeway Bay, was designed to rescue destitute and “fallen women” (prostitutes, mui tsai, and concubines) in the local society.4 They would be educated, rehabilitated, and “Christianized” once they came to the Refuge. At the time, Tai Hang was a fishing village close to the water and far away from the densely populated City of Victoria and the closest Anglican parish. Bishop Gerard Heath Lander was supportive of the Refuge and “chartered a tram to pick up the women from the Eyre Diocesan Refuge to take them to St. Stephen’s Church for Sunday worship.”5 As more and more women came to the Refuge, this became impractical. Because travel was inconvenient and because the population and prosperity of Causeway Bay were on the rise, it became desirable to establish a parish in this area. In 1902, the Incorporation Ordinance of the Chinese Anglican Church Body had been approved by the Hong Kong government. This meant that in Hong Kong, Chinese could become Anglicans, and the Diocese of Victoria did not only belong to the English.6 It also meant that Chinese Anglicanism was not an extension of the CMS or the Church of England but could be a church of the Chinese themselves. Bishop Lander petitioned the government to establish a chapel near the Eyre Diocesan Refuge in January 1910, and his request was approved.7 In August 1911, the land for the chapel was sold to the diocese at a cost of $960. 3. See C. Peter Williams, The Ideal of a Self-Governing Church: A Study in Victorian Missionary Strategy (Leiden: Brill, 1990). 4. “Brave Worker Gone, Death of Miss Eyre of the Church Missionary Society,” Hong Kong Telegraph, September 23, 1912. Also see Eyre Diocesan Refuge Annual Report, 1908–1913. 5. 蘇華：〈聖馬利亞堂的回憶 ―― 在本堂結婚的第一對夫婦〉，《聖公會港澳教區香港聖馬 利亞堂四十週年紀念特刊》 （香港：香港聖公會聖馬利亞堂，1952），頁 18。[So Wah, “A Memoir of St. Mary’s Church—The First Couple Married in St. Mary’s Church,” Commemorative Issue for the 40th Anniversary of Hong Kong St. Mary’s Church of SKH Diocese of Hong Kong and Macao (Hong Kong: HKSKH St. Mary’s Church, 1952), 18.] 6. George B. Endacott and Dorothy E. She, The Diocese of Victoria, Hong Kong: A Hundred Years of Church History, 1849–1949 (Hong Kong: Kelly and Walsh, 1949), 113. 7. 〈本 堂 創 辦 人 倫 義 華 會 督 簡 史〉，《聖 公 會 港 澳 教 區 香 港 聖 馬 利 亞 堂 四 十 週 年 紀 念 特 刊》，頁 4。[“A Brief History of the Founder of St. Mary’s Church: Bishop Gerard Heath Lander,” Commemorative Issue for the 40th Anniversary of Hong Kong St. Mary’s Church, 4.]

Contextualization and the Chinese Anglican Parish 137

Building the chapel took about a year. The cost of the building came to a little more than $3,000, with additional funds needed for fabric and furnishings. This meant that the total cost of the land and construction was about $5,000. The bishop provided $600, with other funds raised privately and through a thank offering of $4,000 from the Pan-Anglican Congress, funds raised at its first meeting in London in 1908. St. Mary’s Chapel was formally opened on April 1, 1912.8 Bishop Lander was present for the opening, but we have no record of St. Mary’s consecration. The women of the Refuge attended the opening of the chapel, along with Miss Eyre and her coworkers. The Rev. Fok Ching Shan (霍靜山), the Rev. Kwong Yat-shau (鄺日修), and other Chinese clergy were also in attendance. Fok left Hong Kong a few weeks later to attend the founding ceremony of the CHSKH. He was one of five representatives from Hong Kong at the General Synod.9 From its earliest years, St. Mary’s was linked to the broader Chinese Anglican Church, as well as the Diocese of Victoria or South China. Since the motivation for establishing this chapel was related to the gathering of women from Eyre Diocesan Refuge, it was named St. Mary’s Church to set Mary as the model for women.10 Different from the other four Chinese Anglican churches in Hong Kong, the founding of St. Mary’s Church was not only the establishment of a parish but also a direct response to the needs of the local context, and thus a concrete expression of contextualization. From the beginning St. Mary’s was by and large run by Chinese priests and Chinese Christians. Bishop Lander had appointed Fok Ching Shan to be priest-in-charge of St. Mary’s. Fok, also the vicar of St. Stephen’s Church, was devoted to the promotion of self-support as well as self-government at St. Mary’s because he wanted Chinese churches to stand on their own. Fok remained priest-in-charge of St. Mary’s until Lee Kau Yan (李求恩) came in 1918. About the time that World War I began, “all of the women in the Eyre Diocesan Refuge (and the Refuge itself) moved to Kowloon City . . . [and 8. Eyre Diocesan Refuge Annual Report, 1912, 3. 9. Constitution and Canons of the Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui Together with the Report of the First Meeting of the General Synod and the Report of the Resolutions of the Conference of the Anglican Communion in China and Hong Kong Held at Shanghai, April 18th–29th, 1912, 23. （香港：香港 10. 林永鏗：〈堂史〉，《聖公會港澳教區香港聖馬利亞堂四十週年紀念特刊》 聖 公 會 聖 馬 利 亞 堂，1952），頁 12。[Lin Yongkeng, “The History of St. Mary’s Church,” Commemorative Issue for the 40th Anniversary of Hong Kong St. Mary’s Church (Hong Kong: HKSKH St. Mary’s Church, 1952), 12]. It is worth considering that, given the fact that all the first members of the church were women from the Eyre Refuge, “fallen women” and former prostitutes, the chapel may have been named with Mary Magdalene in mind. Lucy Eyre would have referred to this other Mary in her talks and sermons about the Refuge. There were many parish churches in England named after her. Most of these carry the name “Magdalene.” There is no evidence that Magdalene was used in the original chapel, however. Mary Magdalene brings us back to the contextual origins of St. Mary’s and the intimate relations between St. Mary’s Chapel, the Eyre Refuge, and the women who became the first church members.

138

Philip L. Wickeri and Ruiwen Chen

after that] not many people attended the chapel services.”11 The women moved to a better site in Kowloon City that had been set aside for the Refuge. With the move of these women away from St. Mary’s, the church underwent a fundamental transformation.

Church and Context: The Early Years of St. Mary’s By the late 1910s more and more people were moving to Causeway Bay, and the number of people attending St. Mary’s also began to increase.12 By the time Lee Kau Yan arrived (1918), the church was neither well organized nor very large.13 To set the church on stronger footing, Lee created the first vestry (堂 議會), or parish council, in 1920. Parish records and minutes date from this time forward. By the early 1920s, after the departure of the women from the Refuge, the number of parishioners had increased from thirty to three hundred or more.14 Lee left St. Mary’s in 1923, and Wong Fook Ping (黃福平), who had also been serving at St. Paul’s Church, came to assist. Except for Sunday worship, when Chinese priests preached and celebrated the Eucharist, Wong was responsible for the church services, meetings, and visitations. He left St. Mary’s after only a few months,15 but he returned in 1927 to serve for another year.16 He later commented, “I was then at St. Mary’s for only one year [1927]. The parishioners were so devoted and cooperated very well, and it was they who promoted the development of the church.”17 Wong contributed several articles to Ling Duo Weekly (靈鐸週刊), a magazine published by the five Chinese churches, in which he reflected on his warm feelings for the church.18 After Wong Fook Ping left, Wong Chi Tong (王子棠) was put in charge of the worship services.19 By this time, the number of parishioners at St. Mary’s 11. 蘇 華 ：〈聖 馬 利 亞 堂 的 回 憶 ―― 在 本 堂 結 婚 的 第 一 對 夫 婦〉， 頁 18。[So Wah, “A Memoir of St. Mary’s Church—The First Couple Married in St. Mary’s Church,” 18.] 12. Ibid. （香 港：“ 諸 聖 先 導 ” 出 版 委 員 13. 黃 國 仁：《服 務 教 會 半 世 紀 ―― 李 求 恩 會 吏 長 生 平》 會，1964）， 頁 38。[Huang Guoren, Serving the Church for Half a Century—The Life of Rev. Lee Kau Yan (Hong Kong: All Saints Pioneer Publication Committee, 1964), 38.] 14. 林永鏗：〈堂史〉，頁 12。[Lin, “History of St. Mary’s Church,” 12.] 15. Ibid. 16. The Vestry Minutes of St. Mary’s Church, February 21, 1926 and July 3, 1927. （香港：香港聖公會聖馬利亞 17. 黃福平：〈我與聖馬利亞堂〉，《聖馬利亞堂祝聖聖堂特刊》 堂，1949）， 頁 25。[Wong Fook Ping, “St. Mary’s Church and Me,” Commemorative Issue for the Consecration of St. Mary’s Church (Hong Kong: HKSKH St. Mary’s Church, 1949), 25.] 18. For example, 黃 福 平：〈讀 書、 講 書 和 聽 書〉，《靈 鐸 週 刊》，1927 年 7 月 3 日。[Wong Fook Ping, “Reading Books, Teaching Texts, and Listening to Doctrine,” Ling Duo Weekly, July 3, 1927.] ，《聖公會港澳教區香港聖馬利亞堂四十週年紀念特刊》， 19. 〈本堂四十年來大事紀畧〉 頁 15。 [“Forty Years’ History of St. Mary’s Church,” Commemorative Issue for the 40th

Contextualization and the Chinese Anglican Parish 139

Figure 21  Interior of St. Mary’s Church, Hong Kong, 1924. Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui Archives.

Church had increased to five hundred.20 In 1929, Bishop Duppuy appointed Fok Ching Shan’s son Fok Wing Ching (霍永楨) to be in charge of St. Mary’s Church.21 He “was courteous and accessible, and was responsible for most of the meetings, worship services and Bible studies, except for the monthly Eucharist taken by Lee Kau Yan.”22 Fok paid special attention to the balance between the internal ministry of the church and its mission and outreach. The church itself had to be built up, but St. Mary’s was also committed to serving society. Lee Kau Yan returned to St. Mary’s in 1934 to serve as vicar, and he remained until the beginning of the Japanese occupation in 1941.23 Lee promoted contextualized worship services and mission outreach appropriate for St. Mary’s and consistent with what had become the tradition of the church. At the same time, Lee set in motion plans for the construction of the new church building, reflecting the continuing growth of membership and development of ministry at St. Mary’s. The first decade of the history of St. Mary’s, before formal parish records were kept, can be seen mainly in later reflections of the early parishioners. Their personal recollections are simple statements that reveal the closeness of Anniversary of Hong Kong St. Mary’s Church, 15.] 20. 林永鏗：〈堂史〉，頁 12。[Lin, “History of St. Mary’s Church,” 12.] 21. See the record of the Vestry Minutes of St. Mary’s Church, October 14, 1929 and November 11, 1929. 22. 梁鼎漢：〈我與教會和詩班〉，《聖公會港澳教區香港聖馬利亞堂四十週年紀念特刊》， 頁 33。 [Leung Ting Hon, “Church, Choir, and Me,” Commemorative Issue for the 40th Anniversary of Hong Kong St. Mary’s Church, 33.] 23. The Vestry Minutes of St. Mary’s Church, December 7, 1933.

140

Philip L. Wickeri and Ruiwen Chen

Figure 22  Rev. Lee Kau Yan (1882–1962) and Hong Kong Chinese clergy, 1930. Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui Archives.

the parish family and provide a texture for our history. Together with the early priests, they shaped the character of St. Mary’s more than the CMS missionaries or even the English bishops. After the departure of the Eyre Refuge women, So Wah (蘇華) became one of the earliest members of St. Mary’s Church. He began attending with his family in 1915. I came to Hong Kong when I was 15 years old and began to work at the Hong Kong Jockey Club. I retired when I was 42 because of poor health. . . . God did not reject me because of my humble background. He chose me as his spiritual son. He not only chose me, but He also chose my whole family, 9 people in all. . . . We were baptized together in 1915. Thanks be to God, from then on my family belonged to Jesus Christ. We were members of St. Mary’s Church.24

So describes the work of the laity at St. Mary’s in the following way:

24. 蘇華：〈聖馬利亞堂的回憶 ―― 在本堂結婚的第一對夫婦〉，頁 18。[So Wah, “Memoir of St. Mary’s Church—The First Couple Married in St. Mary’s Church,” 18.]

Contextualization and the Chinese Anglican Parish 141

There were no staff or priests in charge at that time. Mr. Boa Siu (鮑兆) and Mr. Yeung Chik Sam (楊捷三) were the most ardent among the laity. . . . In order to protect the church property—the brass cross and the flower vase on the altar—Yeung Chik Sam took them home after worship and brought them back the next week. The Christians . . . who came to worship were few, but we were like a family, close together in our faith of God.25

Koo Lin Oi (顧憐愛), who because she was a midwife was also known as Koo Sam Ku (顧三姑),26 remembers: Fok Ching Shan, Lee Kau Yan, and Kwong Yat-shau took turns preaching at St. Mary’s Church. The number of members (in the early years) was only 30 or so. There was a laundry set on the hill to the left of the church, which served the government and hospitals. The women from the laundry came down to St. Mary’s Church to worship every Sunday. Called by our Lord Jesus Christ, the number of members increased year after year. People like Kan Tat Choi (簡達才), So Wah and Boa Siu were among the early members who served God in the church.27

Mr. Ng Cheuk Kai (吳竹溪) and his wife were also early church members. Ng worked for Jardines and was “an ardent member who came for worship rain or shine.” Mrs. Ng was at St. Mary’s until the 1950s.28 She remembers that a Bible woman, Mrs. Wong Wai Lam (黃蕙霖), would often go to their home to preach and offer prayers. In those years, Wong Wai Lam visited church members regularly to maintain contact with people. This kind of networking was itself a form of contextualization that helped integrate church and society and promote self-propagation. According to Mrs. Ng, “The parishioners were few. Those I can remember were Lam Pei Yi Ku, Boa Siu, Lam Tin Sang (林天 生), Pong Siu Chi (龐瑞池) and his family members, So Wah, Mrs. Chung Yu Sang (鍾雨生), Wong Wai Lam as well as the gatekeeper Chan Poon (陳潘) and his family. Although we were only a few people, we were close, like a church family. And the women of the church got together regularly.”29 Mrs. Ng also spoke of the importance of Miss A. M. Pitts, a British missionary at St. Mary’s. The fact that St. Mary’s was a Chinese church did not mean it was in any way anti-missionary. Miss Pitts started the Sunday school in 1918 and organized a Bible study each Wednesday evening.30 She also opened 25. Ibid. （香港：香港聖公會聖馬利 26. 顧憐愛：〈我深愛的聖馬利亞堂〉，《聖馬利亞堂金禧特刊》 亞 堂，1962），頁 35。[Koo Lin Oi, “My Beloved St. Mary’s Church,” Commemorative Issue for the 50th Anniversary of St. Mary’s Church (Hong Kong: HKSKH St. Mary’s Church, 1962), 35.] 27. Ibid. 〈我回憶中的初年教會〉，《聖公會港澳教區香港聖馬利亞堂四十週年 28. 吳竹溪夫人： 紀 念 特 刊》，頁 20。[Mrs. Ng Cheuk Kai, “My Memory of the Early Years of the Church,” Commemorative Issue for the 40th Anniversary of St. Mary’s Church, 20.] 29. Ibid. 30. 林永鏗：〈堂史〉，頁 12。[Lin, “History of St. Mary’s Church,” 12.]

142

Philip L. Wickeri and Ruiwen Chen

St. Paul’s Free School in Tai Hang. “There were many students . . . (and) Miss Pitts encouraged women to study. Male students should pay 5 jiao for tuition, while female students only had to pay 2 jiao,” a very modest sum.31 This also showed that special attention was given to the education of girls and young women. Miss Pitts was concerned about every member’s family and nurtured the parishioners’ faith through Bible study.32 She went back to Britain in 1924, but she often “sent letters to comfort the sisters in the church.”33 Mrs. Ng said of Miss Pitts, “She contributed a great deal to St. Mary’s Church, and left an enduring impression on our early church members.”34 Mr. Leung Ting Hon (梁鼎漢) was another early parishioner. Leung was also originally a member of St. Stephen’s Church, where he was baptized as an infant in 1917. In 1928, the Leungs moved to Wan Chai. “Considering that St. Mary’s and St. Stephen’s were sister churches, and because Rev. Lee Kau Yan also worked in St. Mary’s,” the Leungs chose this church as their new parish.35 He recalls: The first time I went to St. Mary’s Church, I felt lonely and ill at ease. I was lonely because I was unfamiliar with the people and place; I was ill at ease because of the small size of the church and small number of parishioners. Gradually, thanks to my mother’s patience and encouragement, I grew used to the church. No longer lonely, I developed an interest in the church.36

The vestry records for 1926 indicate that the main lay leaders of St. Mary’s Church were Mr. and Mrs. Kan Tat Choi, Dr. Chau Wai Cheung (周懷璋), Mr. Pong Siu Chi, Mrs. Wong Wai Lam, Mr. and Mrs. Ng Hung Nam (伍鴻 南), Mrs. Lam Tin Sang, Mrs. Chung Yu Sang, Mrs. Suen Chi Hing (孫智卿), Mr. and Mrs. Boa Siu, Miss Suen Yan Mei (孫恩美), Miss Boa Choi Chu (包賽 珠), Miss Lam Yuk Ngor (林玉娥), and Miss Lau Yuk Ngor (劉玉娥).37 Mr. and Mrs. Kan Tat Choi were originally members of St. Stephen’s Church and later transferred to St. Mary’s.38 Kan threw himself into business in his twenties, but upon reaching middle age he “studied the Bible and realized the meaning of life” and became more involved in St. Mary’s. Together with his entire family, he was then baptized by Fok Ching Shan. The humble services at St. Mary’s 31. 吳竹溪夫人：〈我回憶中的初年教會〉，頁 20。[Mrs. Ng Cheuk Kai, “My Memory of the Early Years of the Church,” 20.] 32. Ibid. 33. 〈本堂四十年來大事紀畧〉，頁 15。[“Forty Years’ History of St. Mary’s Church,” 15]; 吳竹 溪夫人：〈我回憶中的初年教會〉，頁 20。[Mrs. Ng Cheuk Kai, “My Memory of the Early Years of the Church,” 20.] 34. 吳竹溪夫人：〈我回憶中的初年教會〉，頁 20。[Mrs. Ng Cheuk Kai, “My Memory of the Early Years of the Church,” 20.] 35. 梁鼎漢：〈我與教會和詩班〉，頁 33。[Leung Ting Hon, “Church, Choir, and Me,” 33.] 36. Ibid. 37. The Vestry Minutes of St. Mary’s Church, January 24, 1926. （香 港： 香 港 浸 信 教 會，1996）， 頁 36。[Liu Yuesheng, 38. 劉 粵 聲：《香 港 基 督 教 會 史》 Church History of Hong Kong (Hong Kong: Hong Kong Baptist Church, 1996), 36.]

Contextualization and the Chinese Anglican Parish 143

and its difficult financial situation in the 1920s prompted Mr. Kan to help plan for its future. Clearly, the church building was already too small and could not accommodate the growing membership. So Mr. Kan saw that a new church would have to be built. He prayed to God, “If someday I am rich, I will help to build a new church.” Several years later, Mr. Kan earned a great deal of money in his business, and, as we shall see, he made a substantial donation for what would eventually become the new sanctuary.39 The foregoing description provides a general portrait of the early period at St. Mary’s. The clergy promoted the Chinese character of the church, a church embedded in local society and a church actively involved in the diocese and the CHSKH. Fok Ching Shan had pressed for a spirit of independence in church administration. Lee Kau Yan, in charge of St. Mary’s Church from 1918 to 1923 and again from 1934 to 1941, promoted the development of a Chinese Anglicanism. The laity dedicated themselves to the development of St. Mary’s as a Christian fellowship. They may not have known the meaning of the word, but they promoted the contextualization process unconsciously through their work to establish a church home.

Inward and Outward: Ministry and Mission in the 1920s and 1930s Beginning in 1922, committees for different ministries were set up under the newly established vestry at St. Mary’s Church. These included the Finance Committee, the Charity Committee, the Music Committee, and a committee for fellowship and communication with parishioners. The main church activities in the 1920s were prayer groups, Bible study groups, and the Women’s Evangelism and Service Fellowship. The prayer group and Bible studies were the responsibility of church members themselves and took place in their homes. This was an embodiment of self-propagation. The Women’s Evangelism and Service Fellowship, organized in 1923, aimed to “renew contacts with every member in order to better serve the Church.”40 The first chair of this group was Mrs. Ng Cheuk Kai, who later described the early development of the fellowship: Mrs. Ma Ying Biu (馬應標) established the Women’s Evangelism and Service Fellowship at St. Stephen’s Church in 1921. I transferred to St. Mary’s Church the following year. In 1923, St. Mary’s Church organized a similar group and I was appointed as the first chair. . . . The group included 39. 鄺 冠 雲：〈簡 達 才 先 生 傳〉，《聖 馬 利 亞 堂 一 九 三 九 年 特 刊》( 香 港： 聖 馬 利 亞 堂， 1939)，頁 25。[Kuang Guanyun, “The Biography of Mr. Kan Tat Choi,” Special Issue for the Year of 1939 of St. Mary’s Church (Hong Kong: St. Mary’s Church, 1939), 25.] 40. 〈本堂重要機構及其概況〉，《聖馬利亞堂一九三九年特刊》，頁 30。[“The Important Organizations and the General Situation of St. Mary’s Church,” Special Issue for the Year of 1939 of St. Mary’s Church, 30.]

144

Philip L. Wickeri and Ruiwen Chen

a visitation section, an evangelism group, a handicrafts ministry and so on. There were only 30–40 members, but we sisters were close, and we worked together very well. The church was like a big family full of enthusiasm and happiness.41

The word “family” is used to describe the close relationships within this group, which is common in many churches. The contextualized elements are illustrated in service and outreach to the local society and in borrowing from the experience of other Chinese churches.42 Throughout the 1920s, when the church faced various financial difficulties, the finance committee approached their task according to the actual needs and capacities of the church. They did not want the church to borrow money or be dependent on others. Between 1926 and 1941, the main people in charge of finance were So Wah, Mrs. Cheung Wing Tai (張榮棣), Mrs. Lam Tin Sang, Koo Lin Oi, and Mr. Kan Sze Chiu (簡子超).43 Their work was practical and included purchasing supplies for the needs of the church, maintaining the building, and repairing church property. The budget was tight.44 All purchases and repairs had to be made as cheaply as possible.45 If the price for repair work was too high, it would be deferred until the next year.46 It is important to note that the laity took the lead in all these efforts. From its earliest years, St. Mary’s was involved in charitable work for the poor and the sick.47 The main people involved were Mr. Lam Tin Sang, Mrs. Chung Yu Sang, Mrs. Lee Yuen Tsaan (李元燦), and Mrs. Kan Yam Chin (簡 壬千).48 They were concerned with people both inside and outside the church. For example, they supported needy church families as they made arrangements

41. 吳竹溪夫人：〈我回憶中的初年教會〉，頁 20。[Mrs. Ng Cheuk Kai, “My Memory of the Early Years of the Church,” 20.] 42. 〈教會匯告：聖馬利亞堂〉，《靈鐸週刊》，1929 年 9 月 29 日；1929 年 11 月 3 日；1929 年 10 月 6 日；1929 年 11 月 10 日。 [“Report from the Churches: St. Mary’s Church,” Ling Duo Weekly, September 29, 1929; November 3, 1929; October 6, 1929; November 10, 1929.] 43. See the Vestry Minutes of St. Mary’s Church, January 24, 1926; March 28, 1926; January 23, 1927; January 16, 1928; January 6, 1929; January 13, 1930; January 11, 1931; January 24, 1932; January 18, 1933; January 4, 1934; January 4, 1935; December 17, 1935; January 12, 1937; January 6, 1938; January 4, 1939; and January 23, 1940. 44. The Vestry Minutes of St. Mary’s Church, March 28, 1926. 45. The Vestry Minutes of St. Mary’s Church, November 11, 1926. 46. The Vestry Minutes of St. Mary’s Church, May 22, 1927; June 24, 1927; and September 9, 1929. 47. 〈本堂重要機構及其概況〉，頁 30。[“The Important Organizations and the General Situa­ tion of St. Mary’s Church,” 30.] 48. See the Vestry Minutes of St. Mary’s Church, January 6, 1929; January 13, 1930; January 11, 1931; January 24, 1932; January 18, 1933; January 4, 1934; January 4, 1935; December 17, 1935; January 12, 1937; January 6, 1938; January 4, 1939; January 23, 1940; and December 31, 1940.

Contextualization and the Chinese Anglican Parish 145

for funerals.49 Donations from the family prayer meeting and collections taken during worship services were used for local charitable giving.50 St. Mary’s was a church that took mission giving seriously. Music ministry was also important for St. Mary’s Church. In the early years, there was a choir for Sunday worship, but only a few people were involved. Miss Boa Choi Chu and Mrs. Wong Wai Lam were in charge and played the piano accompaniment.51 They used The American Church Mission Hymnal (頌 主聖詩) for Sunday worship and Gospel Hymns (福音聖詩) for ordinary gatherings. In 1937, after the new church had been built, they began to use Hymns of Universal Praise (普天頌讚), an ecumenical hymnal adopted by the CHSKH in response to the contextualization of Chinese hymnody.52 The number of choir members gradually increased to fifteen or so, and they began to sing in four-part harmony. In the late 1920s, Mr. Lam Chak Yan (林 澤恩) was put in charge of the choir, and Mr. Kan Sze Chiu helped him.53 The choir sang for Sunday worship and other occasions. They formed a group for Christmas Eve, and, starting from St. Mary’s, they sang carols in the neighborhood to “help those who have no Christian faith understand Christianity through Christian music.”54 They organized day trips and picnics to promote fellowship with church members.55 “The harmony among the choir members, the regular attendance of the members singing different parts, the excellent quality of choir members and their music, as well as their enthusiastic attitude to serve in different worship settings” made the choir an important part of St. Mary’s and won the admiration of other churches.56 The Sunday school also functioned as a group for fellowship and communication with church members through organizing parties and other activities.57 In 1926, Lee Kau Yan organized a more formal Church Fellowship Committee to arrange social activities. The first male chair of this committee was So Wah, and the first female chair was Mrs. Lam Tin Sang. The social activities built up fellowship and relationships among church members. According to Lee’s son Lee Shau Ching (李守正, David Leigh), “St. Mary’s Church became known for 49. The Vestry Minutes of St. Mary’s Church, May 5, 1929; June 22, 1930; May 28, 1933; and April 30, 1935. 50. The Vestry Minutes of St. Mary’s Church, March 16, 1929. 51. 吳竹溪夫人：〈我回憶中的初年教會〉，頁 20。[Mrs. Ng Cheuk Kai, “My Memory of the Early Years of the Church,” 20.] 52. We can also see the adoption of Hymns of Universal Praise in the other churches. Here we mention the usage of this hymnal to show the contextualized character of this church from the perspective of music. 53. The Vestry Minutes of St. Mary’s Church, September 11, 1934. 54. 〈 教 會 匯 告： 聖 馬 利 亞 堂〉，《靈 鐸 週 刊》， 1929 年 12 月 22 日。 [“Report from the Churches: St. Mary’s Church,” Ling Duo Weekly, December 22, 1929.] 55. 梁鼎漢：〈我與教會和詩班〉，頁 38。[Leung Ting Hon, “Church, Choir, and Me,” 38.] 56. Ibid., 37. 57. The Vestry Minutes of St. Mary’s Church, March 16, 1929.

146

Philip L. Wickeri and Ruiwen Chen

the activities they held.”58 An example was the annual Christmas Eve celebration, which was a “joyful party” with many performances for people inside and outside the church.59 In fact, all of the various committees helped to build up the fellowship among church members and neighborhood residents. For the Easter party, a sports meet was held to “build friendship and celebrate the resurrection of Christ.”60 One church member remembered it in this way: The celebration for Easter was not as grand as that for Christmas, and the nature of the two celebrations was definitely different. There was a smallscale evening sports meet at Easter. . . . It was in the open grass covered by the blue sky full of shining stars. The insects around played harmonious music for us. The unique sports meet was held in the embrace of nature. The church members who were in charge and the ordinary members were full of enthusiasm, and they were no less active than the youth and excited children. Men and women, old and young all enjoyed themselves. This kind of entertainment could not be found in the modern, flourishing city and our urban society.61

Such activities reflect the church members’ involvement with the wider community.

The New Church Building The architecture of the new St. Mary’s Church building became one of the most distinctive features of its contextualization. With the development of the church’s mission and the increase in the number of the church members, it became clear in the 1920s that a new or expanded building would be needed. The original church had been constructed rather quickly, and it was not built to last. Kan Tat Choi and other church members were willing to make substantial contributions. The whole parish gave time and energy to raise money for a project that would define the church’s future. Planning started in December 1930. Because of the difficulty in fundraising, the ground was not broken for the new building until December 1936. Construction took about a year, and Bishop Hall and Assistant Bishop Mok 58. 李 守 正：〈往 事 ―― 為 紀 念 聖 馬 利 亞 堂 五 十 週 年 而 作〉，《聖 馬 利 亞 堂 金 禧 特 刊》， 頁 31。 [Lee Shau Ching, “The Past—For the 50th Anniversary of St. Mary’s Church,” Commemorative Issue for the 50th Anniversary of St. Mary’s Church, 31.] （香港：香港聖公會 59. 小多加：〈童年時代的聖馬利亞堂〉，《聖馬利亞堂一九三九年特刊》 聖 馬 利 亞 堂，1939），頁 84。[Siu Dor Ka, “St. Mary’s Church in My Childhood,” Special Issue for the Year of 1939 of St. Mary’s Church (Hong Kong: HKSKH St. Mary’s Church, 1939), 84.] 60. The Vestry Minutes of St. Mary’s Church, February 28, 1939. 61. 小 多 加 ：〈童 年 時 代 的 聖 馬 利 亞 堂〉，頁 84。[Siu Dor Ka, “St. Mary’s Church in My Child­hood,” 84.]

Contextualization and the Chinese Anglican Parish 147

Figure 23  St. Mary’s Church, Hong Kong. Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui Archives.

Shau Tsang (from Guangzhou), presided at the opening liturgy for the new church on December 23, 1937.62 Ronald O. Hall had become the seventh bishop of the Diocese of Victoria and South China (Kong-Yuet) in 1932, and, more than his predecessors, he was committed to the contextualization of the Chinese Church.63 At the Twelfth General Synod of the Kong-Yuet Diocese (1933), he announced two platforms, one of which was “to consider the architecture for Chinese Churches: the outside may adopt a Chinese architectural form while the inside could still make use of Western design.”64 St. Mary’s Church became one of two Chinese Churches with Chinese-style architecture built during Hall’s episcopacy. The other was Holy Trinity Church in Kowloon. The new church was designed by Chau Lu-nin, a famous Hong Kong architect.65 It could seat five hundred to six hundred people. The church 62. 〈擴充聖堂之理由與計劃〉，《靈鐸週刊》，1930 年 8 月 31 日。[“The Reason and Plan for the Expansion of St. Mary’s Church,” Ling Duo Weekly, August 31, 1930]; The Vestry Minutes of St. Mary’s Church, November 16, 1937. 63. David M. Paton, “R. O.”: The Life and Times of Bishop Ronald Hall of Hong Kong (Hong Kong: Diocese of Hong Kong and Macao and Hong Kong Diocesan Association, 1985). （香港：中華聖公會會督府，1951），頁 26。 64. 鍾仁立：《中華聖公會華南教區百年史略》 [Chung Yan Lap, The 100-Year History of the South China Diocese of the CHSKH (Hong Kong: Bishop’s House, 1951), 26.] 65. Ho Sum Yee May, “The Body of Christ in Chinese Clothes: Understanding the Heritage

148

Philip L. Wickeri and Ruiwen Chen

became known all over Hong Kong and beyond because of its Chinese-style architecture. Lee Kau Yan later wrote poetically about the building: St. Mary’s Church “is backed by the green mountains, and faces the waves of the blue sea . . . its green tiles and red walls have the sublimity of a palace.” He goes on, “We should follow the good example set by our predecessors . . . the sun rises from the east. The shepherd is overjoyed in the lighting of the lamp. When the sun sinks below the horizon, my savior stays with me.”66 The church itself was seen as a sign of God’s grace, as it combined Christianity and Chinese culture. Architecture reflects theology and mission, and this is exemplified in St. Mary’s.67 In Hong Kong, and in China as a whole, this was very much a unique Chinese-style church building.

Mission in Hong Kong and China St. Mary’s was also involved in mission beyond Causeway Bay. It maintained close relationships with other Hong Kong churches and charities, cooperating in ecumenical fundraising efforts and contributing to such organizations as the Hong Kong Seamen’s Mission and the Kowloon City Baptist Church. St. Mary’s was one of five Chinese Anglican parishes, and the churches did many things together.68 The five churches sent representatives to one another’s church gatherings and celebrations, they shared pastoral leadership, and cooperated in mission activities.69 Parishioners at St. Mary’s eagerly responded to the Five-Year Endeavor Movement (五年奮進運動). This was a renewal movement of churches in China as a whole, in part aimed at making Christianity more Chinese. St. Mary’s Church members served on the national committee and took part in various subcommittees dealing with education, youth, finance, self-propagation, and family visitation.70 This was a national movement, but work was done locally. Significance of Hong Kong’s Chinese-Style Church Architecture through St. Mary’s Church in Tai Hang,” master’s thesis, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, 28. 66. 李 求 恩：〈祝 聖 馬 利 亞 堂 祝 聖 典〉，《聖 馬 利 亞 堂 祝 聖 聖 堂 特 刊》。 [Lee Kau Yan, “Ceremony for the Consecration of St. Mary’s Church,” Commemorative Issue for the Consecration of St. Mary’s Church.] 67. As for the contextualization of architecture, see Richard Kieckhefer, Theology in Stone: Church Architecture from Byzantium to Berkeley (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004). This book discusses the importance of incarnation and context in church architecture, but the examples are largely drawn from Christianity in the West and Eastern Orthodoxy. It is the author’s conviction that St. Mary’s Church is another example of “theology in stone.” 68. The Vestry Minutes of St. Mary’s Church, June 20, 1926; May 20, 1928; December 9, 1929; June 27, 1939; and August 24, 1941. The five churches are St. Stephen’s (1865), Holy Trinity (1890), All Saints (1891), St. Paul’s (1911), and St. Mary’s (1912). 69. The Vestry Minutes of St. Mary’s Church, September 26, 1926; June 29, 1929; and May 30, 1931. 70. 〈教會匯告：聖馬利亞堂〉，《靈鐸週刊》，1930 年 5 月 11 日；1930 年 6 月 1 日。[“Report from the Churches: St. Mary’s Church,” Ling Duo Weekly, May 11, 1930; June 1, 1930.]

Contextualization and the Chinese Anglican Parish 149

The visitation group distributed questionnaires to church members and made pastoral visits to parishioners’ homes and local schools each week.71 The education subcommittee started an Evening School for Women (which developed into a women’s literacy movement), accepting girls over the age of twelve and young women who wanted to learn to read and write.72 St. Mary’s parishioners emphasized interaction with other parishes in response to this movement.73 It educated its members about the movement and made substantial donations from Sunday services to help support it.74 Contextualization was a matter not only for the parish but for Hong Kong and China as a whole. Between 1928 and 1940, St. Mary’s Church generously supported mission work in the Shensi (Shaanxi) Diocese. Shensi, the only diocese started by the Chinese themselves, was established in 1934. Located in an impoverished part of the country, it was the smallest and neediest diocese, and wealthier Chinese Anglican churches were eager to lend their support. St. Mary’s Church also supported the Chinese Home Missionary Society (中華國內佈道會), which worked in China’s remote border regions. This society was established in 1918 with the purpose of facilitating “the pursuit of the self-government, self-support, and self-propagation in the Chinese Church; the creation of an indigenous Chinese church; and the promotion of church renewal.”75 St. Mary’s, along with many other churches, donated funds for the founding of the Chinese Home Missionary Society and selected representatives to attend the organization’s meetings every year, beginning in 1930.76 They also donated generously to the work of the society in Hong Kong.77 St. Mary’s supported other local and national organizations promoting mission and evangelism, such as the Yunnan Evangelistic Society (雲南佈道會) and the Kong-Yuet Regional Council (港粵 轄境協進會).78 These outward initiatives were part of St. Mary’s role within the ， 《靈鐸週刊》 ，1930 年 11 月 2 日。[“Report from the Churches: 71. 〈教會匯告：聖馬利亞堂〉 St. Mary’s Church,” Ling Duo Weekly, November 2, 1930.] 72. The Vestry Minutes of St. Mary’s Church, September 28, 1930 and October 26, 1930. 73. 〈教會匯告：聖馬利亞堂〉，《靈鐸週刊》，1930 年 8 月 3 日；1930 年 10 月 12 日。[“The Report from the Churches: St. Mary’s Church,” Ling Duo Weekly, August 3, 1930; October 12, 1930.] 74. 〈教會匯告：聖馬利亞堂〉，《靈鐸週刊》，1930 年 11 月 30 日；1930 年 8 月 17 日；1930 年 10 月 19 日；1930 年 9 月 21 日。 [“Report from the Churches: St. Mary’s Church,” Ling Duo Weekly, November 30, 1930; August 17, 1930; October 19, 1930; September 21, 1930.] 75. 〈中 華 國 內 佈 道 會 宣 言〉，《靈 鐸 週 刊》， 1927 年 4 月 24 日。 [“The Declaration of the Chinese Home Missionary Society,” Ling Duo Weekly, April 24, 1927]; R. G. Tiedemann, Reference Guide to Christian Missionary Societies in China: From the Sixteenth to the Twentieth Century (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 2009), 244. 76. See the Vestry Minutes of St. Mary’s Church, January 13, 1930; January 11, 1931; January 24, 1932; January 18, 1933; January 4, 1934; January 4, 1935; December 17, 1935; January 12, 1937; January 6, 1938; January 4, 1939; and January 23, 1940. 77. 〈教會匯告：聖馬利亞堂〉，《靈鐸週刊》，1930 年 6 月 8 日。[“Report from the Churches: St. Mary’s Church,” Ling Duo Weekly, June 8, 1930.] ， 《靈鐸週刊》 ，1930 年 6 月 8 日。[“Donation for Yunnan,” Ling Duo Weekly, 78. 〈雲南置地捐〉 June 8, 1930];〈教 會 匯 告：聖 馬 利 亞 堂〉，《靈 鐸 週 刊》，1931 年 7 月 12 日。[“Report

150

Philip L. Wickeri and Ruiwen Chen

diocese and the CHSKH, and they also reflect the parish’s commitment to the contextualization of Christianity in China. On Christmas Day, 1941, the Japanese occupation of Hong Kong began. At first St. Mary’s Church was forcibly closed, but it later opened its doors for worship. However, the times were difficult for all the churches, and most of the parish’s outreach and mission activities came to an end.79 Lee Kau Yan resigned as vicar and went back to China to contribute to relief and church work in southern China.

Conclusion Both internally and externally, St. Mary’s was involved in ministry and mission that promoted contextualization. Inwardly, as the church became larger and better organized in the 1920s and 1930s, various committees worked on financial self-sufficiency, the ministry of sacred music, fellowship and social interaction among members, and serving the poor within the church and the neighboring area. Both clergy and laity were committed to building up St. Mary’s as a contextualized Anglican parish. This had the blessing of Bishop R. O. Hall. Theologically, we can say that they were involved in the missio dei  (God’s mission) in their own context; this is why we can speak of their contextual approach to mission and ministry.80 The construction of a new church with Chinese-style architecture demonstrated to the local society how Christianity could be Chinese. The building that opened for worship in 1937 is still in use today. The parish’s outward journey with other Chinese Anglican parishes within the Kong-Yuet Diocese and the CHSKH, and ecumenically, shows its strong commitment to mission in Hong Kong and China as a whole. In this way, St. Mary’s Church promoted contextualization locally, regionally, and nationally. The history of St. Mary’s Church between 1912 and the Japanese occupation in 1941 reflects its contextualized character in terms of its ministry, mission, and architecture. We can also say that the development of St. Mary’s Church embodies the pursuit of self-government, self-support, and self-propagation in the context of the CHSKH. The history of St. Mary’s Church is a local expression of the contextualization of Hong Kong Chinese Christianity. A parish history is a microcosm of church history as a whole. Each parish is a particular expression of a denominational or faith tradition. Elements in from the Churches: St. Mary’s Church,” Ling Duo Weekly, July 12, 1931]; the Vestry Minutes of St. Mary’s Church, November 28, 1939. 79. 梁鼎漢：〈我與教會和詩班〉，頁 38。[Leung Ting Hon, “Church, Choir, and Me,” 38]; 林 永鏗：〈堂史〉，頁 13。[Lin, “History of St. Mary’s Church,” 13.] 80. Missio dei is the most widely accepted way of speaking of a contextual approach to mission today. The most accessible source is still David Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in the Theology of Mission (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1991), 370, 389–93.

Contextualization and the Chinese Anglican Parish 151

its history are unique, but the parish is also part of a broader picture. This is especially the case for churches with an episcopal system of church order, such as the CHSKH. In the parish histories of the Hong Kong Anglican churches, especially the five oldest Chinese churches, we can find parallels and make linkages in their individual histories. Thus, there has been a process of contextualization at work in each of these churches. A parish history provides the detail and texture that cannot easily be duplicated in more general histories. It gives voice to ordinary church members, to those who are usually left out of histories. In this chapter, by focusing on the process of contextualization in St. Mary’s we have tried to illuminate an approach that can also be used in the study of other Hong Kong parish histories.

Theology

Chapter 8

Bei Zhao Nan Wei A Study of Two Chinese Anglican Theologians in Republican China Peter Tze Ming Ng In 1989 I heard the saying Bei Zhao Nan Wei (北趙南韋), meaning “for Protestant theologians in China, we have Zhao Zichen (趙紫宸, T. C. Chao) in the north and Wei Zhuomin (韋卓民, Francis C. M. Wei) in the south,” from Chinese historian Zhang Kaiyuan (章開沅), then-president of Central China Normal University.1 I later discovered that the saying was popular within the Anglican-Episcopal Church in China, as well as among the Chinese Anglicans who regarded these two professors highly in the late 1940s and early 1950s. T. C. Chao was a professor and dean of the School of Religion at Yenching University (燕京大學) in Beijing. Though Chao could be considered more of an ecumenical theologian than an “Anglican theologian,” his 1941 ordination to the Anglican priesthood renders him an Anglican theologian no matter how broad his ecumenical theology may have been. Francis C. M. Wei was a professor and president of Central China University (華中大學, Huazhong University) in Wuchang, south of the Yangtze River. A former student of Boone College (later known as Huazhong University), it was natural that he be baptized into the AnglicanEpiscopal Church. Wei performed so well in his bachelor’s and master’s studies that he received a scholarship for theological training at the American Episcopal Theological Seminary (later known as Episcopal Divinity School) in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Upon his return to China in 1920, he became a professor of theology at Boone College. Thus, if Wei was a theologian, he must be considered an Anglican theologian. It is indeed proper to honor Chao and Wei as Anglican theologians, at least among the Chinese Anglicans in the 1940s and 1950s. In this chapter I Figure 24  Professor T. C. shall review the lives and work of these two theologi- Chao (1888–1979), aged ans and explore how they expressed the faith of the 44. （香港：諸聖座堂， 1. 吳梓明：〈講座三：趙紫宸〉，《我所懷念的四位聖公宗神學家》 2006）， 頁 28–39。 [Peter T. M. Ng, “Lecture III: On T. C. Chao,” in The Four Anglican Theologians I Respected Most (Hong Kong: All Saints’ Cathedral, 2006), 28–39.]

156

Peter Tze Ming Ng

Holy Catholic Church (中華聖公會, Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui [CHSKH]) in their indigenous theologies, as well as how their theological views may be expounded from an Anglican perspective.

T. C. Chao as an Anglican Theologian T. C. Chao (1888–1979) was born on February 14, 1888, in the county of Tak Ching (德清, Deqing) in Chekiang (Zhejiang) Province, China. He enrolled at Cui Ying College (萃英書院) in Suzhou at the age of fifteen and continued his studies at the Affiliated Middle School of Soochow University (also known as 東吳大學, Dongwu University) the following year. As Soochow University was run by the American Methodist Episcopal Church of the South, it was natural that Chao would be baptized into the Methodist Church. Chao continued his education in the United States, earning master of arts and bachelor of divinity degrees in 1916 and 1917, respectively, from Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. After returning to China, Chao became a professor, first at Soochow University (1917–26) and later at Yenching University (professor from 1926 to 1956, dean of the School of Religion from 1928 to 1956), both of which were strongly associated with the American Methodist Episcopalian Mission. Why, then, did T. C. Chao become an Anglican priest in 1941? It was in 1925, shortly before his professorship at Yenching University, that Chao met Anglican bishop Ronald O. Hall at Soochow University. Bishop Hall was so impressed by the talent and profound knowledge of this “great and saintly soul with a first class brain” that he would recommend Chao go to Oxford for his sabbatical year from 1932 to 1933.2 During that year Chao grew acquainted with the Oxford Group Movement in England and the new theological scene in Europe, especially the development of neo-orthodoxy and the theology of Karl Barth. When the Sino-Japanese War broke out in 1937, Huazhong University moved its campus to Xizhou, Dali (大理喜州) in Yunnan. Out of concern for student work on the new campus, Bishop Hall invited T. C. Chao to spend his second sabbatical year (1939–40) in Yunnan assisting Rev. Gilbert Baker (who in 1966 succeeded R. O. Hall as bishop of Hong Kong) and aiding refugee students.3 While in Yunnan, Chao expressed to the bishop his willingness to join the Anglican Church.4 Then, in July 1941, Bishop Hall arranged for Chao to visit Hong Kong and officiated at three religious ceremonies—Confirmation (Transferal of Church Membership), Ordination of Deacon, and Ordination of Priest—all on the same day at the small chapel in the Bishop’s House. Chao, fifty-three years of age at the time of his ordination, was immediately sent back 2. David Paton, The Life and Times of Bishop Ronald Hall of Hong Kong (Hong Kong: Diocese of Hong Kong and Macao and Hong Kong Diocesan Association, 1985), 49. 3. Ibid., 103. 4. Ibid., 179.

Bei Zhao Nan Wei 157

to Beijing as a priest of the North China Diocese. When Chao died in Beijing on November 21, 1979, there could be no religious funeral ceremony, but a memorial service was held by Chao’s Anglican brothers and sisters and friends at St. John’s Cathedral in Hong Kong on February 10, 1980.5 How did Chao’s association with the Anglican Church affect his theological thinking? There are three stages of development in T. C. Chao’s indigenous theology: 1918–32, 1932–39, and the years after 1939.6 Many scholars consider the first stage the “golden period” of Chao’s theology, as he could develop his thinking more freely during the 1920s and early 1930s and construct his indigenous theology from a purely philosophical and rational discourse.7 Since Chao graduated from Vanderbilt University, he tended toward a more liberal theological perspective and worked to demonstrate the relevance of the Christian faith to the Chinese culture and society of his time. He adopted the words of Jesus: “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matt 5:17). He compared the teaching of Jesus to the Confucian teaching of xiao (孝, honoring one’s parents), explaining that, above and beyond the idea of honoring one’s parents, Jesus taught the concept of a God who was a loving Father in heaven. Since God is the Father of Christians, and, thus, Christians are all children of the same God, they become brothers and sisters to one another. This reasoning provides an even better justification for the concept of the brotherhood of humankind, affirming that “we are brothers and sisters within the four seas.”8 Further, Confucianism sought perfection in humanity, and Chao expounded that Christ was the example of perfected 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). Jesus Christ would become a perfect model for Chinese humanity.9 Chao held the life of Jesus in highest esteem, and he proposed the promotion of the development of Christian character as a means to national 5. Program for the Memorial Service for the Late Rev. Dr. T. C. Chao, on February 10, 1980 (Hong Kong: St. John’s Cathedral, 1980). 6. Peter T. M. Ng, “T. C. Chao: Builder of Chinese Indigenous Christian Theology,” in Chinese Christianity: An Interplay between Global and Local Perspectives, by Peter T. M. Ng (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 167–78. 7. See, for example, Winfried Glüer, The Theological Thought of T. C. Chao, trans. Shao Ming Dunn (Shanghai: China Christian Council, 1999); 林榮洪：《曲高和寡 ―― 趙紫宸生平與 神 學》 （香 港：中 國 神 學 研 究 院，1994）。[Wing-hung Lam, Too Highbrow to Be Popular: The Life and Theology of Tzu Chen Chao (Hong Kong: China Graduate School of Theology, （香港：建道神學院， 1994)]; 邢福增：《尋索基督教的獨特性 ―― 趙紫宸神學論集》 2003）。 [Fuk-tsang Ying, In Search of the Uniqueness of Christianity: Essays on T. C. Chao’s Theology (Hong Kong: Alliance Bible Seminary, 2003).] （蘇州：中華基督教文社，1925）。[T. C. Chao, Christian Philo­ 8. 趙紫宸：《基督教哲學》 sophy (Suzhou: Chinese Christian Literature Council, 1925).] （上海：青年協會，1935）。[T. C. Chao, The Life of Jesus (Shanghai: 9. 趙紫宸：《耶穌生平》 Youth Association Press, 1935).]

158

Peter Tze Ming Ng

salvation.10 In this first stage, Chao was convinced that a truly indigenous theology could serve as the basis of China’s social reconstruction.11 The second stage initiated a shift in Chao’s theological stance that extended through the 1930s and 1940s. It was under the recommendation of Bishop Hall that Chao spent his sabbatical year in England from 1932 to 1933. There Chao became acquainted with the Oxford Group Movement12 and the new theological scene in Europe, especially the development of “dialectical theology” and the work of Karl Barth.13 Though Chao did not identify with Barthian theology, he took an interest in Barth’s religious thinking.14 Chao began to reflect on his own religious experiences, admitting that he had not paid enough attention to the issue of revelation in his own thinking.15 He attempted to move beyond his liberal theology, which was primarily humanistic and optimistic about human nature, and began exploring issues he had overlooked or neglected, such as the divinity of Jesus, God, and revelation. He composed thoughts on the revelation of God in history and Jesus Christ, the Word Incarnate, even affirming that “we cannot know God unless He makes Himself known.”16 Chao’s change in theological thinking in the 1930s can be summarized as a move away from humanistic liberal theology toward neo-orthodoxy, which placed greater emphasis on the revelation of God in the Bible and in Jesus Christ as the Word Incarnate. This change may also be viewed as a step toward a more ecumenical theology. We should remember that it was Bishop Hall’s suggestion that prompted Chao to spend his sabbatical year in the United Kingdom, resulting in such a theological shift—the ramifications of which will become even clearer as we move on to the third stage of Chao’s theological development. The third stage began in 1939 when Chao spent his second sabbatical year in Yunnan, again through the invitation of Bishop Hall, helping with student （蘇 州：中 華 基 督 教 文 社，1926)。[T. C. Chao, Jesus’ Philo­ 10. 趙 紫 宸：《耶 穌 生 命 哲 學》 sophy of Life (Suzhou: Chinese Christian Literature Council, 1926)]; 趙紫宸：《基督教基本 信仰》 （上海：青年協會，1934） 。[T. C. Chao, The Crucial Faith of Christianity (Shanghai: （上海：青年協會，1935）。[T. C. Youth Association Press, 1934)]; 趙紫宸：《耶穌生平》 Chao, The Life of Jesus (Shanghai: Youth Association Press, 1935).] 11. Winfried Glüer, “The Legacy of T. C. Chao,” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 6, no. 4 (1982): 165–69. 12. 趙 紫 宸：〈牛 津 團 體 運 動〉，《真 理 與 生 命》， 第 8 卷 第 1 期，1934， 頁 9–26。[T. C. Chao, “Oxford Group Movement,” Truth and Life 8, no. 1 (1934): 9–26.] 13. Lee Ming Ng, “An Evaluation of T. C. Chao’s Thought,” Ching Feng 14, nos. 1–2 (1971): （香港：中國神學研究院，1994）。 5–59; 林榮洪：《曲高和寡 ―― 趙紫宸生平與神學》 [Wing-hung Lam, Too Highbrow to Be Popular: The Life and Theology of Tsu Chen Chao (Hong Kong: China Graduate School of Theology, 1994).] 14. 趙 紫 宸 ：《巴 特 的 宗 教 思 想》（上 海： 青 年 協 會，1939）。[T. C. Chao, The Religious Thought of Karl Barth (Shanghai: Youth Association Press, 1939).] 15. 趙紫宸：〈我的宗教經驗〉，《青年叢書》，第 2 卷第 5 期，1934，頁 67–74。[T. C. Chao, “My Religious Experience,” Qingnian Congshu 2, no. 5 (1934): 67–74.] 16. T. C. Chao, “On Revelation,” paper presented at the International Missionary Conference held in Madras, India, 1938, published in The Authority of the Faith, The Madras Series, 1 (1939): 22–57.

Bei Zhao Nan Wei 159

refugee work at Huazhong University. It was during this work in Yunnan that Chao expressed to the bishop his willingness to join the Anglican Church, and Bishop Hall arranged the Confirmation (Transferal of Church Membership), Ordination of Deacon, and Ordination of Priest ceremonies. That day must have been a monumental experience in Chao’s Christian life; he was ordained in the midst of the War of Resistance against Japan and such a choice brought about a major shift in his life. During the ordination, Bishop Hall reminded Chao that he was seeking not only to be “in orders” but also to be “under orders.”17 The Anglican Church would be much stricter and demand more obedience to church order than would most other denominations. As Chao recalled in his book My Experience in Prison, it was the will of God that he was admitted to and ordained in the Anglican Church (CHSKH) six months before his imprisonment; his mind was further opened, and even in prison he could find the true meaning of religion within the Anglican tradition.18 One of his students recalled that by accepting the authority of the Anglican Church, Chao experienced much relief, as many of his struggles seemed to be resolved through obedience to church orders.19 It was also no surprise that, by reading Karl Barth’s theology, Chao had moved a step closer to understanding the meaning of the church. Moreover, Chao began to appreciate Anglican Church orders and the theological understanding of the divine and human nature of Christ through the Book of Common Prayer and Anglican liturgy. At this point, it was evident that Chao had shifted his concerns from theology of culture to theology of the Christian Church. In 1938, a year before his work in Yunnan began, Chao attended the International Missionary Conference held at Madras Christian College in Tambaram, India. During the conference he took part in two panel sessions: one entitled “The Faith by Which the Church Lives” and the second, “The Indigenous Ministry of the Church.”20 Chao emerged from the conference inspired and enlightened, reporting “the central theme of the Conference is the Church. So the Church, in the theologies of the Conference, occupies a very important place.”21 It was likely at this conference that Bishop Hall invited Chao to spend his second sabbatical year working for the Anglican Church in Yunnan. Later, by becoming an Anglican priest, Chao had to give up his humanistic and individualistic Yenching lifestyle and enter into a very different stance 17. Paton, Life and Times of Bishop Ronald Hall of Hong Kong, 104. （香港：基督教文藝出版社，1969），頁 60。[T. C. Chao, My Experi­ 18. 趙紫宸：《繫獄記》 ence in Prison (Hong Kong: Chinese Christian Literature Council, 1969), 60.] 19. Chun Fong Lok, “In Memory of T. C. Chao,” Tian Feng 4 (1987): 26. 20. T. C. Chao, “A Chinese Delegate Looks at Tambaram,” Christendom (1939): 197–204; T. C. Chao, The Collected English Writings of Tsu Chen Chao, vol. 5, Works of T. C. Chao, ed. Xiaochao Wang (Beijing: Yenching Graduate Institute, 2009), 461–68. 21. World Mission of the Church: Findings and Recommendations of the Meeting of the International Missionary Council, Tambaram, Madras, India, December 12–29, 1938 (London: International Missionary Council, 1939).

160

Peter Tze Ming Ng

under a church order that demanded obedience. Thus Bishop Hall had counseled that Chao was not only “in orders,” but, more significantly, “under [the control of church] orders.” Chao began to draft papers, such as “The Future of the Church in Social and Economic Thought and Action”22 and “Have We Done Justice to the Church?”23 and a book, The Significance of the Christian Church,24 all of which called for greater efforts to create a church consciousness among the Chinese churches. Chao admitted that Chinese Christians had failed to develop a church consciousness in their theological thinking, instead conceiving of the church as merely a physical building or social institution. They did not realize that the church was the body of Christ, and its task was to fulfill the mission given by God in Jesus Christ.25 In an earlier article, “The Future of the Church in Social and Economic Thought and Action,” Chao had stated, “The Church in China has not only fallen short of this conception of Church, but has not yet become a Church at all.”26 He explained: It is high time to build up the Church as such, a divine-human institution whose foundation is Jesus Christ, the revelation of God, and the Word Incarnate, whose function it is to transform men and women through faith in Jesus as Savior and through reconciliation to God in such a faith, and to be a power for the utmost social regeneration. . . . Its task is therefore twofold, internally to deepen the consciousness of the presence of Christ in the group, and externally to transform society within which it exists, through the Christians that it makes, so that society may partake of its nature and live according to its ideals.27

This shows that Chao had become more Anglican. Chao gave much thought to the Chinese Church while detained in prison by the Japanese in 1941. When he was released he said that one important thing he had determined to do was “to help the Church to become a truly Chinese indigenous Church, to be freed from foreign control and moving towards selfsupport, self-government, self-propagation, and self-perpetuation.”28 In 1948 Chao published his Four Lectures on Christian Theology.29 In the preface, he wrote, “The Church needs a theology. The Chinese Church needs a theology  .  .  .  to be based on the revelation of God in Jesus Christ as the Word 22. T. C. Chao, “The Future of the Church in Social and Economic Thought and Action,” Chinese Recorder 69 (July–August 1938): 345–54. 23. T. C. Chao, “Have We Done Justice to the Church?” Chinese Recorder 72 (October 1941): 529–32. （上海：青年協會，1948）。[T. C. Chao, The Significance of Chris­ 24. 趙紫宸：《教會的意義》 tian Church (Shanghai: Youth Association Press, 1948).] 25. Ibid., 1–4. 26. Chao, “Future of the Church in Social and Economic Thought and Action,” 347. 27. Ibid., 345–54. 28. 趙紫宸：《繫獄記》，頁 85。[Chao, My Experience in Prison, 85.] （上海：青年協會，1948）。[T. C. Chao, Four Lectures on Christian 29. 趙紫宸：《神學四講》 Theology (Shanghai: Youth Association Press, 1948).]

Bei Zhao Nan Wei 161

Incarnate.”30 The four incorporated lectures, “On Creation,” “On Incarnation,” “On Reconciliation,” and “On Christian Moral Life,” all stem from this firm foundation, which has to be taken as the faith of the church. Indeed, the development of Chao’s theology of church, along with his own self-designation as a “church theologian,” signifies that he had become more Anglican in his theological thinking. The move toward Anglo-Catholicism could have provided a new direction for the reconstruction of Chao’s indigenous theology had he been given enough time to work it out.31 In this third stage, Chao had developed a rather different theological position. Unfortunately he neither had enough time to formulate and expound this different form of indigenous theology, nor was able to connect with a particular church from which his theology of the church could be realized. In the spring of 1952, Chao suffered from denunciation campaigns within the Protestant churches. These denunciation campaigns targeted the professors and scholars closely linked with American missions, and Chao was one such victim of this political oppression. He endured a series of “self-examination exercises” and “re-education for change of thought.” It was thus impossible for Chao to continue the reconstruction of his indigenous theology. Nevertheless, we may still derive a new form of theology from his work in the years between 1949 and 1952. Here we witness a new Chao, actively involved in the building of a new China. Chao continued to believe firmly in the sovereignty of God, the revelation in Jesus Christ as the Word Incarnate, and the church as the body of Christ bringing about testimony in the world. He remained hopeful about the future of Christianity in serving China, despite the fact that the new China was now under Communist rule. As an Anglican priest, Chao could trust that God was the Lord of history and that the church could survive and function well in all situations under God’s providence. He was ready to accept the authority of the Communist state, and he believed that the Christian Church needed to change and adapt to the new situation, to be in full support of the new government. He even trusted that it was God who allowed the Communists to rule China, perhaps as a means to punish the church in China: “Communism is a human challenge to Christianity, and also a tool of God to pass judgment upon the flabby churches.”32 Hence, Chao called for the repentance of the church and active support of the new government in China. It is of note that this idea of “punishment” was shared by Bishop R. O. Hall and was later borrowed by another Anglican priest, David Paton, in his famous book, Christian Missions and the Judgment of God.33 30. 趙 紫 宸：〈前 言〉，《神 學 四 講》。 [T. C. Chao, “Preface,” Four Lectures on Christian Theology.] 31. 吳梓明：〈講座三：趙紫宸〉。[Ng, “Lecture III: On T. C. Chao.”] 32. T. C. Chao, “Christian Churches in the Communist China,” Christianity and Crisis 9, no. 11 (June 27, 1949): 85. 33. David Paton, Christian Missions and the Judgment of God, 1st ed. (London: SCM Press, 1953).

162

Peter Tze Ming Ng

Francis Wei as an Anglican Theologian Though both Chao and Wei turned to Anglicanism in China, they formed different styles of theology within their respective Anglican traditions. Chao met Bishop R. O. Hall in Suzhou and through him was exposed to British Anglicanism. Francis C. M. Wei (1888–1976), in contrast, received his education from Boone College, a mission school run by the American Protestant Episcopal Church in Wuchang, and hence was brought up in the American Episcopal tradition. Wei earned his bachelor of arts degree in 1911 and in the same year was baptized in the American Protestant Episcopal Church in Wuchang. Wei also completed his master of arts degree at Boone College, and Logan H. Roots, the bishop of Hankow (Hankou), later secured for him a scholarship from the American Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, from which Bishop Roots himself had graduated twenty years prior, in 1896. Wei spent one year at Episcopal Divinity School, and in the following year he moved to Harvard University. At Harvard, he studied comparative philosophy under Professor William E. Hocking and completed another master’s degree, in philosophy. In July of 1920 Wei returned to China and became a professor of philosophy and theology at Boone College. In 1929 he became the first Chinese president of Huazhong University (his alma mater), a position he held until 1952, thereafter serving as a professor. Wei’s professor at Harvard, William E. Hocking, was not only a liberal theologian and a renowned philosopher but also the chair of the Laymen’s Commission, which studied the foreign missionary work of six Protestant denominations in India, Burma, China, and Japan. The commission issued a comprehensive report under Hocking’s name entitled Re-thinking Missions: A Laymen’s Inquiry after One Hundred Years (1932). Notably, this period coincided with T. C. Chao’s reading of the theology of Karl Barth and re-evaluation of his own liberal theology. Chao criticized aspects of Hocking’s report, specifically the elaboration of liberal theology in the earlier chapters.34 Chao referred to R. O. Hall’s remarks Figure 25  Professor Francis and noted the absence in Hocking’s theology of C. M. Wei (1888–1976). Cour­ references to “the transcendental nature of God,” tesy of Special Collec­tions, Yale “the revelation of God in Jesus Christ,” and “the Divinity School Library. 《趙紫宸文集三》 （北京：燕京研究院， 34. 趙紫宸：〈評《宣教事業平議》前四章〉，文庸編， 2009），頁 549–76。[T. C. Chao, “Comments on Rethinking Missions: A Layman’s Inquiry,” Yenching Review of Religion 3 (April 1934), in The Collected Writings of Tsu Chen Chao, vol. 3, Works of T. C. Chao, ed. Wen Yong (Beijing: Yenching Graduate Institute, 2009), 549–76.]

Bei Zhao Nan Wei 163

concept of Incarnation,” which Chao upheld as the core elements of Christian faith.35 Such critiques reflect the changes in Chao’s own theological thinking at the time. Though Francis Wei had been brought up in the Anglican tradition and certainly would have understood the importance of these core elements of the faith, he had also adopted Professor Hocking’s open attitude toward other religions and faith in the synthesis of Eastern and Western cultures. While studying comparative philosophy under Professor Hocking, Wei developed a keen interest in not only the Christian religion but also Western cultures and philosophy. Wei had already studied various Chinese traditions. His bachelor’s thesis, “Religious Beliefs of the Ancient Chinese and Their Influence on the National Character of the Chinese People,” was likely the first undergraduate thesis on the religiosity of the Chinese people written in a Chinese university.36 Wei’s master’s thesis examined the political thought of Mencius, and his doctoral dissertation undertook a study of the Chinese moral tradition and its social values.37 Furthermore, in his Hewett Lectures in the United States, Wei gave three comprehensive talks on Taoism (Daoism), Buddhism, and Confucianism.38 The synchronization of Eastern and Western cultures was the underlying issue throughout Wei’s study of comparative philosophy at Harvard. Later, in London, Wei published an article entitled “Synthesis of the Cultures of East and West,” which explicitly expressed a possible approach to cultural intercommunication and a workable way of “synchronizing” Eastern and Western cultures.39 He advocated a sympathetic and appreciative attitude toward different cultures—not a conquering of one by the other but a conservation of the good elements of both cultures and an integration of these elements into one organic whole.40 At the time China was experiencing a rising tide of nationalism, and most Chinese intellectuals were cautious of Western cultures, aiming to guard Chinese culture against any possible erosion by the West. Yet Wei advocated an open attitude toward Western cultures. First of all, he affirmed that a nation could never exist without its own culture; a people could never 35. Cf. Wang, ed., vol. 5, 570; Glüer, Theological Thought of T. C. Chao, 204–6. （台灣：華中大學韋卓民紀念館， 36. Cf. 萬先法編：《韋卓民博士教育文化宗教論文集》 1980）。 [Wan Xianfa, ed., Dr. Francis C. M. Wei’s Writings on Education, Culture, and Religion (Taiwan: Huangzhong University Wei Zhuomin Memorial Hall, 1980).] 37. According to Coe’s book Huachung University, Wei’s doctoral dissertation was entitled “On Confucian Ethics,” and his degree was conferred by the School of Economics, University of London, England. However, according to the information provided by the Senate House Library of the University of London, the exact title of the dissertation was “A Study of the Chinese Moral Tradition and Its Social Values,” completed in 1929. The dissertation is still available there. 38. Cf. Francis C. M. Wei, The Spirit of Chinese Culture (New York: Charles Scribner’s Press, 1947); Ng, “T. C. Chao,” 143–65. 39. Francis C. M. Wei, “Synthesis of Cultures of East and West,” in China Today through Chinese Eyes, Second Series (London: Student Christian Movement, 1926), 74–85. 40. Ibid., 77.

164

Peter Tze Ming Ng

forsake their own culture completely. But he considered cultures organic in nature; they grow by absorbing new elements and are transformed through interaction with other cultures.41 The changing of a culture will not destroy a country; the change can instead aid the development of the nation. Since culture grows like a living organism, the best way to preserve it is not to protect it from encountering other cultures but to help it mature. This is achieved by adopting an open attitude toward other cultures, by preserving the valuable elements of all cultures, and by seeking ways to integrate growing cultures into an organic whole.42 Wei had indeed learned from Hocking an open attitude toward other religions and a faith in the synthesis of Eastern and Western cultures. Such a stance, however, can also be seen as an expression of Wei’s Anglican beliefs, especially regarding the spirit of catholicity and religious inclusivism. Though a Christian, Wei did not reject his own Chinese culture. He evinced profound interest in myriad aspects of Chinese traditions, including the ethics, politics, philosophy, and religious beliefs of the Chinese people. Rather than seeking the replacement or superseding of Chinese culture by Christianity, Wei proposed to embrace both and work toward the synthesis of East and West. Because of the strength of his scholarship on Chinese culture, his suggestions have been highly respected by foreign academics. Wei was appointed visiting professor of comparative philosophy at Union Theological Seminary, New York, from 1945 to 1946 and honored as the first Henry W. Luce Visiting Professor of World Christianity, presenting a series of Hewett Lectures at Andover-Newton Theological School, Newton Centre; the Episcopal Theological Seminary, Cambridge, Massachusetts; and Union Theological Seminary, New York, in 1946. This series of lectures was subsequently published by Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, under the title The Spirit of Chinese Culture.43 Wei’s catholicity was also evident in his conception of world Christianity and the new understanding of Christian mission he had unveiled during his series of lectures in New York from 1945 to 1946. Wei suggested that if one took the idea of world Christianity seriously, one should be convinced that without Asia Christianity could in no way be a world religion. For Christianity to be recognized as a world religion, it must find its full expression in all cultures, including Asian cultures. Thus, when the Chinese accepted and gave expression to the Christian faith in their culture, they were simultaneously 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 41. Ibid., 75. ，頁 53–62。[Wan, ed., Dr. Francis 42. Cf. 萬先法編：《韋卓民博士教育文化宗教論文集》 C. M. Wei’s Writings on Education, Culture, and Religion, 53–62.] 43. While scholars like T. C. Chao focused on comparing Confucianism with Christianity, Wei told Western academics that Taoism (Daoism) was, more properly, the religion of Chinese people. See Wei, Spirit of Chinese Culture, 3.

Bei Zhao Nan Wei 165

welcome in China insofar as its Western form was not presented as the sole form of perfect representation.44 Wei observed that Chinese Christians did not like to see their conversion to Christianity interpreted in the way the missionaries had understood it, as a transfer from a “heathen” world into a Christian kingdom, or being “called into Christendom.” Thus Wei suggested that, rather than seeking to conquer the “heathen” world or replace non-Christian cultures with the Christian culture, Christian missionaries should seek help from non-Christian peoples by inviting them to become partners in the worldwide Christian movement. To realize its truth as a world religion, Christianity needs to seek expression in different cultures and be joined by different peoples of the world. The Chinese people wish to be invited to play a role in the worldwide Christian movement without losing their own national identity. In his Hewett Lectures of 1945–46, Wei stated his views: 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 worldwide 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.45

Wei was suggesting that only in this way could the Chinese (and other nonWesterners) feel respected as individuals, maintaining their own national identities. This could be the true spirit of Anglican catholicity and religious inclusivism.46 In response to the question of what Christianity might contribute to Chinese culture, Wei suggested that, as all good things come from God, Christianity might help reveal all truths and good deeds within Chinese culture and make them manifestations of God’s good deeds.47 He believed that the Spirit of 44. Cf. 萬先法編：《韋卓民博士教育文化宗教論文集》，頁 115–38。[Wan, ed., Dr. Francis C. M. Wei’s Writings on Education, Culture, and Religion, 115–38.] 45. Wei, Spirit of Chinese Culture, 159–60. 46. 吳梓明：〈韋卓民博士眼中的基督教與中國文化之關係〉，馬敏編，《跨越中西文化 的 巨 人》 （武 漢：華 中 師 範 大 學，1995），頁 83–98。 [Peter T. M. Ng, “Christianity and Chinese Culture as Seen from the Eyes of Francis Wei,” in A Giant Bridging the Gap between the Chinese and Western Cultures, ed. Ma Min (Wuhan: Huazhong Normal University Press, 1995), 83–98]; 吳梓明：〈韋卓民博士全球地域化理念考〉，章開沅、馬 敏編，《韋卓民紀念文集》 （武漢：華中師範大學，2010），頁 79–101。[Peter T. M. Ng, “An Enquiry into Dr. Francis Wei’s Idea of Globalization,” in Essays in Honor of Dr. Francis Wei, ed. Zhang Kaiyuan and Ma Min (Wuhan: Huazhong Normal University Press, 2010), 79–101.] 47. Francis C. M. Wei, “Making Christianity Live in China,” Chinese Recorder 57 (February

166

Peter Tze Ming Ng

Christ could transform Chinese culture by giving it “a new soul”; it could be “Christianized,” bringing forth “the sanctification of Chinese culture.” As an Anglican, Wei believed that Christianity would help to bring Chinese culture to the altar of God and sanctify it as it was brought closer to truth.48 So, rather than seeking to conquer the “heathen” world or to replace non-Christian cultures with the Christian culture, Wei adopted this more Anglo-Catholic orientation. In short, Wei understood Anglican catholicity and religious inclusivism in terms of an open attitude and due respect toward Chinese culture and religions. Christian mission was thus seen as an invitation extended to non-Christian peoples, including the Chinese people, to join the worldwide Christian movement of which it was an indispensable part, and contribute to the realization of Christianity as a world religion, seeking its expression in all cultures of the world. At the same time, Christianity could help preserve Chinese culture by offering it to God and, in a way, sanctifying it. As Wei believed: 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” Christianity 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 Church, but also the Christian Church needs their cultures in order to give it a fuller expression that it may become more ecumenical.49

Hence, not only did the Chinese people need Christianity, but Christianity likewise needed China.

Conclusion In his book The Spirit of Anglicanism, William Wolf takes as his subjects three Anglican theologians in England, namely Richard Hooker, Frederick D. Maurice, and William Temple.50 Herein I have attempted to chart the thinking of T. C. Chao and Francis Wei, thus offering something akin to “the Spirit of Anglicanism” in modern China.” The following chapter in this volume deals with T. C. Chao’s theology and its influence by Anglicanism (Sheng Kung Hui). However, in this chapter I have attempted to compare Chao’s theology with 1926): 118–21. The speech also appeared in Chinese in Education Quarterly 2, no. 1 (1926): 27–31. 48. Wei, Spirit of Chinese Culture, 28–29; Francis C. M. Wei, “The Post-war Re-development Plan of Huazhong University, 1944,” United Board for Christian Higher Education Archives, Series IV, Box 170, Folder 3145, kept at Yale Divinity School Library Special Collections, New Haven, USA, 1944. 49. Wei, Spirit of Chinese Culture, 27. 50. William J. Wolf, ed., The Spirit of Anglicanism: Hooker, Maurice and Temple (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1982).

Bei Zhao Nan Wei 167

that of Wei. Though both Chao and Wei turned to Anglicanism, they arrived at different theologies on the basis of the different Anglican and Episcopal traditions they encountered. Whereas Chao met Bishop R. O. Hall in Suzhou and through the bishop’s introduction began learning about British Anglicanism, Wei received his education at Boone College, a mission school run by the Protestant Episcopal Church Mission in Wuchang, and was brought up in the American Episcopal tradition. Hence these two figures inherited different traditions of global Anglicanism. The study of their theologies offers a more comprehensive picture of the spirit of Anglicanism in modern China. Chao was first baptized at Soochow University as a Methodist and received his education at Vanderbilt University. He was trained in a more liberal theological perspective before becoming an Anglican. Encountering British Anglicanism and European Christianity, especially the theology of Karl Barth, Chao began expanding his own liberal theology and giving more contemplative attention to the concepts of God, revelation, incarnation, and the Christian Church. Bishop Hall’s influence transformed Chao from an ecumenical theologian into an Anglican theologian. Chao’s experience in prison helped him understand the true meaning of religion and the significance of the church in the Anglican tradition. Chao became more hopeful about the future of the church, supporting the Chinese Communist government in 1949 vis-à-vis his strengthened belief in the sovereignty of God. He might have further developed his indigenous Christianity along these lines, but unfortunately, as Winfried Glüer recalled, in the words of Chao’s daughter Zhao Luorui (趙蘿蕤), “the greatest tragedy of Chao’s life was the incompletion of his work.”51 Francis Wei, in contrast, was brought up in a broader perspective of the church. He adopted the spirit of Anglican catholicity manifest in openness and inclusiveness toward other religions and cultures. Hence, Wei could pay due respect to Chinese culture and religions and seek positive means for the synthesis of Eastern and Western cultures. He developed a new concept of Christian mission in which the Chinese people were not forced to give up their Chinese identity but were instead invited to join the global Christian movement and seek expressions of the Christian faith within their Chinese culture. Wei further suggested that Chinese Christians could help to Christianize Chinese culture by bringing forth “the sanctification of Chinese culture.” For Wei, Christianity had not come to destroy or replace Chinese culture, but rather to make it sanctified and complete. Unfortunately, like Chao, Wei could not escape the tragedies of the 1950s. The development of indigenous theology of Chinese Christianity remains unrealized.

，邢福增編，《尋索基督教的獨特性 ―― 趙紫宸神學論集》 （香港：建 51. 古愛華：〈前言〉 道神學院，2003），頁 vii–viii。(Winfried Glüer, “Preface,” in In Search of the Uniqueness of Christianity: Essays on T. C. Chao’s Theology, ed. Fuk-tsang Ying (Hong Kong: Alliance Bible Seminary, 2003), vii–viii.]

Chapter 9

T. C. Chao and the Sheng Kung Hui With Particular Emphasis on Theology, as Exemplified by His Later Soteriology Yongtao Chen T. C. Chao (趙紫宸, Zhao Zichen, 1888–1979) was a widely known and deeply respected Chinese Christian theologian, religious philosopher, writer, poet, and Christian educator of the twentieth century. He also enjoyed great popularity and prestige in the ecumenical movement. Chao was baptized during his student years at Dongwu University (also known as Soochow University), and was for many years thereafter a member of the Methodist Church. In 1941, at the age of fifty-three, Chao converted to the Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui (CHSKH). He was confirmed and ordained in Hong Kong by Bishop R. O. Hall (1895–1975); following his confirmation he was ordained first as huili (deacon) and then as huizhang (priest), all on the same day. It became the talk of Hong Kong at the time—that the Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui (HKSKH) could combine three rites in one morning and one afternoon liturgy. Research on T. C. Chao has been growing both in China and abroad since the 1960s and 1970s. Up to the present day, however, little has been done on the relationship between Chao and the CHSKH. Similarly, there is also little research that touches on the impact of the Anglican tradition on Chao’s theological thinking. As for his later theological reorientation, almost all researchers attribute it to his prison experience and the influence of Karl Barth’s neo-orthodoxy. In my opinion, however, in addition to the influence of neo-orthodoxy, the impact of the Anglican tradition on Chao’s later theology should be taken seriously, as Peter Tze Ming Ng has rightly indicated in the previous chapter of this book. This chapter attempts to explore the deeper theological relationship between Chao and the Anglican tradition as exemplified by his later soteriology.

T. C. Chao and the CHSKH: A Retrospective Account Chao was born on February 14, 1888 in Tak Ching (德清, Deqing) County, Chekiang (Zhejiang) Province, and died on November 21, 1979 in Beijing. He grew up in a family with a strong religious sense. From childhood, Chao had been influenced by Buddhism, Taoism (Daoism), and folk religion. His mother was a pious Buddhist believer before her conversion to Christianity later in life. Chao went to Suzhou to attend school. He first entered Cui Ying College (萃英

170

Yongtao Chen

書院),1 which was run by the Presbyterian Church. One year later, Chao transferred to the Affiliated Middle School of Dongwu University and later entered university there. While studying at Dongwu University, he was influenced by Dr. David L. Anderson, president of the school, and Professor Walter Buckner Nance, as well as other faculty members, and began to appreciate Christianity. John R. Mott’s visit to Dongwu University in 1917, in particular, impressed Chao deeply. As a result, he accepted baptism the following year and became a Christian and a member of the Methodist Church. After his graduation, Chao taught at Dongwu University. From 1914 to 1917, he studied at Vanderbilt University in the United States. Chao received a bachelor’s degree in theology and a master’s degree in sociology. In 1917, he returned to Suzhou and continued teaching at Dongwu University. In 1925 John Leighton Stuart, president of Yenching (Yanjing) University in Beijing, invited Chao to join the faculty of the university, where he taught until 1952. For many years he served as dean of the School of Religion. In 1928 Chao attended the Jerusalem International Missionary Conference as a member of the Chinese delegation. During the conference he sat beside the Archbishop of York, William Temple, who later became the Archbishop of Canterbury. There is no material available that might reveal the extent of their conversation. However, they must have engaged in some kind of communication during the conference; according to a letter from Hong Kong bishop R. O. Hall, from then on Chao demonstrated more and more interest in the Anglican tradition, its order, and its liturgical legacy.2 Chao spent a year (1932–33) as a visiting scholar at Oxford University. Some scholars argue that it might have been during this time that Chao first encountered Karl Barth and neo-orthodox theology.3 However, I contend that, 1. According to Prof. Zhao Luorui (Chao’s daughter) and Prof. Zhao Jingxin (Chao’s eldest son), Chao first entered Suzhou Taowu Middle School, run by the Episcopal Church. See Zhao Luorui and Zhao Jingxin, “Our Father T. C. Chao,” in The Collected Works of T. C. Chao (hereafter cited as Works), vol. 1 (Beijing: The Commercial Press, 2003): 4. If that was the case, then the relationship between Chao and the Sheng Kung Hui could be traced back as early as 1903. Chao himself never mentioned studying at Taowu Middle School, though he did refer to being recommended to study at Cui Ying College. T. C. Chao, “My Religious Experience” (1923), in Works, vol. 3 (2007): 136. Therefore, it is commonly accepted that 《曲高和寡 ―― Chao studied first in Cui Ying College after he went to Suzhou. See 林榮洪： 趙 紫 宸 生 平 與 神 學》 （香 港： 中 國 神 學 研 究 院，1994）， 頁 5。[Wing-hung Lam, Too Highbrow to Be Popular: The Life and Theology of Tzu Chen Chao (Hong Kong: China （北京：宗教文 Graduate School of Theology, 1994), 5]; 唐曉峰：《趙紫宸神學思想研究》 化 出 版 社，2006），頁 64。[Tang Xiaofeng, A Study of T. C. Chao’s Theology (Beijing: Reli­ （上海：基督教兩會， gion and Culture Press, 2006), 64]; 古愛華：《赵紫宸的神学思想》 1999）， 頁 38。[Winfried Glüer, The Theological Thought of T. C. Chao (Shanghai: TSPM and CCC, 1999), 38.] 2. See R. O. Hall, “Account of the Confirmation and Ordination of Dr. T. C. Chao, Sunday, 20th July, 1941, Saint Paul’s College Chapel, Hong Kong,” compiled by Michael Poon, http:// anglicanhistory.org/asia/skh/hall/ord1941.htm. 3. See 林榮洪：《曲高和寡 ―― 趙紫宸生平與神學》，頁 5。[Wing-hung Lam, Too High­­brow

T. C. Chao and the Sheng Kung Hui 171

in addition to his encounter with neo-orthodoxy, Chao may also have had the opportunity to learn more about Anglicanism. Rather than asserting that Chao’s later theology was inclined toward neo-orthodoxy, perhaps it is better to say it moved toward the Anglican tradition. Here I disagree with Peter Tze Ming Ng’s summarization that the change of Chao’s theological thinking in the 1930s was “a move away from ‘humanistic’ liberal theology toward neo-orthodoxy,”4 while recognizing the influence of neo-orthodoxy on Chao’s later theology. Chao said clearly that he was not a “Barthian.”5 Bishop Hall’s letter indicates Chao had the intention from as early as 1939 to become an Anglican. According to Hall, they met in Kunming in 1939 and had discussed the possibility of his conversion to the Sheng Kung Hui. Thereafter, Chao kept in close contact with Bishop Scott, a CHSKH bishop in Beijing, and David Paton, an Anglican missionary; these contacts strengthened his conviction to become an Anglican. Soon after, taking advantage of his sabbatical, Chao went to Kunming and served in the Wenlin Hostel (文林 堂) for one year. The Wenlin Hostel was a CHSKH student residence, but as a Methodist layperson Chao received special authorization from the Anglican bishop for his service. During his time there, Chao was in charge of the Sunday morning worship as well as a special gathering on Thursday evenings. The congregation was composed mainly of the students, faculty members, and staff at the Southwest Associated University (西南聯大).6 On July 20, 1941, Chao was ordained by Bishop Hall in the small chapel of Bishop’s House at St. Paul’s College, in Hong Kong. In the ordination ceremony, Chao was first confirmed, and then was successively ordained as deacon and priest. In his book Xiyu ji (繫獄記, My Experience in Prison), Chao recalled, “I converted to the Anglican Church and was ordained to holy orders. Three times during the ceremony I received the laying on of hands, the first time in being confirmed. When I received confirmation, Ms. Zeng Baosun (曾 寶蓀) introduced me, and was standing beside me.”7 Because of a dispute with John Leighton Stuart over the size and development direction of the School of Religion, Chao was removed from his position as dean in 1946, but he was later reinstated. At that time, Bishop R. O. Hall invited Chao to Hong Kong, welcoming him to spend his remaining years in

4. 5.

6. 7.

to Be Popular: The Life and Theology of Tzu Chen Chao, 5]; Hoi Ming Hui, “A Study of T. C. Chao’s Christology in the Social Context of China, 1920 to 1949” (PhD diss., University of Birmingham, 2008), 42. Also see Peter Tze Ming Ng, “Bei Zhao Nan Wei: A Study of Two Chinese Anglican Theologians in Republican China,” Chapter 8 of this book. See Ng, Chapter 8, 156–61. 趙 紫 宸：《巴 德 的 宗 教 思 想》， 燕 京 研 究 院 編：《趙 紫 宸 文 集 第 二 卷》 （北 京： 商 務 印 書 館，2004），頁 30。[T. C. Chao, The Religious Thought of Karl Barth, in Works, vol. 2 (Beijing: The Commercial Press, 2004): 30.] See R. O. Hall, “Account of the Confirmation and Ordination of Dr. T. C. Chao.” 趙 紫 宸：《繫 獄 記》（香 港： 基 督 教 文 藝 出 版 社，1969）， 頁 441。[T. C. Chao, My Experience in Prison (Hong Kong: Chinese Christian Literature Council, 1969), 441.]

172

Yongtao Chen

comfort while continuing to conduct research and write books. After several days of intense inner struggle, Chao declined Hall’s kind offer. However, the HKSKH kept a position open for Chao.8 Chao was one of the initiators of the Chinese Christian Three-Self Patriotic Movement of the Chinese Protestant Churches and also one of five representatives from the Chinese Protestant Church at the first Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference. When the Denunciation Movement began in 1952, however, Chao was attacked for his close relationship with Western missionaries and forced to resign from his position as dean of the School of Religion, as well as from his professorship. His priesthood, according to some, was also revoked.9

The Sheng Kung Hui Tradition and Sources for Chao’s Later Theological Thinking According to the Anglican tradition, the authority or standards of faith are Scripture, tradition, and reason.10 The Bible is the Word of God, the sacrament of the Word of God. The Bible has priority in the Christian life, which means that the Bible is the central norm of faith, by which the other norms of faith, such as creeds, tradition, and beliefs, are judged. The Bible, so to speak, is the norm of norms. The Bible is also the norm of theology and Christian ethics. Christian tradition includes the creeds, which are accepted by the ecumenical church: catholicity, the thought of the church fathers, the Ecumenical 8. See 唐曉峰：〈夜鷹之志 ―― 新中國成立後的趙紫宸〉，唐曉峰、熊曉紅編，《夜鷹之 志 ―― “ 趙紫宸與中西思想交流 ” 學術研討會文集》( 北京：宗教文化出版社，2010)， 頁 46。[Tang Xiaofeng, “A Nighthawk’s Ambition: T. C. Chao after 1949,” in A Nighthawk’s Ambition: “T. C. Chao and the Sino-Western Exchange of Thought” Conference Papers, ed. Tang Xiaofeng and Xiong Xiaohong (Beijing: Religion and Culture Press, 2010), 46.] 9. On March 17, 1952, Bishop Ling Xianyang ( 凌 賢 揚 ), who was bishop of the North China Diocese of the Sheng Kung Hui, and also a friend of Chao’s, declared that Chao’s priesthood and all his posts in the diocese had been revoked. See Xiejin ( 協 進 ) (June 1952). See also Glüer, Theological Thought of T. C. Chao, 40; 邢 福 增：《尋 索 基 督 教 的 獨 特 性 ―― 趙 紫 宸 神 學 論 集》 （香 港： 建 道 神 學 院，2003）， 頁 209。[Fuk-tsang Ying, In Search of the Unique­ness of Christianity: Essays on T. C. Chao’s Theology (Hong Kong: Alliance Bible Seminary, 2003), 209]; and Tang, A Study of T. C. Chao’s Theology, 74. 10. See Paul Avis, The Anglican Understanding of the Church: An Introduction (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge [SPCK], 2000), 50–59. Unlike his early period in which Chao regarded religious experience as the source and norm of theology, he no longer regarded human experience as the foundation of theology, although he did not deny the role of experience in the process of theologizing. As to human religious experience, McGrath points out that although regarding human experience as the foundation of theology has a certain attraction, it is also problematic. Therefore, he introduces an alternative method for dealing with the relationship between human experience and theology: that theology interprets experience. For McGrath, what theology should do is to narrate experience, interpret experience, and then transcend and transform experience. See Alister McGrath, The Renewal of Anglicanism (London: SPCK, 1993), 86–98.

T. C. Chao and the Sheng Kung Hui 173

Councils, and the smaller tradition of Anglicanism. Though the Anglican tradition admits the mystery of faith, reason occupies an important place in the life of faith. On the one hand, faith is beyond reason; on the other hand, faith is in line with reason. The mystery of faith and its rationality are not contradictory.11 Chao’s later understanding of the relationship between faith and reason echoes that of Anglicanism. The early Chao recognized the particular significance of human religious experience, meaning both the Bible and the Christian tradition must be under the judgment of human experience and rationality. Identifiable in his later theology, however, is the Anglican tradition’s threefold authority of the Bible, Christian tradition, and reason, with the Bible as the norm of norms.12 We can also observe in Chao’s later theology the four cardinal elements of the Lambeth Quadrilateral, namely, the Bible, the creeds (Apostles’ and Nicene), sacraments (Eucharist and baptism), and episcopacy.13 Revealing the influence of the Anglican tradition on his later theology, Chao highlighted the doctrine of incarnation, emphasized the significance of the church, and respected the episcopacy. Peter Tze Ming Ng has observed that the later Chao shifted his concern from theology of culture to theology of the Christian church, that by becoming an Anglican priest Chao called for greater efforts to create a church consciousness among the Chinese churches.14 Chao’s understanding of the sequential order of the importance of the Bible, Christian tradition, and reason is apparent in his discussion of theological themes and methods in his Four Lectures on Christian Theology (神學四講). He writes that the theological theme is God’s revelation; the tool is reason. The work of theology is to explain the theme. Reason without revelation is not effective. Reason itself is unable to create something out of imagination as research object. It must come from revelation. Christianity is a religion; the religious truth, in the perspective of Christianity, should be God, who is both transcendent over and immanent in all things. God may transcend reason, but reason cannot exhaust the mystery of God. If God does not reveal himself, there is no religious truth, no theological theme. From the perspective of the classics, of church history, the experience of Christians in all generations, the theme of Christian theology is God’s revelation in Jesus Christ. What reason can do is its interpretation of God’s revelation in order that we may better understand our faith.15 11. See Stephen Sykes and John Booty, eds., The Study of Anglicanism (London and Philadelphia: SPCK/Fortress Press, 1988), 79–117. See also McGrath, Renewal of Anglican­ ism, 74–78. 12. See Avis, Anglican Understanding of the Church, 86–89. 13. Ibid., 57. 14. Ng, Chapter 8, 160. 15. 趙 紫 宸：《神 學 四 講》，燕 京 研 究 院 編，《赵 紫 宸 文 集 第 二 卷》，頁 519。[T. C. Chao, Four Lectures on Christian Theology, in Works, vol. 2: 519.]

174

Yongtao Chen

Therefore, Chao now emphasized the importance of God’s revelation. Without God’s revelation in Jesus Christ, it is impossible to actualize human redemption, and theology will have no foundation. For Chao, theology must first “accept God’s revelation, and then give its interpretation of revelation. In a comprehensive sense, God’s revelation in Jesus Christ is namely Jesus Christ himself, which is our theme of theology. Its starting point is religion, is faith, and is our acceptance of faith.”16 Moreover, God’s revelation in Jesus Christ is “recorded in the Bible, demonstrated in the history of the church, and experienced by the saints.”17 As the Word of God, the Bible is the testimony of God’s incarnation. Speaking of Christianity from the Perspective of Chinese Culture (從中國文 化說到基督教), a small booklet written in 1946, reveals Chao’s later emphasis on the Bible and Christian tradition. On the issue of Christian faith, Chao said: Christianity is nothing more than Jesus Christ. Because of this, therefore, Christianity is the historical facts and revelation recorded in the Bible, the church that spreads and preserves this revelation, the faith that follows the Bible and also follows what the church has believed and spread. It is also the life produced by faith, the action led by faith, the movement promoted by faith, and the culture created by faith. Christian faith is to accept Jesus Christ. The faith that believes in Jesus Christ as Son of God, as God himself, is a faith that accepts God himself as a gracious gift bestowed upon humanity. We may then deduce that this faith is the faith contained in the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed.18

In his article “The Possible Development of the Dogmatic Theology of Chinese Christianity in the Next Forty Years” (1950), Chao emphasized God’s revelation: True theologians must have two kinds of qualities. One is spiritual, a devout and obedient faith; the other is intellectual, sincere thinking and the knowledge of growth. Faith comes from unlimited human enthusiasm on the basis of God’s gift. Men and women can search knowledge on their own; however, in their seeking for God, men and women can do nothing on their own . . . With regard to God, what humanity is able to do is but to wait, obey, believe, admire, and worship. Therefore, people like Schleiermacher, Bauer, and Ludwig Feuerbach are not worthy of being called theologians. They all looked for life in the tomb. They desired to find God in nature, in the human heart, and in human emotion, will, and rationality. Inevitably, deep despair awaits them at the end of their seeking. The departure point 16. Ibid., 520. 《趙紫宸文集第二卷》，頁 519。[T. C. Chao, 17. 趙紫宸：〈基督教的倫理〉，燕京研究院編， “Christian Ethics,” in Works, vol. 2: 519.] 18. 趙紫宸：〈從中國文化說到基督教〉，燕京研究院編，《趙紫宸文集第二卷》，頁 402。 [T. C. Chao, “Speaking of Christianity from the Perspective of Chinese Culture,” in Works, vol. 2: 402.]

T. C. Chao and the Sheng Kung Hui 175

of a true theologian is the revelation of God; God’s revelation must be accepted and obeyed by true theologians with their fervent admiration and trust. However, they do not underestimate reason, nor despise scholarship. They attempt to interpret or explain with their intelligence the revelation of God.19

However, Chao also realized that practicing theology in the Chinese context must deal seriously with the historical, cultural, and social-political situation of China. As he put it: When we speak of Christian thought and theology, we are not doing it in a vacuum. We have our own background and our own environment. We live in China. Because we live in China, we thus have the Chinese cultural background, and the social situation of China. Our theological interpretation must get in touch with this cultural background and with the society on the one hand; on the other hand, it needs to explain the nature of Christianity, complementing the deficiency of Chinese culture, in order to meet the needs of the society.20

Thus, although Chao was influenced by the Anglican tradition, his later theology remained contextualized. He harbored no intention of copying Western theology. However, Chao’s move toward Anglo-Catholicism could have provided a new direction for the reconstruction of his indigenous theology, as Peter Tze Ming Ng indicates.21 With this brief discussion on the possible impact of Anglicanism on Chao’s understanding of the sources and methods in his later theology as a foundation, I will proceed with a discussion on the possible impact of the Anglican tradition on Chao’s thinking, as exemplified by his later soteriology.

Chao’s Later Soteriology and the Anglican Tradition’s Possible Influence Chao’s later soteriology reveals the impact of the Anglican tradition, as well as that of John Wesley and the Methodist understanding of salvation, on his thinking. While Chao continued to express his dissatisfaction with the traditional interpretations of atonement, he proposed in his late thought his own theory of redemption (atonement) as chengzhilun and tongyilun. Both terms were fruits of his theological contextualization.

19. 趙紫宸：〈今後四十年中國基督教教義神學可能的發展〉，燕京研究院編，《趙紫宸文集 第四卷》 （北京：商務印書館，2010），頁 184。[T. C. Chao, “The Possible Development of the Dogmatic Theology of Chinese Christianity in the Next Forty Years,” in Works, vol. 4 (Beijing: The Commercial Press, 2010): 184.] 20. 趙紫宸：《神學四講》，頁 520。[Chao, Four Lectures on Christian Theology, 520.] 21. Ng, Chapter 8, 156–61.

176

Yongtao Chen

Chengzhilun (成旨論) Recognizing the corruption of human nature, in the late 1930s Chao also realized human impotence on the issue of salvation. He now accepted the concepts of original sin (the inherited sinful nature of humans) and actual transgressions (sinful human deeds).22 Although he believed that sin had not entirely destroyed, but rather blurred, the image of God in humanity, he saw clearly that human salvation could only come from God. Human sin has broken the relationship between God and humankind, and humanity is unable to restore this relationship through its own effort.23 However, while holding this view of incarnation and creation, Chao still maintained that it is possible for humanity to conquer sin and evil, and then to achieve the perfection of love through the work of Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit.24 In his early period, Chao believed that God and humans shared a common divinity with a quantitative, but not qualitative, difference, and that sin was just a bad habit or character defect. Consequently, humanity could strive for a good personality, and everyone would be able to be Jesus if he or she could learn from and follow Jesus.25 However, in his later period Chao recognized the inability of humanity to effect its own salvation and accepted the doctrine of original sin. Chao recognized the necessity for human salvation from above, the incarnated Word of God, as God’s pure grace.26 Chao’s interpretation of salvation places the emphasis more on sanctification than on justification. However, for Chao, as a Chinese theologian, justification and sanctification could not be entirely separated. He affirmed that, after one accepts God’s grace of salvation (justification), one must live a sanctified life, a life of perfect love, through the work of the Holy Spirit. Some Methodist influence (which theologically adheres to the Anglican tradition) may be concealed here, or Chao may have been influenced by an Anglican understanding of salvation and sanctification.27 〈基督教進解〉，燕京研究院編，《趙紫宸文集第二卷》，頁 141。[T. C. Chao, 22. 趙紫宸： “The Interpretation of Christianity,” in Works, vol. 2: 141.] 23. 〈趙紫宸博士演講錄〉，燕京研究院編，《趙紫宸文集第四卷》，頁 309。[“Notes for Dr. T. C. Chao’s Lecture,” in Works, vol. 4: 309.] 24. Ibid., 112. （北京：商務印書館， 25. 趙紫宸：〈基督教哲學〉，燕京研究院編，《趙紫宸文集第一卷》 2003）， 頁 127。[T. C. Chao, “Christian Philosophy,” in Works, vol. 1 (Beijing: The Com­ mercial Press, 2003): 127]; See 趙紫宸：〈學耶穌〉，燕京研究院編，《趙紫宸文集第四 卷》， 頁 259–60。[T. C. Chao, “Learning from Jesus,” in Works, vol. 4: 259–60]. However, it might be problematic if we interpret Chao’s early soteriology as purely human self-salvation. Hui may imply Chao’s early soteriology as merely human self-salvation in his writing. See Hui, “Study of T. C. Chao’s Christology in the Social Context of China,” 158. 26. For example, see〈趙 紫 宸 博 士 演 講 錄〉， 頁 307。[“Notes for Dr. T. C. Chao’s Lecture,” 307.] 27. Walter Klaiber and Manfred Marquardt, Living Grace: An Outline of United Methodist Theology, trans. and adapted by J. Steven O’Malley and Ulrike R. M. Guthrie (Nashville:

T. C. Chao and the Sheng Kung Hui 177

According to John Wesley, the supreme and overruling purpose of God’s plan of salvation is to renew the hearts of men and women in his own image. The agent of human justification and sanctification is the Holy Spirit, who grants us the faith by which both the objective and subjective elements of God’s salvation in Jesus Christ become ours. The gracious work of the Holy Spirit enables the sinful heart to respond in obedience to God’s call to salvation. By this process of the work of the Spirit, we are gradually brought to the point of repentance and faith, by which we are born of God by the Spirit to new life in Jesus Christ. This new life in Christ not only brings us freedom from the objective guilt of sin through justification but also, through sanctification, regenerates us and, through the Spirit, creates the subjective life of God and Christ in us.28 In line with these ideas, and after revealing his disappointment with the various Western theories of atonement, in his “The Interpretation of Christianity” (基督教進解) Chao proposed his own soteriology of chengzhilun (成旨論, literally, “theory of completing God’s own will”). Chao indicated that chengzhilun, which he based on the Bible, is the appropriate interpretation of Jesus’s death.29 According to this theory, human beings as sinners are unable to save themselves; the only way to human salvation is God’s grace, for which God has a plan and a will to save humanity. Chengzhilun means that Jesus has completed the will of God for human salvation through his incarnation (infinite God entering a finite world and eternal God entering human history), life, death, and resurrection. Therefore, only in God can human salvation become actualized.30 In his chengzhilun, Chao highlighted the idea that, because of the work of Jesus Christ, those who are in the Holy Spirit are able to conquer sin and reach perfect love. In addition, because of the work of Christ and the work of the Abingdon Press, 2001), 285–310. 28. Melvin E. Dieter, “The Wesleyan Perspective,” in Five Views on Sanctification, ed. Stanley N. Gundry (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), 15–16. 29. 趙紫宸：〈基督教進解〉，頁 146。[Chao, “Interpretation of Christianity,” 146.] 30. Chao interpreted this in five points: 1) the death of Jesus manifests completely God’s unconditional and self-sacrificial love; 2) the death of Jesus has moral influence that can contribute to human morality and can attract people to return to God; 3) the death of Jesus indicates the fact that sin and evil have been defeated by the cross; 4) the death of Jesus has overcome the force of death and has paved a way of life from death; it proves that death can absolutely not destroy the highest value of the world; and 5) the death of Jesus is the strong testimony of Jesus’s personality, his words, deeds, and cause. In sum, by his death, Jesus Christ has completed the will of God for human salvation. Moreover, the death of Jesus also tells us that not only Jesus Christ, but everybody, can overcome in hope all evils because of his or her moral effort following his or her union with Jesus Christ. On the one hand, it proves that Jesus and God are coequal in reality. Because God is all-love, Jesus is all-love; on the other hand, the death of Jesus proves that he himself is the only way of human salvation. Only through him, and by him, can humankind be saved. Jesus is the way of humans’ having life from death, and human beings’ sanctification from sin. These five points can be summed up in one theory, namely chengzhilun ( 成旨論 ), which reveals the meaning of Jesus’s death. See 趙紫宸：〈基督教進解〉，頁 146–47。[Chao, “Interpretation of Christianity,” 146–47.]

178

Yongtao Chen

Holy Spirit in Christ, the sinner has the potential to turn away from his or her sinful ways and become a saint. Accordingly, a new person emerges, promoting with Christ the actualization of the kingdom of God.31 The key idea in chengzhilun is Jesus’s harmonious and unbroken relationship with God the Father. Owing to Jesus’s great love of God and of humanity, he gave the priority to the will of God, which is for human salvation.32 The core connotation of chengzhilun is that through his obedience Jesus Christ has completed the will of God—human salvation—for our sake. We, as believers, must do our own part by following and imitating Jesus Christ. With the concept of chengzhilun, Chao may have tried to maintain a balance between salvation as God’s grace and human responsibility to respond to God’s salvific grace.33 It is perhaps because of this, as Winfried Glüer has rightly observed, that here we can see a rather strong moralizing orientation in Chao’s interpretation of Jesus’s death.34 However, Chao now clearly understood that salvation is grace from outside. Only after we have accepted God’s grace as a gift is our moral effort both possible and meaningful. This is why Chao repeatedly criticized the theory of moral influence as one-sided. Chao was confident that, because people are created as Imago Dei, “the actual purpose of human life is to manifest the glory of God, to build up one’s own character and morals, and to complete the will of God which is for the cosmos and humankind.”35 The focal point of Chao’s chengzhilun is cheng (成, accomplishment, achievement), which means that God’s plan or will for human salvation has been “done” or “completed” through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Jesus as Christ has done his own work at the starting point, which is the starting point of human salvation, and humanity needs from then on to play its own part in the life of faith by walking with Jesus through the work of the Holy Spirit. Here Chao emphasized that Christians must take moral responsibility after their acceptance of Jesus Christ as their personal savior. This concept of the starting point of salvation refers merely to justification as the starting point of sanctification. Understanding human salvation as a process, Chao attempted to give a role for humanity in the actualization of salvation, which is human sanctification. Chao’s reference to justification and sanctification as a process may again be rooted in the Methodist or Anglican traditions, both of which emphasize sanctification.36 Through his chengzhilun, 31. Ibid., 112. 《趙紫宸文集第四卷》，頁 61–62。[T. C. Chao, 32. 趙紫宸：〈創造與再造〉，燕京研究院編， “Creation and Reconstruction,” in Works, vol. 4: 61–62.] 33. This idea may be in accord with the Anglican concept of via media. See McGrath, Renewal of Anglicanism, 99–104, 125–33. 34. Glüer, Theological Thought of T. C. Chao, 221. （北京：商務印書館， 35. 趙紫宸：《聖保羅傳》，燕京研究院編，《趙紫宸文集第二卷》 2004），頁 335。[T. C. Chao, The Biography of St. Paul, in Works, vol. 2 (Beijing: The Com­ mercial Press, 2004): 335.] 36. Klaiber and Marquardt, Living Grace, 310.

T. C. Chao and the Sheng Kung Hui 179

Chao extended his Christology to Christian life, by which both religion and morality were underscored. This may reflect the fact that he became aware of some misinterpretations within the Chinese church about faith and life, misinterpretations that made Christianity irrelevant to the modern Chinese mind and dangerous for China’s construction of a new culture and a new society. His emphasis on Christian life may have helped Chao avoid the risk of fideism and antinomianism in his theology. According to Chao’s understanding, in a broader sense, human salvation is not a once-for-all event, but a continuing process. This is the reason that the Holy Spirit has been sent to the world following the ascension of Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit works in the human heart and in the church as well. The Holy Spirit desires to lead humanity into all truths and to effect humanity’s sanctification. Therefore, human salvation refers not only to humanity’s passive deliverance from sin and death (justification) but also to humanity’s own positive spiritual and moral development (sanctification). It is thus a process, which includes justification, sanctification, and glorification. According to Chao, justification must be followed by sanctification and be aimed at glorification.37 Therefore, it may be inappropriate to label Chao’s chengzhilun as synergism, as some researchers do.38

Tongyilun (同一論) Chao based his later soteriology, tongyilun (同一論, the “union or identification theory”), on his previous formulation of chengzhilun. As early as 1940, Chao raised the idea that one could walk with Jesus to reach salvation.39 Though the idea of tongyilun began to appear in his “Interpretation of Christianity”40 and The Biography of St. Paul (聖保羅傳),41 Chao did not use the term tongyilun 37. 趙紫宸：《神學四講》，頁 558。[Chao, Four Lectures on Christian Theology, 558.] 38. See Hui, “Study of T. C. Chao’s Christology in the Social Context of China,” 159–60; Tang, A Study of T. C. Chao’s Theology, 125, 143. 39. When touching on the issue of salvation in his lectures, Chao said, “First, we believe in the personality of Jesus and believe also that the will of God was revealed in the personality of Jesus; there is then a great strength generated from our faith and flooded forward without ceasing. Second, if we start to walk on the same path that Jesus walked, have the spirit to save the world in sacrifice, and imitate Jesus at every step, it is the beginning of our salvation; the end of the way is then the completion of our salvation.”〈趙紫宸博士演講錄〉，頁 309。[“Notes for Dr. T. C. Chao’s Lecture,” 309]. Furthermore, in his article “The Pathway by Which I Know Jesus” written in 1936, we may also find clues to how Chao later developed his “union or identification theory.” See Chao, “The Pathway by Which I Know Jesus,” in Works, vol. 5 (2009): 387–88. 40. He stated clearly that we Christians identically participate with Jesus to achieve the work of salvation. See 趙 紫 宸：〈基 督 教 進 解〉， 頁 148。[Chao, “Interpretation of Christianity,” 148.] 41. Some clues to Chao’s theory of tongyilun can also be observed in his Biography of St. Paul. Chao argued that, for the sake of human salvation, God must at first identify with human

Figure 26  Calligraphy of Professor T. C. Chao, 1947.

T. C. Chao and the Sheng Kung Hui 181

until he wrote My Experience in Prison in 1947. He developed the idea of tongyilun in detail in his Four Lectures on Christian Theology in 1948. For Chao, tongyilun has two dimensions or movements: first, God had come down and identified with humanity in Jesus Christ, and, second, humanity has to go upward, being identified with God because of God’s grace in Jesus Christ. This mutual identification, or penetration, contains both downward and upward movements.42 (We may find a similarity, or the same effect, between Chao’s idea and Austin Farrer’s concept of double agency.43) Chao believed that this theory of tongyilun has a strong biblical basis.44 At this point, Chao had made a clear differentiation between belief and faith. He held that faith is not a matter of belief but a matter of trust in God, which is relational but not merely cognitive. For this reason, our trust in God must include a life in which we live our faith outwardly.45 In this way, Chao could integrate religion with ethics. To address the question of how a finite human being could be united with the incarnate Christ, the Son of God, Chao argued that, although humans have to walk identically with Christ and be in union with him, a vast difference still exists between Jesus Christ and the rest of humanity. Though Chao strongly emphasized Jesus Christ as the only way for human salvation, at the same time he indicated that Christ does not take away humanity’s responsibility—to walk with him in the process of salvation—to God’s grace. Jesus Christ opens up the way for human beings, walks along with them, and gives them strength; however, humanity must still have its own work, which is identification with Jesus Christ.46 In a holistic understanding, while giving law a place, no difficulty shall arise in maintaining salvation as God’s pure grace. Chao subordinated law to the Gospel, and held that the Gospel subsumed ethics (law).47 Hence, human union with Christ is not due to human beings’ own merits but

beings in Jesus Christ who is the incarnated God, and then humans need to identify with Jesus Christ after accepting God’s salvific grace. 趙 紫 宸：《聖 保 羅 傳》， 頁 293。[Chao, Biography of St. Paul, 293.] 42. The theory suggests that the completion of human salvation is a two-directional movement, in which both Jesus Christ’s identification with humans and humans’ union with Jesus Christ are needed. See 趙 紫 宸：《神 學 四 講》，頁 556。[Chao, Four Lectures on Christian Theology, 556.] 43. Farrer is an Anglican theologian. To maintain his idea of human free action in salvation, Farrer argues that while God as Creator works first for human salvation, he also grants humans the power to act in response. As a result, human action is also God’s own action. See Austin Farrer, Faith and Speculation (New York: New York University Press, 1967), 52–67. 44. 趙紫宸：《繫獄記》，頁 447–48，461。[Chao, My Experience in Prison, 447–48, 461.] 45. 趙紫宸：〈基督教進解〉，頁 72。[Chao, “Interpretation of Christianity,” 72.] 46. 趙紫宸：《繫獄記》，頁 448。[Chao, My Experience in Prison, 448.] 47. 趙紫宸：《聖保羅傳》，頁 559–63。[Chao, Biography of St. Paul, 559–63.]

182

Yongtao Chen

still to God’s grace. Only in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ can the love and grace of God be clearly and abundantly revealed to humanity.48 Why, then, do believers need to be in union with Jesus Christ? On the one hand, according to Chao, because of God’s love Jesus Christ must come into the world and into human life to be made flesh for the sake of human salvation. Jesus Christ must be identified with sinful humanity.49 On the other, it is then necessary for humanity to identify or be in union with Jesus Christ in the life of faith. While Christ and humanity are united, humanity possesses the power to conquer sin and evil, completing good works so that people may lead lives acceptable to God. In one’s union with Jesus Christ, one needs first to die with him and then to live with him. In this mystical union, one can have one’s union with God in Jesus Christ.50 It is “only when man is united with the risen Lord, sharing life with him, can man have power to conquer sin and death.”51 This theme of human union with Christ is also underscored by the Anglican tradition.52 According to tongyilun: Salvation is based on creation, started from incarnation, achieved in the crucifixion, revealed in the resurrection, completed in the ascension, and perfected in the advent of the Spirit at Pentecost, and in the declaration of Judgment.53

What did this statement mean to Chao? For him, the aim of salvation is “to recreate a new heaven and a new earth,” “to recreate a new life, new society, and new humankind.” The salvation of Jesus Christ is then “the salvation of the wholeness and entirety which contains all things.”54 For this reason, Chao insisted that Jesus Christ had to be a man and to be identified with humanity. Christ also demands that humans be identified or in union with him. In a broader sense, therefore, for Chao human salvation has a future dimension that will be completed in the actualization of new creation and new humanity. Chao interpreted soteriology as both human reconciliation with God and human sanctification in light of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Therefore, Chao’s soteriology includes the perfection of the Christian life. It was Chao’s contention then that soteriology is a continuous process, which requires a dual identification between Jesus Christ and humanity. Indeed, Chao 48. 趙紫宸：《聖保羅傳》，頁 293，328，330。[Chao, Biography of St. Paul, 293, 328, 330.] 49. 趙紫宸：《神學四講》，頁 561。[Chao, Four Lectures on Christian Theology, 561.] 50. 趙紫宸：《聖保羅傳》，頁 447–48。[Chao, Biography of St. Paul, 447–48.] 51. Ibid., 265; 趙紫宸：〈基督教進解〉，頁 123。[Chao, “Interpretation of Christianity,” 123.] 52. The Anglican tradition emphasizes that believers may be united with Christ through sacraments. For example, the Anglican reformers like Richard Hooker, Thomas Cranmer, and John Jewel, all posited a close relationship between baptism and justification, between Eucharist and sanctification. 53. 趙紫宸：《神學四講》，頁 556。[Chao, Four Lectures on Christian Theology, 556.] 54. Ibid., 558.

T. C. Chao and the Sheng Kung Hui 183

had attempted in his entire system of theological thinking to integrate religion and morality. In his tongyilun, this attempt can still be observed. However, Chao now recognized the limits of human knowledge, will, and power, and human inability to escape from suffering and sin to reach human salvation. While he continued to emphasize the importance of morality in human life, he now recognized that humanity was unable to live out a moral life without God’s grace. Chao made a clear distinction between justification and sanctification. In a broad sense, Chao maintained that justification, sanctification, and glorification constitute a progressive process of salvation. According to Chao, sanctification is the process of change in a believer’s life from sinfulness to holiness. It includes good works, which require human endeavor. Human salvation consists not only of justification but also sanctification, and moreover, reaching glorification through sanctification.55 He also emphasized the necessity of regeneration in sanctification, which may reveal the impact of John Wesley’s idea of justification and sanctification and the influence of the Anglican tradition on Chao’s understanding of justification and sanctification.56 Through this emphasis on sanctification, Chao’s interpretation of God’s grace moves from a justifying grace to a sanctifying one. According to Chao, God bestows on humanity not only justifying grace but also sanctifying grace. Sanctification is thus the continuing work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer. In the process of sanctification, sanctifying grace precipitates the maturation, both moral and spiritual, of Christians. Chao held that, in Christian life, our love of God is always inseparable from our love of our neighbors. Because of the work of the Holy Spirit, Christians have the capacity to grow up in love.57 Continual growth for Christians is at the heart of Chao’s soteriology. To make Christianity relevant to his own context, Chao refused any dichotomist view of justification and good works. He regarded good works as a consequence of justification, but not its prerequisite. Chao maintained that God has bestowed on us the judicial status of righteousness, but he also desires to make us righteous in our nature. In this sense, sanctification means actualizing what has already been declared by God to us in justification.

55. Ibid. 56. According to John Wesley, salvation, overcoming original sin, begins with justification, continues in sanctification, and ends in glorification. Wesley observed that justification is the pardoning of our sin. It is making us righteous and just before God. It is only possible by an act of God through the atoning blood of his son, Jesus Christ. It is something God does for us. Justification can only be known by faith. It is not earned, nor can it be attained in any way outside the mercies of faith. Justification relates to that which God does for us, and sanctification (including regeneration, or new birth) is that which God does in us. 57. 趙紫宸：〈用愛心建立團契〉，燕京研究院編，《趙紫宸文集第四卷》，頁 164。[T. C. 《神 Chao, “Establishing the Fellowship with a Loving Heart,” in Works, vol. 4: 164]; 趙紫宸： 學四講》，頁 563。[Chao, Four Lectures on Christian Theology, 563.]

184

Yongtao Chen

According to Chao, sanctification is the work of God’s sanctifying grace, which is the continuous internal work of God’s Spirit but is not an external aid given by God. Good works in sanctification are not due to human merit but are the fruits of the Holy Spirit. In this sense, human cooperation with the work of Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit does not aim at the completion of human salvation. Nor is it a prerequisite of salvation but a fruit of God’s justifying and sanctifying grace. Moreover, sanctification has a future orientation, which is our future hope. Only in this sense, Chao referred to human perfection as the completion of salvation.58 God does not make our effort unnecessary but rather makes it effective.59 Glüer contends that Chao failed to make a clear distinction between justification and sanctification and that Chao’s soteriology is unbalanced because of his interest in sanctification, such that attainment of human salvation is finally based on sanctification and that sanctification nullifies the meaning of justification.60 I both agree and disagree with Glüer here. In a broad sense, Chao made no strict distinction between justification and sanctification. It is not necessary, in his view, to make a rigid distinction between these two in terms of a holistic view of justification and sanctification. Chao declared that justification is the starting point of sanctification and sanctification is a process by which salvation can be completed. They are not two different coins but two sides of the same coin.61 However, similarly to Anglican reformer Richard Hooker,62 Chao did indeed make a clear distinction between justification and sanctification. In a narrow sense, Chao repeatedly maintained that salvation as justification and reconciliation was completed in Jesus’s death and resurrection. Moreover, owing to his emphasis on the role of the Holy Spirit in human salvation,63 Chao had little difficulty in making sanctification his major concern. For him, sanctification is the work of Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit. Therefore, as Glüer articulates, stressing sanctification may fulfill the meaning of justification but not empty it of meaning.64 Although Chao made sanctification the core process 58. 趙 紫 宸：《神 學 四 講》， 頁 556，558。[Chao, Four Lectures on Christian Theology, 556, 558.] 59. Jerry Bridges, The Discipline of Grace: God’s Role and Our Role in the Pursuit of Holiness (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1994), 133. 60. Glüer, Theological Thought of T. C. Chao, 221, 223. 61. 趙紫宸：《神學四講》，頁 558。[Chao, Four Lectures on Christian Theology, 558.] 62. According to Hooker, those who believe in Jesus Christ may obtain a glorifying righteousness in the world to come. However, they are able to have a justifying and sanctifying righteousness in this world. The glorifying righteousness is perfect and intrinsic, while the justifying righteousness is perfect but not intrinsic, and the sanctifying righteousness is intrinsic but not perfect. See Richard Hooker, “Of Justification,” in The Folger Library Edition of the Works of Richard Hooker, vol. 5, Tractates and Sermons, ed. W. Speed Hill (Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1990), 109. 63. 趙紫宸：《聖保羅傳》，頁 212–13，226。[Chao, Biography of St. Paul, 212–13, 226.] 64. Glüer, Theological Thought of T. C. Chao, 223.

T. C. Chao and the Sheng Kung Hui 185

of human salvation, he did not downplay the doctrine of justification by faith. Moreover, he set the doctrine as the departure point and foundation of human sanctification.65 Chao highlighted the significance of sanctification in humanity’s union (or, in Chao’s own term, “identification”) with Jesus Christ, and then with God. How then, can the process of sanctification take place in Christian life? Chao mentioned several elements clarifying that although he made an emphatic appeal to sanctification, he had no intention of downplaying the doctrine of justification by faith.66 For Chao, sanctification is impossible without justification by faith. In his Four Lectures on Christian Theology, after pointing out “the problematic element” in each classical theory of atonement, Chao put forward six points upon which he believed Chinese Christians could better understand the meaning of the death of Jesus Christ.67 Chao attempted his own interpretation 65. As Chao says, “The disciples of Jesus should be those who are justified by faith [Yixin weizhi, 以信為直 ]. They should be saints.” 趙紫宸：《聖保羅傳》，頁 313。[Chao, Biography of St. Paul, 313.] 66. “First, men and women should ask Christ in sincerity for the ability to repent and return to God so that they may depart from all sins and offenses in order to obtain God’s forgiveness. Second, they should have faith in God. Man enters the life of Jesus Christ through faith, and then in God’s eyes man is the man who has been justified by God. This is God’s grace. Third, they should attend the fellowship of believers, being a member of the Christian church. In the early 1940s, Chao began to emphasize the function of the church in Christian life. Fourth, they should serve society and the crowd, preaching the Gospel to the world. Each person should also bear his own cross, following his Lord every day. Fifth, men and women should enter deeply the realm in which they can be sanctified, participating in the resurrected life of Jesus Christ, and walking in his steps.” Owing to the necessity of the union of men and women with Jesus Christ, Chao now gives great significance to sacraments, especially baptism and the Eucharist. Chao believes in the certainty that Christians can be united with Jesus Christ, and then with God in a mystical way through the sacraments. See 趙紫宸：〈基督教進解〉，頁 148。[Chao, “Interpretation of Christianity,” 148]; See also 趙 紫宸：《聖保羅傳》，頁 328。[Chao, Biography of St. Paul, 328.] 67. The six points are listed as follows. First, we should know that God is fully present in Jesus Christ and the Father and the Son have the same mind and that the death of the Son is the death of God and the sacrifice of the Son is the sacrifice of God. Second, God is filled with anger toward sin. Sin is the cause of death, and death is the result of sin. In this cause-andeffect relationship, we see the anger of God. If this cause-and-effect relationship is not broken, the anger of God will not cease. Third, the death of Jesus Christ reveals the love of God taken to its climax. Jesus Christ could disclose the true love of God without his death on the cross, but he could not disclose the true love of God in its finality. Fourth, the death of Jesus Christ unveils human sin at its deepest and most rotten level. The crucifixion of Jesus Christ who is the most holy, most good, and absolute love reveals clearly the hatefulness and ugliness of human sin. Fifth, the death of Jesus Christ demonstrates the fact that it is Jesus Christ’s will not to compromise with sin and evil even a little and that he attacked sin and evil with all his heart, all his strength, and all his life. The death of Jesus Christ is seemingly the failure of holy goodness and essentially the victory of sin and evil. Sixth, Jesus Christ is the source of the holy goodness, the basis of kindness; neither holy goodness nor the holy kindness can be in any way rotten. Therefore, he died on the cross and was raised

186

Yongtao Chen

of the term “substitution,” interpreting the biblical phrase “the righteous taking the place of the unrighteous” in both its negative and positive aspects. In a negative sense, Chao insisted that Jesus Christ cannot substitute for us, building up our own virtues for us. More positively, he maintained that Jesus Christ did indeed substitute for us in doing those things that we were absolutely unable to do. He revealed to us the way by which sin and evil have been conquered and death has been defeated.68 In Chao’s understanding, the “union or identification theory” reveals not only the mutual identification between Jesus Christ and humans but also the true meaning of God’s grace. Influenced by the Anglican tradition, Chao’s later soteriology is incarnationcentered. Chao discovered in incarnation not only salvation as God’s sole grace, but also the veneration of moral virtue in Jesus’s own deeds. Therefore, human salvation must have an effect on human moral behavior. The redeemed individual and the redeemed community must have moral life and moral deeds. Here Chao establishes again the connection between Christianity and ethics.69 According to Chao, because of the truth of incarnation and God’s grace in Jesus Christ, it is possible for humans, as both redeemed and sinful, to obey the commandments of God, that is, moral law. Moreover, one’s obedience to moral law means following one’s redeemed nature.70 In his tongyilun, Chao kept a balance of humanity’s impotence and humanity’s potential to be “coworkers” in God’s action. No matter how much he concentrated on the human response to God’s grace, it is clear that human salvation is merely God’s grace.71 As Glüer has rightly pointed out, since the late 1930s Chao had accepted the reformers’ idea of sola gratia.72 Moreover, although he regarded salvation as a process and focused primarily on sanctification, as I have analyzed above, when Chao said that sanctification is the completion of salvation, he in fact insisted that salvation was entirely the work of God’s grace. According to Chao, the work of perfection of the Christian life is still the work of God’s grace, the work of Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit.

from the dead three days later. He has defeated sin and evil with his death, opening up the door of eternal life and building up for man a way which is “both a new and living way.” See 趙紫宸：《神學四講》，頁 552–53。[Chao, Four Lectures on Christian Theology, 552–53.] 68. Ibid., 553–54. 69. Ibid., 559. 70. Ibid. 71. 趙紫宸：〈基督教進解〉，頁 176。[Chao, “Interpretation of Christianity,” 176]; 趙紫宸： 《聖保羅傳》，頁 497。[Chao, Biography of St. Paul, 497]; 趙紫宸：《神學四講》，頁 556。 [Chao, Four Lectures on Christian Theology, 556.] 72. Glüer, Theological Thought of T. C. Chao, 214.

T. C. Chao and the Sheng Kung Hui 187

Yixin weizhi (以信為直): Chao’s Interpretation of “Justification by Faith” Yixin weizhi, Chao’s Chinese translation of “justification by faith,” is an important concept in his later soteriological thinking. Based on his understanding of Christology and soteriology, Chao saw the necessity to translate “justification by faith” (yinxin chengyi, 因信稱義) as yixin weizhi (以信爲直, “having faith in order to be regarded by God as upright”). According to Chao, the word zhi (直, straight) is a legal term that means “upright and honest” in Chinese; the word yi (義, righteousness) is a moral term that means “morally just.”73 Righteousness refers to one’s inner initiative, which is in accordance with one’s own personhood. Therefore, God is unable to call a morally unrighteous person righteous. However, owing to his love, God regards sinners who believe in Christ as straight (or upright), that is, sinless. Chao’s translation of “justification by faith” as yixin weizhi might disclose an intention to maintain an ethical concern in his soteriological thinking. According to Chao, against the background of traditional Chinese culture, the concept of yinxin chengyi includes the meaning of moral causation. Thus, it is easy for Chinese Christians to misunderstand. For many Chinese Christians, to not yet have been justified by God as righteous (in a moral sense) means that we can do whatever we wish, regardless of whether our actions are morally good or bad. Therefore, to avoid the danger of fideism and antinomianism, Chao suggested that “justification by faith” be translated as yixin weizhi.74 In his Four Lectures on Christian Theology, Chao gave a further interpretation of yixin weizhi. To complete the way of salvation, Jesus Christ did what he had to do for our salvation, such as his incarnation, building up his own virtue, his death on the cross, his resurrection from the dead, his ascension to the heaven, and his sending of the Holy Spirit. This is the grace of God. However, we must also respond actively to God’s grace, such as by our faith; our repentance; our spiritual cultivation; our witness; our service to others; our victory over sin and death through suffering, temptations and trials; and the working out of our salvation. This is an action in nonaction, letting Jesus Christ work in us.75 Philip L. Wickeri observes that justification has never been prominent in Anglican theology and did not define the Anglican position on Christian faith, although it is a part of the Thirty-Nine Articles.76 Anglicanism has always emphasized a sacramental understanding of the incarnation rather than a 73. 趙紫宸：《聖保羅傳》，頁 325–26。[Chao, Biography of St. Paul, 325–26.] 74. Ibid., 326–27. 75. See 趙 紫 宸：《神 學 四 講》，頁 554。[Chao, Four Lectures on Christian Theology, 554]; 趙 紫宸：《繫獄記》，頁 461。[Chao, My Experience in Prison, 461]; 趙紫宸：〈用愛心建立 團契〉，頁 164。[Chao, “Establishing the Fellowship with a Loving Heart,” 164.] 76. Philip L. Wickeri, Reconstructing Christianity in China: K. H. Ting and the Chinese Church (2007), 349–50.

188

Yongtao Chen

forensic understanding of salvation. Some strands of Anglican theology have at times been tempted to overemphasize the doctrine of the incarnation and to treat it as though the incarnation were in itself salvific.77 This preoccupation with the incarnation principally guided Anglican theologians between the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century.78 Chao’s idea that human life is a sacrament (which was later Chao’s motto) and his interpretation of “justification by faith” as yixin weizhi may reveal not only his intention of theological contextualization but also the influence of Anglican tradition. When Li Jieren discusses K. H. Ting’s teaching on de-emphasizing justification, he relates it to an Anglican understanding of the incarnation. Li gives the following reasons for this: first, Anglicanism interprets the incarnation as the basis of justification, which involves sanctification. According to Anglican tradition, salvation through the grace of God by faith in Jesus Christ involves not only the forgiveness of sin but also the call to a holy life; second, Anglicanism interprets social action as part of sanctification. In Anglicanism, sanctification as the fruit of salvation—justification indicates that the acceptance of God’s grace is not merely an internal and mental activity but is also visibly manifested in the transformation of the Christian lifestyle.79 These reasons may also apply to our explanation of Chao’s interpretation of justification, which is within the framework of Anglicanism. Within the Anglican framework, Chao attempted, with his translation of “justification by faith” as yixin weizhi, once again to maintain salvation as God’s sole grace by faith in Jesus Christ, while giving ethics a place in his soteriological thinking—an approach relevant to the Chinese context. For Chao, it is only in the process of sanctification that it is possible for justified Christians to become moral (yi) through their efforts. In any case, Chao indicated that a living faith could only be demonstrated through living a Christian life. In a 1950 article, Chao pointed out that the Chinese church should pay attention to five focal points in undertaking reform. Chao emphatically indicated in the first point that a living faith was based not on one’s words but on what one lived out. Therefore, Chao reminded his readers that “Chinese Christians should inscribe the two characters shi jian (praxis) in their hearts, and should also bear in mind that an authentic faith is alive and moving, not dull and dead.”80 77. Reginald Fuller, “The Incarnation: More Than Affirmation,” http://www.amityfoundation.org/ eng/sites/default/files/publication_pdf/CTR_25.pdf (accessed November 7, 2014). 78. See Li Jieren, In Search of the Via Media between Christ and Marx: A Study of Bishop Ding Guangxun’s Contextual Theology (Lund: Lund University Center for Theology and Religious Studies, 2008), 343–44. 79. Ibid., 344–45. 80. 趙紫宸：〈中國基督教教會改革的推進〉，燕京研究院編，《趙紫宸文集第四卷》，頁 136。[T. C. Chao, “The Promotion of the Reform of Chinese Christian Church,” in Works, vol. 4: 136]. Chao’s idea here is similar to the Anglican reformer Thomas Cranmer’s idea of “the lively Christian faith.” Although faith is not due to human merits, faith and human

T. C. Chao and the Sheng Kung Hui 189

Figure 27  Professor T. C. Chao with students, 1950.

Undeniably, Chao later made Christian faith based solely on God’s grace the foundation of Christian life. Only by God’s grace can we have faith and can we grow in that faith. For Chao, faith contains active and passive aspects, both relying only on God’s pure grace and our own positive response to God’s grace.81 Moreover, in light of his emphasis on the role of the Holy Spirit in the process of sanctification, Chao, realizing their significance in Christian life, now added a great concern with the sacraments. Chao thus related the sacraments to Christian union with Christ. For him, the sacraments are the medium through which believers and God can be united in a mystical way. The sacraments are signs or symbols, by which it is possible for Christians to actualize mystically their union with Christ, and then

merits cannot be totally separated. Faith is not only the acceptance of traditional doctrines as orthodox but also the living out of a righteous life. This outer life includes conversion, sanctification, and the fruits of the Holy Spirit. These are the result of justification. See Thomas Cranmer, “A Short Declaration of the True and Lively Christian Faith,” in Miscellaneous Writings and Letters of Thomas Cranmer, ed. John E. Cox (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1946), 135–41. According to Cranmer, though the doctrine of justification by faith means that we have to declare the giving-up of our own “righteousness,” which itself is insufficient for us to be regarded as “righteous,” we must still have a “living faith.” Because of this “living faith,” it is possible for those who have been regarded by God as “righteous” to bear the fruit of holiness (136). 81. 趙紫宸：《神學四講》，頁 554–55。[Chao, Four Lectures on Christian Theology, 554–55.]

190

Yongtao Chen

with God himself.82 Herein, we may perceive Anglicanism’s impact on Chao’s thinking.83 In Anglican tradition the sacraments are regarded as the outer signs of inner grace (faith). Therefore, both faith and sacraments are radically necessary in the Christian life. In our faith, baptism and the Eucharist can be the outer medium by which our life can be connected and united with the life of the resurrected Jesus. In the Anglican tradition, baptism is thus regarded as the intermediary material cause for justification, while the Eucharist is regarded as the intermediary material cause for sanctification. Without faith, however, the effect of baptism and the Eucharist will be nullified.84 In a broad sense, Chao rightly captured the threefold meaning of justification as revealed in the Bible. The Bible speaks of justification as having already occurred, justification as though it is presently occurring, and a future time at which we will be justified (glorification). It is thus a past event, a present reality, and a future hope. Therefore, there is a future dimension of justification. In our glorification, we will be made righteous in our very nature. For this reason Chao regarded justification, which is closely related to sanctification, as the starting point—the core—of human salvation.85 While justification is God’s sole grace, sanctification is truly and intrinsically a transformation of humanity. Therefore, as Charles Moeller and Gerard Philips asserted, “Sanctification is real and intrinsic. Justification and sanctification are in fact inseparable. They are the two mutually complementary . . . aspects of the same thing, both the outer and the intrinsic.”86 According to Alister McGrath, a contemporary Anglican theologian, it is better for us to interpret “righteousness” as the change or renewal of our relationship with God and our identity, instead of as moral “righteousness.” In justification, God has declared that those who believe in him have a brandnew relationship with him. The righteousness of God is an extrinsic righteousness, which is in faith regarded as our own righteousness. Justification is thus our acceptance of God’s grace but not our own achievement or merit.87 Chao now well understood that justification was something we receive as a gift, not

82. Ibid., 555; 趙 紫 宸：〈基 督 教 進 解〉， 頁 154–56。[Chao, “Interpretation of Christianity,” 154–56]; 趙紫宸：《聖保羅傳》，頁 316。[Chao, Biography of St. Paul, 316.] 83. See Sykes and Booty, Study of Anglicanism, 253–55, 272–83. 84. William G. Witt, “Anglican Reflection on Justification by Faith,” 14. http://www.amityfoundation.org/eng/sites/default/files/publication_pdf/CTR_25.pdf (accessed November 7, 2014). 85. 趙紫宸：《聖保羅傳》，頁 554，556。[Chao, Biography of St. Paul, 554, 556.] 86. Charles Moeller and Gerard Philips, The Theology of Grace and the Oecumenical Movement, trans. R. A. Willsion (London: A. R. Mowbray, 1961), 33. 87. According to McGrath, a theologian nurtured by Anglican tradition, justification is a past, completed reality. We do not strive to continue to be justified. Justification is a declaration of the Christian’s righteousness, not the process of becoming righteous. It speaks of our status before God, not our nature. See Alister McGrath, “Justification by Faith,” in Studies in Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 396.

T. C. Chao and the Sheng Kung Hui 191

something we deserve. This understanding then provides a place for human moral responsibility or effort in sanctification.88 Chao further explored the doctrine of justification by faith in a 1950 discussion on the issue of reform in the Chinese church. He articulated this doctrine not from the perspective of soteriology but from the perspective of ecclesiology. Chao pointed out that the Chinese church could not asymmetrically uphold the doctrine of justification by faith, and he rightly indicated that the Chinese church could not regard this doctrine as an independent principle.89 The doctrine of justification by faith carries a necessary historical significance. However, when the Chinese church needs to be liberated from the malpractice of denominationalism, we should emphasize building up the fellowship with love as the fundamental principle for reform of the church, which may rectify the deviation of liberal individualism.90

Concluding Remarks From the above analysis, it is not difficult for us to see the impact of the Anglican tradition on Chao’s later theological thinking. Both the early Chao and the later Chao had, as always, demonstrated concern for ethics and morality. In the cultural and social context in which he lived and theologized, Chao believed that religion and ethics were inseparable. Religion without ethics is dead; ethics without religion is empty. In his early period, Chao had found a method of dealing with the relationship between religion and ethics in such Western trends of thought as liberal theology, the social Gospel, and the philosophy of personalism. In his later period, as the result of his theological reorientation, it was God’s special revelation in Jesus Christ, but not human religious experience, that became the major source and norm of his theological thinking. Because of his historical and social situation, however, Chao maintained a place for morality in his soteriological thinking. Chao likely found a similarity between the theological approach of via media in the Anglican tradition and his own theological approach. Chao’s Methodist background and his theological purport and interest gave him little difficulty in his acceptance of the Anglican tradition. In his soteriology, when he discussed the issue of human salvation, he both emphasized God’s sole grace and gave human moral life a role in human sanctification. As a scholar, Chao knew the Anglican tradition would allow him to both accept the doctrine of incarnation,

88. 趙紫宸：《聖保羅傳》，頁 554。[Chao, Biography of St. Paul, 554.] 89. However, Chao emphasized at the same time that we as Protestants could not abandon this doctrine, which contains the truth of individual salvation. 趙紫宸：〈用愛心建立團契〉，頁 162。[Chao, “Establishing the Fellowship with a Loving Heart,” 162.] 90. 趙紫宸：〈中國基督教教會改革的推進〉，頁 140–41。[Chao, “Promotion of the Reform of Chinese Christian Church,” 140–41.]

192

Yongtao Chen

and at the same time provide a necessary place for the Christian life in his thinking. Rather than assess Chao’s later theology as a response to a turn to neo-orthodoxy, future research on Chao should pay more attention to the impact of the Anglican tradition. Further examination of the influence of the Anglican tradition will lead to a better and deeper understanding of Chao’s later soteriology.

Appendix 1 The Succession of Anglican and Episcopal Bishops in China, 1844–2014 1. The Anglican and Episcopal (Sheng Kung Hui) bishops in nineteenth- and earlytwentieth-century China were from various mission societies in the United Kingdom; the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America; and, in the case of Bishop White, the Anglican Church in Canada. Within their dioceses, they represented different episcopal jurisdictions. 2. Bishops in the Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui (CHSKH) were, after 1912, subject to its Canons and Constitution. Eleven bishops were received into the CHSKH in 1912. Up until the late 1940s, British and American bishops were appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury or the American House of Bishops and received into the CHSKH. Chinese bishops, beginning with Bishop Sing Tsae-Seng in 1918, were elected in China according to the Canons and Constitution of the CHSKH. The CHSKH came to an end in 1958, but the bishops retained their titles. Thus, no ending date appears for bishoprics that began in the 1950s. 3. The Diocese of Hong Kong and Macao (originally the Diocese of South China and including the original Diocese of Victoria) became a detached diocese of the CHSKH on July 8, 1951. Bishop R. O. Hall continued as bishop of this diocese. Bishop Baker was the first elected bishop of the diocese. In 1998, the Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui (HKSKH) became a province, and Bishop Peter Kwong was elected as its first archbishop. The HKSKH encompasses the Dioceses of Hong Kong Island, Eastern Kowloon, Western Kowloon, and the Missionary Area of Macao. 4. The Episcopal Diocese of Taiwan was formally established in 1954, and is part of Province VIII of the Episcopal Church, with headquarters in the United States. This provisional listing of bishops contains many lacunae and possible errors. The editor of this volume would be interested in constructive suggestions for improvement and amendment. He may be reached by writing: The HKSKH Archives, 1 Lower Albert Road, Central, Hong Kong, China.

References: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

《聖公會報》(The Chinese Churchman), 1908–51. 《中華基督教會年鑒》，1915。 《中華聖公會年鑒》，上海：總議會中央辦事處，1949。 “Mimeograph Listing of Chinese Bishops,” Shanghai, circa 1947. G. F. S. Gray with Martha Lund Smalley, Anglicans in China: A History of the Zhonghua Shenggong Hui (Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui) (New Haven, CT: Episcopal China Mission History Project, 1996).

194

Appendix 1

6. Online resources: Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org), the Biographical Dic­tion­ ary of Chinese Christianity (http://www.bdcconline.net/en/), Project Canterbury: Documenting Anglican History Online (http://anglicanhistory.org), and CSCA Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui Source Documents 中 華 聖 公 會 歷 史 資 料 (http:// anglicanhistory.org/asia/skh/).

Note: On June 26, 1988, the Rev. Shen Yifan (沈以藩) and the Rev. Sun Yanli (孫彥理) were consecrated as bishops by the Shanghai Christian Council at Mu’en Church in Shanghai. Bishop Shen was from the CHSKH, Bishop Sun was from the Methodist tradition. Both were senior leaders in China’s postdenominational Christian Church. Consecrating Bishops Shen and Sun were four of the six remaining bishops from the former CHSKH: Bishop Mao Keh-ts’ung (Mao Kezhong), Bishop Wang Shenyin, Bishop Xue Pingxi, and Bishop K. H. Ting. Also participating in the consecration were three senior pastors from other traditions. It was clearly stated at the time that this consecration was not a revival of the Sheng Kung Hui episcopacy.1 Bishop Shen and Bishop Sun are, therefore, not included in this listing because they were not diocesan bishops, nor were they related to the CHSKH, which had ceased to exist in 1958. Although the consecrations represent a new line of bishops in China, no other bishops have been consecrated since. The death of Bishop K. H. Ting in November 2012 may be said to mark the end of the Sheng Kung Hui episcopacy in Mainland China.

：頁 2–3。 1. 參 尹 襄，〈在 建 設 教 會 的 道 路 上 邁 出 新 的 一 步〉，《天 風》9（1988 年 9 月） [Yin Xiang, “A New Step on the Road to Building Up the Church,” Tian Feng 9 (September 1988): 2–3.]

Figure 28  Last photo of Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui House of Bishops, May 1956. Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui Archives.

Name (Chinese) 中文姓名

文惠廉

施美夫 四美主教

韋廉臣

柯爾福 何譯福

祿賜

包爾騰 包約翰

施約瑟

史嘉樂

Name (English) 英文姓名

William Jones Boone

George Smith

Channing Moore Williams

Charles Richard Alford

William Armstrong Russell

John Shaw Burdon

Samuel Isaac Joseph Schereschewsky

Charles Perry Scott

English 英國

1847.06.27

1831.05.06

1821

Irish 愛爾蘭

American 美國

1816.08.13

English 英國

1826.12.12

1829.07.18

American 美國

Scottish 蘇格蘭

1815.06.19

1811.07.01

Date of Birth 出生日期

English 英國

American 美國

Nationality (City/Province) 國籍 (城市/省份)

1927.02.13

1906.10.15

1907.01.05

1879.10.05

1898.06.13

1910.12.02

1871.12.14

1864.07.17

Date of Death 離世日期

Table 1  Anglican and Episcopal Bishops in China, 1844–1912 歷任在華聖公宗主教, 1844–1912

1880.10.28

1877.10.31

1874.03.15

1872.12.15

1867.02.02

1866.10.03

1849.05.29

1844.10.26

Date of Consecration 祝聖日期

St. Paul’s Cathedral, London 英國倫敦聖保羅座堂

Grace Church, New York City 美國紐約聖恩堂

St. Mary’s Church, Lambeth 英國蘭伯聖馬利亞堂

Westminster Abbey 英國西敏寺

Canterbury Cathedral 英國坎特伯利座堂

St. John’s Chapel, New York City 美國紐約聖約翰教堂

Canterbury Cathedral 英國坎特伯利座堂

St. Peter’s Church, Philadelphia 美國費城聖彼得堂

Place of Consecration 祝聖地點

1872–1879 1874–1897

1877–1883

1880–1913

North China 華北 Hong Kong / Victoria 香港/維多利亞 Shanghai Jiangsu 上海江蘇 North China 華北

1867–1872

1865–1874 Shanghai Jiangsu 上海江蘇 Hong Kong / Victoria 香港/維多利亞

1849–1865

1844–1864

Shanghai 上海 Hong Kong / Victoria 香港/維多利亞

Duration of Bishopric 主教任期

Episcopal Jurisdiction/Diocese 管轄地區/教區

Name (Chinese) 中文姓名

慕稼谷

小文惠廉

郭斐蔚

蓋為良

霍約瑟

殷德生

艾立夫

吳德施 又譯為 魯茲

Name (English) 英文姓名

George Evans Moule

William Jones Boone II

Frederick Rogers Graves

William Wharton Cassels

Joseph Charles Hoare

James Addison Ingle

Geoffrey Durnford (G. D.) Iliff

Logan Herbert Roots

Table 1  (continued)

1870.07.27

American 美國

1851.11.05

English 英國

1867.10.07

1858.03.11

English 英國

English 英國

1858.10.24

American 美國

1867.03.11

1846.05.17

American 美國

American 美國

1828.01.28

Date of Birth 出生日期

English 英國

Nationality (City/Province) 國籍 (城市/省份)

1945.09.23

1946.06.10

1903.12.07

1906.09.18

1925.11.07

1940.05.17

1891.10.05

1912.03.03

Date of Death 離世日期

1904.11.14

1903.10.28

1902.02.24

1898.06.11

1895.10.18

1893.06.14

1884.10.28

1880.10.28

Date of Consecration 祝聖日期

Emanuel Church, Boston 美國波士頓以馬內 利堂

Lambeth Palace Chapel 英國蘭伯皇宮小聖堂

St. Paul’s Cathedral, Hankow (Hankou) 中國漢口聖保羅座堂

St. Paul’s Cathedral, London 英國倫敦聖保羅座堂

Westminster Abbey 英國西敏寺

St. Thomas Church, New York City 美國紐約聖多馬堂

Trinity Cathedral, Shanghai 中國上海聖三一座堂

St. Paul’s Cathedral, London 英國倫敦聖保羅座堂

Place of Consecration 祝聖地點

1901–1903

1903–1920

1904–1938

Hankow 漢口 Shantung (Shandong) 山東 Hankow 漢口

Table 1  (to be continued)

1898–1906

1893–1937 Shanghai Jiangsu 上海江蘇

Hong Kong / Victoria 香港/維多利亞

1883–1891 Shanghai Jiangsu 上海江蘇

1895–1925

1880–1907

Mid-China Chekiang (Zhejiang) 華中 浙江

West China 華西

Duration of Bishopric 主教任期

Episcopal Jurisdiction/Diocese 管轄地區/教區

Name (Chinese) 中文姓名

貝嘉德

倫義華

麥樂義

班為蘭

懷履光

韓仁敦

Name (English) 英文姓名

Horace McCartie Eyre Price

Gerard Heath Lander

Herbert James Molony

William Banister

William Charles White

Daniel Trumbull Huntington

Table 1  (continued)

1873

1868.08.04

American 美國

1865.06.02

Irish 愛爾蘭

Canadian 加拿大

1860.08.14

English 英國

1855.05.31

1863.08.03

English 英國

English 英國

Date of Birth 出生日期

Nationality (City/Province) 國籍 (城市/省份)

1950.05.01

1960.01.24

1928.02.26

1939.07.22

1934.11.14

1941.11.21

Date of Death 離世日期

1912.03.25

1909.11.30

1909.11.30

1908.01.25

1907.06.29

1906.02.02

Date of Consecration 祝聖日期

St. John’s ProCathedral, Shanghai 中國上海聖約翰 代主教座堂

St. James’ Cathedral, Toronto 加拿大多倫多聖雅各 座堂

Westminster Abbey 英國西敏寺

Westminster Abbey 英國西敏寺

Lambeth Parish Church 英國蘭伯牧區聖堂

Westminster Abbey 英國西敏寺

Place of Consecration 祝聖地點

1909–1923

1909–1934

1912–1940

Kwangsi-Hunan (Guangxi-Hunan) 桂湘 Honan (Henan) 河南 Anking (Anqing) 安慶

1907–1928

1907–1920

Hong Kong / Victoria 香港/維多利亞 Chekiang (Zhejiang) 浙江

1906–1918

Duration of Bishopric 主教任期

Fukien (Fujian) 福建

Episcopal Jurisdiction/Diocese 管轄地區/教區

Name (Chinese) 中文姓名

鄂方智

恒約翰

沈載琛 原名沈再生

杜培義 都培禮

史多馬

慕而立 莫如德

侯禮敦

Name (English) 英文姓名

Francis (“Frank”) Lushington Norris

John Hind

Sing Tsae-Seng Shen Tsai-Sheng (T. S.) Shen Zaichen

Charles Ridley Duppuy

Thomas Arnold Scott

Howard West Kilvinton Mowll

John Holden

1879.06.09

1890.02.02

English 英國

English 英國 1882

1881.09.22

English 英國

English 英國

1940.09.07

1861.11.17

Chinese Ningpo (Ningbo) 中國 寧波

1949.08.14

1958.10.24

1956.03.29

1944.09.26

1958.07.07

1945.07.02

1879.02.17

1864.09.01

English 英國

Date of Death 離世日期

Irish 愛爾蘭

Date of Birth 出生日期

Nationality (City/Province) 國籍 (城市/省份)

Table 2  Bishops of Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui, 1912–1958 歷任中華聖公會主教, 1912–1958

1923.07.25

1922.06.24

1921.07.25

1920.06.24

1918.10.02

1918.10.18

1914.01.01

Date of Consecration 祝聖日期

Lambeth Palace Chapel 英國蘭伯皇宮小聖堂

Westminster Abbey 英國西敏寺

Westminster Abbey 英國西敏寺

St. Paul’s Cathedral, London 英國倫敦聖保羅座堂

Church of Our Saviour, Shanghai 中國上海救主堂

Lambeth Palace Chapel 英國蘭伯皇宮小聖堂

Canterbury Cathedral 英國坎特伯利座堂

Place of Consecration 祝聖地點

1918–1931 Assistant Bishop

1920–1932

Chekiang (Zhejiang) 浙江 Hong Kong / Victoria 香港/維多利亞

1924–1933; 1933–1936; 1936–1937 Kwangsi-Hunan (Guangxi-Hunan) West China West Szechuan (Sichuan) 桂湘 華西 西川

Table 2  (to be continued)

1922–1926 Assistant Bishop; 1926–1933

West China 華西

1920–1940; 1940–1950

1918–1940

Fukien (Fujian) 福建

Shantung (Shangdong) North China 山東華北

1913–1940

Duration of Bishopric 主教任期

North China 華北

Episcopal Jurisdiction/ Diocese 管轄地區/教區

Name (Chinese) 中文姓名

陳永恩

邱約翰

古鶴齡 又名古壽之

宋誠之

何明華

司博習

Name (English) 英文姓名

Ding Ing-Ong K. O. Ding Ch’en Yun-en Chen Yong’en

John Curtis

Ku Ho Lin(g) Gu Heling

Song Ch’eng-Tsi Song Ch’eng-chih C. T. Sung Song Chengzhi

Ronald Owen Hall

Percy Stevens

Table 2  (continued)

English 英國

1882.05.21

1966.07.07

1975.04.22

1955

1893

Chinese Szechuan (Sichuan) 中國 四川 1895.07.22

1970

1876

Chinese Szechuan (Sichuan) 中國 四川

English 英國

1962.07.11

1880.03.15

1951

1873

Chinese Fukien (Fujian) 中國 福建

Irish 愛爾蘭

Date of Death 離世日期

Date of Birth 出生日期

Nationality (City/Province) 國籍 (城市/省份)

1933.12.24

1932.10.28

1929.06.29

1929.06.16

1929.01.06

1927.11.01

Date of Consecration 祝聖日期

St. Paul’s Cathedral, Hankow (Hankou) 中國漢口聖保羅座堂

St. Paul’s Cathedral, London 英國倫敦聖保羅座堂

St. Thomas Church, Mienchu (Mianzhu), Szechuan (Sichuan) 中國四川綿竹市聖多 馬堂

St. John’s Cathedral, Paoning (Baoning), Szechuan (Sichuan) 中國四川保寧聖約翰 座堂

Christ Church ProCathedral, Ningpo (Ningbo) 中國寧波基督 代主教座堂

All Saints’ Church, Shanghai 中國上海諸聖堂

Place of Consecration 祝聖地點

Duration of Bishopric 主教任期 1927–1940 Assistant Bishop

1928–1950

1929–1947 Assistant Bishop

1929–1937 Assistant Bishop; 1937–1950

1932–1966

1933–1949

Episcopal Jurisdiction/ Diocese 管轄地區/教區 Fukien (Fujian) 福建

Chekiang (Zhejiang) 浙江

West China East Szechuan (Sichuan) 華西 東川 West China West Szechuan (Sichuan) 華西 西川 Hong Kong / Victoria 香港/維多利亞 Kwangsi-Hunan (Guangxi-Hunan) 桂湘

Name (Chinese) 中文姓名

聶高萊

沈子高 字炎若

鄭和甫

莫壽增

華福蘭

孟良佐

羅培德

Name (English) 英文姓名

John Williams Nichols

Shen Tzü Kao T. K. Shen Shen Zigao

Philip Lindel Tsen Tsen Ho-p’u Zheng Hefu

Mo Shou-tseng Mok Shau Tsang S. T. Mok Mo Shouzeng

Frank Houghton

Alfred Alonzo (A. A.) Gilman

William Payne Roberts

Table 2  (continued)

1878.08.03

1888.02.21

American 美國

American 美國

1943.04.17

1866.09.21

Chinese Kwangtung (Guangdong) 中國 廣東

1971.05.03

1966.09.13

1972.01.25

1954.06.06

1885.01.07

Chinese Anhui 中國 安徽

1894

1982.10.21

1895.08

Chinese Shanghai 中國 上海

English 英國

1940.09.10

1878.02.28

American 美國

Date of Death 離世日期

Date of Birth 出生日期

Nationality (City/Province) 國籍 (城市/省份)

1937.11.30

1925.03.04

1937.01.25

1935.01.25

1929.02.24

1934.06.09

1934.11.01

Date of Consecration 祝聖日期

St. John’s ProCathedral, Shanghai 中國上海聖約翰 代主教座堂

St. Paul’s Cathedral, Hankow (Hankou) 中國漢口聖保羅座堂

Shun-King

St. John’s Cathedral, Hong Kong 香港聖約翰座堂

St. Paul’s Cathedral, Hankow (Hankou) 中國漢口聖保羅座堂

All Saints’ Church, Shanghai 中國上海諸聖堂

St. Mary’s Hall School Chapel, Shanghai 中國上海聖馬利書院 小聖堂

Place of Consecration 祝聖地點

Table 2  (to be continued)

1937–1950 Shanghai Jiangsu 上海江蘇

1935–1943 Assistant Bishop

Hong Kong / Victoria 香港/維多利亞

1925–1937 Assistant Bishop; 1938–1948

1928–1935 Assistant Bishop; 1935–1954 Honan (Henan) 河南

Hankow 漢口

1934–1947 Shensi (Shaanxi) 陝西

1937–1940

1934–1938 Assistant Bishop

Shanghai Jiangsu 上海江蘇

East Szechuan (Sichuan) 東川

Duration of Bishopric 主教任期

Episcopal Jurisdiction/ Diocese 管轄地區/教區

Name (Chinese) 中文姓名

舒展

徐繼崧

韋約翰

貝益芬

陳見真

朱友漁

Name (English) 英文姓名

Christopher Birdwood Roussel (C. B. R.) Sargent

Addison Ki-song Hsü Xu Jisong

John Wellington

Kenneth Graham (K. G.) Bevan

Robin Chien-Tsen Chen Ch’en Chien-Chen Ch’en Chien-Tsen Chen Jianzhen

Andrew Yu-Yue Tsu Tsu Yu-yü Andrew Tsu Zhu Youyu

Table 2  (continued)

1993.12.03

1969

1986.04.13

1898.09.27

1894

1886.12.18

English 英國

Chinese Wuhan 中國 武漢

Chinese Shanghai 中國 上海

1976.09.11

1889.12.28

1977.07.21

1898年 農歷二月初七

Chinese Hunan 中國 湖南省湘潭

English 英國

1943.08.08

1906.06.04

English 英國

Date of Death 離世日期

Date of Birth 出生日期

Nationality (City/Province) 國籍 (城市/省份)

1940.05.01

1940.11.30

1940.10.18

1940.06.29

1941.02.16

1938.11.30

Date of Consecration 祝聖日期

Holy Trinity Cathedral, Shanghai 中國上海聖三一座堂

St. Lioba’s Chapel, Wuhu 中國蕪湖聖李奧巴 小聖堂

Holy Trinity Cathedral, Shanghai 中國上海聖三一座堂

Cathedral of Our Saviour, Peking (Beijing) 中國北京(北平)救主 座堂

Church of Our Saviour, Shanghai 中國上海救主堂

St. John’s Cathedral, Hong Kong 香港聖約翰座堂

Place of Consecration 祝聖地點

Duration of Bishopric 主教任期 1938– Assistant Bishop; 1940–1943 1938–1950 Assistant Bishop; 1950– 1940–1950

1940–1950

1940–1950 Assistant Bishop; 1950–

1940–1946 Assistant Bishop

Episcopal Jurisdiction/ Diocese 管轄地區/教區 Fukien (Fujian) 福建 Kwangsi-Hunan (Guangxi-Hunan) 桂湘 Shantung (Shandong) 山東

Kwangsi-Hunan (Guangxi-Hunan) East Szechuan (Sichuan) 桂湘 東川 Anking (Anqing) 安慶

Hong Kong / Victoria 香港/維多利亞

Name (Chinese) 中文姓名

葛興仁 葛萊興

余恩嗣

曾友山

馬克遜 馬克遂

張光旭 又名家聰， 字位福

侯利華

毛克忠

Name (English) 英文姓名

Lloyd Rutherford Craighill

Yü En-ssu E. S. Yu Yu Ensi

Francis Yu-Shan Tseng Zeng Youshan

Harold Alexander (H. A.) Maxwell

Michael Kwang Hsu Chang Chang Kuang-hsu Zhang Guangxu

Nelson Victor Halward

Mao Ke Chung Mao Keh-ts’ung (K. T.) Mao Kezhong

Table 2  (continued)

1886.09.03

American 美國

1897.12.12

English 英國

Chinese Shanghai 中國 上海

1973.05.12

1898.01.08

Chinese Fukien (Fujian) 中國 福建 1953

1975.12.30

1897.12.17

English 英國

1994.07.29

St. Paul’s Cathedral, London 英國倫敦聖保羅座堂 St. Peter’s Church, Shanghai 中國上海聖彼得堂

1946.08.06

St. John’s Church, Kweilin (Guilin) 中國桂林聖約翰堂

Chengdu, China 中國成都

Church of Our Saviour, Shanghai 中國上海救主堂

St. John’s ProCathedral, Shanghai 中國上海聖約翰 代主教座堂

St. Lioba’s Chapel, Wuhu 中國蕪湖聖李奧巴小 聖堂

Place of Consecration 祝聖地點

1946.07.25

1943.10.10

1943.05.30

1949.03.20

1942.05

1944.05

1911.02.16

1940.11.30

Date of Consecration 祝聖日期

1971.03.13

Date of Death 離世日期

Chinese Honan (Henan) 中國 河南

Chinese Shanghai 中國 上海

Date of Birth 出生日期

Nationality (City/Province) 國籍 (城市/省份)

1946–1951 Assistant Bishop 1946–

Hong Kong / Victoria 香港/維多利亞 Shanghai Jiangsu 上海江蘇

Table 2  (to be continued)

1943–

1942–1956 Assistant Bishop; 1956– Honan (Henan) 河南

Fukien (Fujian) 福建

1941–1944 Assistant Bishop Shanghai Jiangsu 上海江蘇

1943–1950 Assistant Bishop

1940–1949

Anking (Anqing) 安慶

West Szechuan (Sichuan) 西川

Duration of Bishopric 主教任期

Episcopal Jurisdiction/ Diocese 管轄地區/教區

Name (Chinese) 中文姓名

劉堯昌

黃奎元

張海松

凌賢揚

蔡復初

鄧述堃

Name (English) 英文姓名

Liu Yao-ch’ang Newton Y. C. Liu Newton Liu Liu Yaochang

Quentin K’uei-yuan Huang Quentin Huang Huang Kuiyuan

Stephen Hai-Sung Chang Zhang Haisong

Timothy H. Y. Lin Lin Hsien-Yang Ling Xianyang

Tsai Fuh-tsu Tsai Fuchu F. T. Tsai Cai Fuchu

Kimber Den Teng Shu-k’un Teng Hsu-k’un Deng Shukun

Table 2  (continued)

St. John’s ProCathedral, Shanghai 中國上海聖約翰 代主教座堂

1950.04.25

Chinese Chekiang (Zhejiang) 中國 浙江

Chinese Peking (Beijing) 中國 北京

St. John’s ProCathedral, Shanghai 中國上海聖約翰代主 教座堂

Holy Nativity Church, Wuchang 中國武昌主誕堂

1948.09.15

1950.11.30

All Saints by the Sea, Santa Barbara, USA 美國加州聖巴巴拉市 諸聖堂

Holy Nativity Church, Wuchang 中國武昌主誕堂

1947.10.28

1946.08.14

Place of Consecration 祝聖地點

Date of Consecration 祝聖日期

Chinese Shanghai 中國 上海

1970.12.01

1973.07

Date of Death 離世日期

Cathedral of Our Saviour, Peking (Beijing) 中國北京(北平)救主 座堂

1902.02.22

Date of Birth 出生日期

1950.09.24

Chinese Hankow (Hankou) 中國 漢口

Chinese Anhui 中國 安徽

Chinese Hankow (Hankou) 中國 漢口

Nationality (City/Province) 國籍 (城市/省份)

1947–

Shensi (Shaanxi) 陝西

1948–

1950–

1950–

1950–1955

Hankow 漢口

Shantung (Shandong) 山東

East Szechuan (Sichuan) 東川 Chekiang (Zhejiang) 浙江

1940– Hong Kong / Victoria Yunnan-Kweichow Assistant Bishop; 1947–1950 (Yunnan-Guizhou) 香港/維多利亞 雲貴

Duration of Bishopric 主教任期

Episcopal Jurisdiction/ Diocese 管轄地區/教區

Name (Chinese) 中文姓名

慕容賢

鄭建業

王神蔭

丁光訓

薛平西

劉玉蒼

Name (English) 英文姓名

Nathaniel Hsien Mo-Yung Mo-Yung Hsien Murong Xian

David Cheng-ye Cheng Cheng Chien-Yeh Tsen Chien-yeh C. Y. Cheng Zheng Jianye

Stephen S. Y. Wang Wang Shenyin

Ting Kuang Hsun K. H. Ting Ding Guangxun

Hsüeh Ping-hsi Moses Hsüeh Xue Pingxi

Liu Yü-t’sang Liu Yucang

Table 2  (continued) Date of Death 離世日期 1966.05.31

1991

1997.12.25

2012.11.22

1995.02.01

1967.08.12

Date of Birth 出生日期 1893

1919

1915.06.30

1915.09.20

1904.08.02

1906.03

Nationality (City/Province) 國籍 (城市/省份)

Chinese Kwangtung (Guangdong) 中國 廣東

Chinese Anhui 中國 安徽

Chinese Fukien (Fujian) 中國 祖籍福建省古田縣

Chinese Shanghai 中國 上海

Chinese Fukien (Fujian) 中國 祖籍福建省平潭縣

Chinese Fukien (Fujian) 中國 祖籍福建省古田縣

1955.06.19

1955.06.19

1955.06.19

1953.10

1952.04.11

1950.03.25

Date of Consecration 祝聖日期

Trinity Cathedral, Shanghai 中國上海聖三一座堂

Trinity Cathedral, Shanghai 中國上海聖三一座堂

Trinity Cathedral, Shanghai 中國上海聖三一座堂

Trinity Cathedral, Shanghai 中國上海聖三一座堂

Church of Our Saviour, Shanghai 中國上海救主堂

Church of Our Saviour, Canton (Guangzhou) 中國廣州救主堂

Place of Consecration 祝聖地點

Duration of Bishopric 主教任期

1952–1954 Assistant Bishop; 1954–

1953–

1955–

1955– Assistant Bishop

1955– Assistant Bishop

Honan (Henan) 河南

Shantung (Shandong) 山東 Chekiang (Zhejiang) 浙江 Fukien (Fujian) 福建 Fukien (Fujian) 福建

1940–1950 Hong Kong / Victoria Assistant Bishop; Kwangtung 1950– (Guangdong) 香港/維多利亞 廣東

Episcopal Jurisdiction/ Diocese 管轄地區/教區

Name (Chinese) 中文姓名

何明華

白約翰

張榮岳

鄺廣傑

蘇以葆

徐贊生

鄺保羅

Name (English) 英文姓名

Ronald Owen Hall

John Gilbert Hindley Baker

Cheung Wing Ngok

Peter Kong Kit Kwong

Thomas Yee Po Soo

Louis Tsan Sang Tsui

Paul Kwong

1950.09.27

1943.04.12

Hong Kong 香港

Hong Kong 香港

1941.03.02

1936.02.28

Hong Kong 香港

Hong Kong 香港

1916.01.28

1910.10.10

English 英國

Hong Kong 香港

1895.07.22

Date of Birth 出生日期

English 英國

Nationality (City/Province) 國籍 (城市/省份)

Table 3  Bishops of Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui, 1951–2014 歷任香港聖公會主教, 1951–2014

—

—

—

—

1979.01.08

1986.04.29

1975.04.22

Date of Death 離世日期

2006.03.25

1995.11.30

1995.11.30

1981.03.25

1978.06.13

1966.12.06

1932.10.28

Date of Consecration 祝聖日期

St. John’s Cathedral, Hong Kong 香港聖約翰座堂

St. John’s Cathedral, Hong Kong 香港聖約翰座堂

St. John’s Cathedral, Hong Kong 香港聖約翰座堂

St. John’s Cathedral, Hong Kong 香港聖約翰座堂

St. John’s Cathedral, Hong Kong 香港聖約翰座堂

St. John’s Cathedral, Hong Kong 香港聖約翰座堂

St. Paul’s Cathedral, London 英國倫敦聖保羅座堂

Place of Consecration 祝聖地點

Duration of Bishopric 主教任期 1932–1966

1966–1981

1978–1979 Assistant Bishop 1981–1998; 1998–2006 Archbishop 1995–2011

1995–2013

2007–present Archbishop

Episcopal Jurisdiction/ Diocese 管轄地區/教區 Hong Kong / Victoria Hong Kong & Macao 香港/維多利亞 港澳 Hong Kong & Macao 港澳 Hong Kong & Macao 港澳 Hong Kong & Macao 港澳 Hong Kong 香港 Western Kowloon 西九龍 Eastern Kowloon 東九龍 Hong Kong 香港

Name (Chinese) 中文姓名

陳謳明

郭志丕

Name (English) 英文姓名

Andrew Au Ming Chan

Timothy Chi Pei Kwok

Table 3  (continued) Date of Birth 出生日期 1962.01.06

1959.03.28

Nationality (City/Province) 國籍 (城市/省份)

Hong Kong 香港

Hong Kong 香港

—

—

Date of Death 離世日期

2014.11.23

2012.03.25

Date of Consecration 祝聖日期

St. John’s Cathedral, Hong Kong 香港聖約翰座堂

St. John’s Cathedral, Hong Kong 香港聖約翰座堂

Place of Consecration 祝聖地點

Duration of Bishopric 主教任期 2012–present

2014–present

Episcopal Jurisdiction/ Diocese 管轄地區/教區 Western Kowloon 西九龍 Eastern Kowloon 東九龍

Name (Chinese) 中文姓名

甘納德

吉爾生

王長齡

龐德明

張培揚

簡啟聰

賴榮信

Name (English) 英文姓名

Harry Sherbourne Kennedy

Charles Packard Gilson

James Chang Ling Wong

James Te Ming Pong

Chang Pui Yeung Cheung Pui Yeung P. Y. Chang

John C. T. Chien

David Jung-Hsin Lai

1980.08.11

1970.04.27

1899.09.03

1900

American 美國

Chinese Peking (Beijing) 中國 北京

Taiwan 台灣

1948.03.03

1940.03.23 —

2013.03.05

1987.09.06

1919.11.05

Chinese Kwangtung (Guangdong) 中國 廣東

Taiwan 台灣

1988.10.16

1911

Hong Kong 香港

1986.02.14

1901.08.21

American 美國

Date of Death 離世日期

Date of Birth 出生日期

Nationality (City/Province) 國籍 (城市/省份)

Table 4  Bishops of the Episcopal Diocese of Taiwan, 1954–2014 歷任美國聖公會台灣教區主教, 1954–2014

2000.11.25

1988.03.25

1980.01.06

1971.01.06

1960.03.21

1961

1954.01.11

Date of Consecration 祝聖日期

St. Timothy’s Church, Kaohsiung, Taiwan 台灣高雄市聖提摩 太堂

—

Church of the Advent, Taipei (Taibei) 台北市聖公會降臨堂

Overseas Chinese Hall, Taipei (Taibei) 台北市僑光堂

St. Thomas’ Cathedral, Kuching 古晉聖多馬座堂

Cathedral Church of St. Paul, Detroit 美國底特律市聖保羅 座堂

Grace Episcopal Church, Colorado Springs 美國科羅拉多州科泉 市聖恩堂

Place of Consecration 祝聖地點

1971–1980

1980–1987

Taiwan 台灣 Taiwan 台灣

2001–present

1960–1964; 1964–1970 Borneo Jesselton Taiwan 台灣

Taiwan 台灣

1961–1964

Taiwan 台灣

1988–2001

1954–1960

Taiwan 台灣

Taiwan 台灣

Duration of Bishopric 主教任期

Episcopal Jurisdiction/ Diocese 管轄地區/教區

Appendix 2 Timeline of Anglican-Episcopal History in China

1807

Arrival of Robert Morrison in Macao and the beginning of Protestant mission work in China.

1819

First Anglican chaplain of the British East India Company arrives in Macao.

1835

First two missionaries of the Protestant Episcopal Church Mission (PECM) arrive in Guangzhou.

1837

William Boone (1811–64) appointed PECM missionary.

1843

Hong Kong becomes a British colony following the Treaty of Nanking, which ends the First Opium War. Vincent Stanton appointed colonial chaplain in Hong Kong. George Smith and Thomas McClatchie appointed first two Church Missionary Society (CMS) China missionaries.

1844

William Boone becomes the first Episcopal bishop in China, based in Amoy (Xiamen) and then Shanghai.

1845

Establishment of the Diocese of Shanghai.

1849

Diocese of Victoria created by Royal Letters Patent. George Smith appointed bishop of the diocese, which included all of China and Japan. St. John’s Cathedral, Hong Kong opens.

1850

Outbreak of the Taiping Rebellion in South China. It is finally put down in 1860.

1851

Huang Guangcai (黃光彩, Wong Kong Chai) becomes the first Chinese deacon. He is made the first Chinese priest in 1863.

1860

Convention of Peking ends the Second Opium War.

1863

Society for the Propagation of the Gospel (SPG) begins work in North China.

1871

Wong Kiu-tak (黃堅德) becomes the first Chinese priest in the Church of England (Foochow).

1872

The Diocese of Victoria is reduced to China south of the twenty-eighth parallel, and Japan becomes a separate diocese (1874). Diocese of North China established under the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. Publication of the first Chinese translation of the Book of Common Prayer (Schereschewsky and Burdon).

1874

John Shaw Burdon appointed bishop of Victoria.

210

Appendix 2

1877

First Conference of Protestant missionaries, Shanghai. Samuel Isaac Joseph Schereschewsky appointed bishop of Shanghai.

1879

St. John’s College (later St. John’s University) is established in Shanghai, the premier Episcopal institution of higher learning.

1880

Charles Perry Scott appointed the first bishop of North China. Establishment of the Diocese of Mid-China.

1884

Matthew Kwong Yat-shau (鄺日修) ordained the first Chinese Anglican priest in Hong Kong. The Zenana Mission begins work in South China.

1890

Second Conference of the Protestant Missionaries, Shanghai.

1893

F. R. Graves appointed bishop of Shanghai.

1895

Establishment of the Diocese of West China.

1897

First meeting of the British and American Anglican and Episcopal Bishops held in Shanghai; subsequent meetings are held in 1899, 1903, 1907, and 1909.

1899

The Boxer Uprising (ends in 1901).

1901

Establishment of the Diocese of Hankow.

1902

Establishment of the Church Body of the Chinese Anglican Church in Hong Kong.

1903

Establishment of the Diocese of Shantung.

1906

Establishment of the Diocese of Fukien.

1907

China Centenary Missionary Conference, Shanghai.

1908

Sheng Kung Hui Bao (聖公會報, The Chinese Churchman) begins publication in Shanghai. It was the official journal of the Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui (CHSKH) from 1912 to 1951.

1909

Establishment of the Diocese of Chekiang. Establishment of the Diocese of Honan. Establishment of the Diocese of Kwangsi-Hunan.

1910

Establishment of the Diocese of Anking (originally Wuhu).

1911

The Revolution of 1911, led by Sun Yat-sen (孫中山), overthrows the Qing dynasty.

1912

The First General Synod of CHSKH held in Shanghai, April 10–26. This was the first non-Roman denomination in China.

1915

The Second General Synod of CHSKH held in Shanghai.

1918

The Third General Synod of CHSKH held in Shanghai. Sing Tsae-Seng (沈載琛) becomes the first Chinese bishop and is appointed assistant bishop of Chekiang.

1919

Beginning of the May Fourth Movement.

Timeline of Anglican-Episcopal History in China 211

Publication of the Chinese Union version of the Bible (和合本), still the most popular Bible in Chinese churches. 1920

Diocesan Church of England Synod established in Hong Kong for Englishlanguage Anglican churches.

1921

The Fourth General Synod of CHSKH held in Wuchang.

1922

Establishment of the National Christian Council of China.

1924

The Fifth General Synod of CHSKH held in Canton.

1928

The Sixth General Synod of CHSKH held in Shanghai.

1930

Lambeth Conference formally recognizes the CHSKH as an independent church.

1931

The Seventh General Synod of CHSKH held in Hangchow.

1932

R. O. Hall appointed seventh bishop of Hong Kong.

1934

The Eighth General Synod of CHSKH held in Wuhu. Establishment of the Diocese of Shensi. T. K. Shen (沈子高) is appointed the first Chinese diocesan bishop.

1936

Establishment of the Dioceses of East Szechuan and West Szechuan.

1936

Publication of the ecumenical Hymns of Universal Praise.

1937

The Ninth General Synod of CHSKH held in Foochow. Full-scale Japanese invasion of China.

1941

Pre-eminent Chinese theologian Dr. T. C. Chao (趙紫宸) is confirmed, made deacon and priest in one day, at St. Paul’s College Chapel, Hong Kong.

1944

Ordination of Florence Li Tim-Oi (李添嬡) by Bishop R. O. Hall. She becomes the first woman priest in the Anglican Communion.

1945

End of the War against Japan. Beginning of the Chinese Civil War.

1947

The Tenth (and last) General Synod of CHSKH held in Shanghai, with all fourteen dioceses represented. Establishment of the Diocese of Yunnan-Kweichow.

1948

First Assembly of the World Council of Churches meets in Amsterdam. The CHSKH is a founding member, and T. C. Chao is elected one of six presidents.

1949

Establishment of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), led by Mao Zedong and the Chinese Communist Party. Nationalists under Chiang Kai-shek flee to Taiwan.

1950

Outbreak of the Korean War (hostilities end in 1953). Beginning of the expulsion of all foreign missionaries from China.

212

Appendix 2

The House of Bishops and the Standing Committee of the CHSKH meet in Shanghai in July affirming support for the PRC and independence of the church from foreign control. 1951

The Diocese of Hong Kong and Macao becomes a detached diocese, with a new Diocese of Guangdong created on the Mainland as part of the CHSKH.

1954

The Diocese of Taiwan is established as part of Province VIII of the Episcopal Church (USA).

1955

Election of three new CHSKH bishops, including K. H. Ting (丁光訓, Ding Guangxun), who becomes head of both the Chinese Christian Three-Self Patriotic Movement Committee and the China Christian Council in 1980.

1956

House of Bishops and Executive Committee of the CHSKH General Synod meet in Shanghai, with all seventeen bishops in attendance, for the last time.

1958

The Unification of Worship in China, the de facto end of the CHSKH and all denominations.

1966

J. Gilbert H. Baker becomes the first elected bishop of Hong Kong, and the last Englishman to hold that office.

1979

Beginning of the Opening and Reform period in China under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平).

1981

Peter Kong Kit Kwong (鄺廣傑) becomes bishop of Hong Kong, the first Chinese to hold that office.

1997

The return of Hong Kong to Chinese sovereignty.

1998

Inauguration of the Province of the Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui, thirtyeighth province in the Anglican Communion. Bishop Kwong is installed as first archbishop and primate.

Timeline of Anglican-Episcopal History in China 213

Figure 29  Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui dioceses, circa 1947. Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui Archives.

Selected Bibliography

This is a bibliography of selected journals, books, and other materials on the history of the Anglican-Episcopal tradition in China. It makes no attempt to be comprehensive. Some general books on the history of Christianity in China are included here, but by no means all of them. Additional materials on Chinese Anglicanism of a more specific nature are quoted in the individual chapters of this book. —Ruiwen Chen

Journals in English Chinese Recorder (1867–1941) Church Missionary Gleaner (1849–) Church Missionary Intelligencer (1849–1906) Church Missionary Review (1907–27) Outpost (1920–82) SPG Annual Reports Spirit of Missions (1836–1939)

Books in English and Other Western Languages Allen, R. The Siege of the Peking Legations: Being the Diary of the Rev. Roland Allen . . . with Maps and Plans. London: Smith, Elder, 1901. Baker, G. The Changing Scene in China. New York: Friendship Press, 1948. ———. Bishop Speaking: Addresses by the Right Reverend John Gilbert Hindley Baker, Bishop of Hong Kong and Macao, 1966–1981. Hong Kong: Ye Olde Printerie, 1981. ———. Flowing Ways: It Happened to Us in China. Dorking, UK: Privately published by Joan H. Baker, 1996. Barnett, S. W., and J. K. Fairbank. Christianity in China: Early Protestant Missionary Writings. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985. Bays, Daniel H. Christianity in China: From the Eighteenth Century to the Present. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1996. ———. A New History of Christianity in China. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012. The Bishops of the American Church Mission in China. Hartford, CT: Church Mission, 1906. Boone, M. The Seed of the Church in China. Philadelphia: Pilgrim Press, 1973. Broomhall, Marshall. The Bible in China. London: China Inland Mission, 1934. Burdon, John Shaw. “A Letter to His Grace the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.” Hong Kong: St. Paul’s College, 1877. Chen, Yongtao. “Chinese Christ: The Christology of T. C. Chao.” PhD diss., University of Helsinki, 2014.

216

Selected Bibliography

Chiu, Patricia P. K. A History of the Grant Schools Council. Hong Kong: Grant Schools Council, 2013. Coe, John. Huachung University. New York: United Board for Christian Higher Education in Asia, 1962. Constitutions and Canons of the Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui Together with the Report of the General Synod, and the Report and Resolutions of the Conference of the Anglican Communion in China and Hong Kong Held at Shanghai, April 18th– 26th, 1912. Shanghai, 1912. Correspondence in Connection with the Protest against the Consecration of Rev. W. J. Boone as Missionary Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church of American in China: Also Letters Referring to the Wretched Management of the Mission. Shanghai: 1885. Craighill, Marian G. The Craighills of China. Norcross, GA: Trinity Press, 1972. Dunch, R. Fuzhou Protestants and the Making of a Modern China, 1857–1927. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2001. Eber, Irene. The Jewish Bishop and the Chinese Bible: S. I. J. Schereschewsky (1831– 1906). Leiden: Brill, 1999. Endacott, George B., and Dorothy E. She. The Diocese of Victoria, Hong Kong: A Hundred Years of Church History, 1849–1949. Hong Kong: Standard Press, 1949. Fung, Yee Wang, and Chan-Yeung Mo Wah Moira. To Serve and to Lead: A History of the Diocesan Boys’ School in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2009. Glüer, Winfried. Christliche Theologie in China: T. C. Chao: 1918–1956. Missionswissenschaftliche Forschungen. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn, 1979. Graves, Frederick R. Recollections. Shanghai: 1928. Gray, Arthur R., and Arthur M. Sherman. The Story of the Church in China. New York: Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society, 1913. Gray, G. F. S., with Martha Lund Smalley. Anglicans in China: A History of the Zhonghua Shenggong Hui (Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui). New Haven, CT: Episcopal China Mission History Project, 1996. Hall, R. O. China and Britain. London: Edinburgh House Press, 1927. ———. T. Z. Koo: Chinese Christianity Speaks to the West. London: SCM Press, 1950. Hewitt, G. The Problems of Success: A History of the Church Missionary Society, 1910– 1942. London: SCM Press, 1971–77. An Historical Sketch of the China Mission of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the U.S.A. from the First Appointments in 1834 to Include the Year Ending August 31st, 1884. New York: Foreign Committee, 1885. A History of the Dublin University Fuh-Kien Mission, 1887–1911. Dublin: Hodges, Figgis, 1911. Huang, Quentin K. Y. Now I Can Tell: The Strange and Terrifying Story of the First Bishop to Be Imprisoned by the Chinese Communists. New York: MorehouseGorham, 1954. Koh, Roland. The Chinese Anglicans in the Four Seas. Kuala Lumpur, 1955. Kwok, Pui-Lan. Chinese Women and Christianity, 1860–1927. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1992.

Selected Bibliography 217

Kwong, Paul. Identity in Community: Toward a Theological Agenda for the Hong Kong SAR. Munster: ContactZone / Lit Verlag, 2011. Lamberton, Mary. St. John’s University, Shanghai, 1879–1951. New York: United Board for Christian Colleges in China, 1955. Latourette, Kenneth Scott. A History of Christian Missions in China. London: SPCK, 1929. Learning from the Past, Looking to the Future: Anglican-Episcopal History in China and Its Impact on the Church Today. A CD-ROM in Chinese and English containing academic papers, photographs and other materials from the international academic conference hosted by the Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui, Hong Kong, 2012. Lee, S. K. The Cross and the Lotus. Hong Kong: Christian Study Centre on Chinese Religion and Culture, 1971. Li, Florence Tim-Oi. Raindrops of My Life: The Memoir of Florence Tim Oi Li. Toronto: Anglican Book Center, 1996. Lin, Mei-Mei. “The Episcopalian Missionaries in China, 1835–1990.” PhD diss., University of Texas at Austin, 1994. Maughan, Steven S. Mighty England Do Good: Culture, Faith, Empire, and World in the Foreign Missions of the Church of England, 1850–1915. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2014. Moule, Arthur Evans. Story of the Chekiang Mission of the Church Missionary Society. London, 1885. Muller, James. Apostle of China: Samuel Isaac Joseph Schereschewsky, 1831–1906. New York: Morehouse, 1937. Norris, Frank L. China. London: A. R. Mowbray, 1908. ———. Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui: Its Origin and Development; a Memorandum. Shanghai, 1930. Paton, David. Christian Missions and the Judgment of God. 1st ed. London: SCM Press, 1953. ———. The Life and Times of Bishop Ronald Hall of Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Diocese of Hong Kong and Macao / Hong Kong Diocesan Association, 1985. Pong, J. T. M. Worldly Ambition versus Christian Vocation: Autobiography of a Chinese Bishop. Taipei: Taiwan Episcopal Church, 1977. Richmond, Annette B. The American Episcopal Church in China. New York: Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society, 1907. Schereschewsky, S. I. J. The Bible, Prayer Book, and Terms in Our China Missions. New York: W. F. Humphrey, 1888. Seton, Rosemary. Western Daughters in Eastern Lands: British Missionary Women in Asia. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger, 2013. Smith, C. Stanley. The Development of Protestant Theological Education in China. Shanghai: Kelley and Walsh, 1941. Smith, Carl T. Chinese Christians: Elites, Middlemen, and the Church in Hong Kong. New ed. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2005. Smith, George. A Narrative of an Exploratory Visit to Each of the Consular Cities of China and to the Islands of Hong Kong and Chusan in Behalf of the Church Missionary Society in the Years 1844, 1845, 1846. London: Seeley, Burnside and Seeley, 1847.

218

Selected Bibliography

———. The Jews at K’ae-Fung-Foo: Being a Narrative of a Mission of Inquiry to the Jewish Synagogue at K’ae-Fung-Foo, on Behalf of the London Society for Promoting Christianity among the Jews. Shanghai: London Missionary Society, 1851. ———. Ten Weeks in Japan. London: Longman, Green, Longman and Roberts, 1861. Stauffer, M. The Christian Occupation of China: A General Survey of the Numerical Strength and Geographical Distribution of the Christian Forces in China Made by the Special Committee on Survey and Occupation, China Continuation Committee, 1918–1921. Shanghai: China Continuation Committee. 1922. Stock, Eugene. The Story of the Fukien Mission of the Church Missionary Society. London, 1882. ———. The History of the Church Missionary Society: Its Environment, Its Men and Its Work. Vols. 1–3. London: Church Missionary Society, 1899. ———. The History of the Church Missionary Society: Supplementary Volume the Fourth. London: Church Missionary Society, 1916. Tiedemann, R. G. Reference Guide to Christian Missionary Societies in China: From the Sixteenth to the Twentieth Century. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 2009. ———. Handbook of Christianity in China. Vol. 2. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Tsu, A. Y. Y. Friend of Fishermen. Ambler, PA: Trinity Press, 1953. Walmesley, Lewis C. Bishop in Honan, Mission and Museum in the Life of W. C. White. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1974. Wan, Sze-kar. “The Chinese Prayer Book.” In The Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer, edited by Charles Hefling and Cynthia Shattuck, 397–401. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Wang, Xiaochao, ed. The Collected English Writings of Tsu Chen Chao. Vol. 5, Works of T. C. Chao. Beijing: Religion and Culture Press, 2009. Ward, K. A History of Global Anglicanism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Wei, Francis C. M. “Synthesis of Cultures of East and West.” In China Today through Chinese Eyes, Second Series, 74–85. London: Student Christian Movement, 1926. Weo, Cho-min. The Spirit of Chinese Culture. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1947. Whyte, Bob. Unfinished Encounter: China and Christianity. London: Fount Paperbacks, 1988. Wickeri, Philip L. Seeking the Common Ground: Protestant Christianity, the Three-Self Movement, and China’s United Front. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1988. ———. Reconstructing Christianity in China: K. H. Ting and the Chinese Church. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2007. ———. “Clergy Training and Theological Education: The Anglican-Episcopal Experience in China.” Paper presented at the conference of the Yale-Edinburgh History of the Missionary Movement and World Christianity. New Haven, CT, June 30–July 2, 2011. Wolfendale, Stuart. Imperial to International: A History of St. John’s Cathedral, Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2013. Wright, Arnold, and H. A. Cartwright, eds. Twentieth Century Impressions of Hong Kong, Shanghai, and Other Treaty Ports of China: Their History, People, Commerce, Industries, and Resources. London: Lloyd’s Greater Britain, 1908.

Selected Bibliography 219

Wylie, A. Memorials of Protestant Missionaries to the Chinese: Giving a List of Their Publications, and Obituary Notices of the Deceased, with Copius Indices. Shanghai: American Presbyterian Mission Press, 1867. Zetzsche, Jost Oliver. The Bible in China: The History of the Union Version, or The Culmination of Protestant Missionary Bible Translation in China. Nettetal: Sankt Augustin, 1999.

Reports of Meetings of the General Synod of the CHSKH Report of the 1st General Synod. Shanghai. April 10–26, 1912. 35 pp. Report of the 2nd General Synod. Shanghai. April 14–22, 1915. 96 pp. Report of the 3rd General Synod. Shanghai. April 7–13, 1918. 90 pp. Report of the 4th General Synod. Wuchang. April 17–25, 1921. 116 pp. Report of the 5th General Synod. Canton. March 16–22, 1924. 128 pp. Report of the 6th General Synod. Shanghai. April 21–28, 1928. 182 pp. Report of the 7th General Synod. Hangchow. April 25–May 2, 1931. 100 pp. Report of the 8th General Synod. Shanghai. Wuhu, April 21–29, 1934. 118 pp. Report of the 9th General Synod. Foochow. April 17–25, 1937. 88 pp. Report of the 10th General Synod. Shanghai. August 23–31, 1947. 60 pp.

Journals in Chinese 《聖公會報》[The Chinese Churchman] (1908–51) 《聖工》[Sheng Gong] (1949–57) 《靈鐸週刊》[Ling Duo Weekly] (1927–40) 《港粵教聲》[Kong Yuet Diocesan Echo] (1946–48) 《港澳教聲》[Diocesan Echo] (1953–82) 《教聲》)[Echo] (1982–present)

Books of Common Prayer (selected Chinese editions in chronological order) 《禱告文全書》。香港：聖保羅書院，1855。[Common Prayers. Hong Kong: St. Paul’s College, 1855.] 《教 會 禱 文》。北 京：美 華 書 館，1872。[The Book of Common Prayer. Translated by Burdon and Schereschewsky. Peking: American Presbyterian Mission Press, 1872.] 《教 會 禱 文》。香 港：聖 保 羅 書 院，1879。[The Book of Common Prayer. Translated by John Shaw Burdon. Hong Kong: St. Paul’s College, 1879.] 《教 會 禱 文》。上 海：聖 約 翰 書 院，1880。[The Book of Common Prayer. Translated by Samuel Isaac Joseph Schereschewsky. Shanghai: St. John’s College, 1880.] 《公 禱 全 文》。上 海：商 務 印 書 館，1910。[Common Prayers. Translated by G. E. Moule. Shanghai: The Commercial Press, 1910.] 《公 禱 文：附 詩 篇》。聖 公 會，1917。[The Book of Common Prayer: With Appended Psalms. Sheng Kung Hui, 1917.]

220

Selected Bibliography

《公禱書》。福州，1949。[The Book of Common Prayer. Fuzhou, 1949.] 《公 禱 書》。新 加 坡：基 督 教 學 術 推 進 會，1956。[The Book of Common Prayer. Singapore: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1956.] 《公禱書（選本）》。新加坡：基督教學術推進會／聖公會出版社，1964。[The Book of Common Prayer (Selections). Singapore: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge/Anglican Literature Society, 1964.] 《公禱書》。香港：中華聖公會港澳教區，1979。[The Book of Common Prayer. Hong Kong: Diocese of Hong Kong and Macao, CHSKH, 1979.] 《公 禱 書（增 版 本）》 。新 加 坡：聖 公 會 星 馬 教 區，1984。[The Book of Common Prayer (Enhanced Edition). Singapore: Diocese of Singapore, 1984.] For a full listing of Chinese Prayer Books, see 潘乃昭：〈公禱書的翻譯與聖公命 名 的 歷 史 關 係 〉, “Prayer Book Translation and the Birth of the Sheng Kung Hui.” http://doc.baidu.com/view/80f3df7202768e9951e738fa.html (accessed November 14, 2014).

Books in Chinese 古愛華著，鄧肇明譯。《趙紫宸的神學思想》。香港：基督敎文藝出版社，1998。 [Glüer, Winfried. Die Theologische Arbeit T. C. Chao’s in der Zeitvon 1918 Bis 1956. Translated by Deng Zhaoming. Hong Kong: Chinese Christian Literature Council Ltd., 1998.] 李邦瀚。《公禱書的形成》。香港：聖公會出版社，1970。[Li Banghan. The Forma­ tion of the Book of Common Prayer. Hong Kong: Anglican Literature Society, 1970.] 李 添 嬡。《生 命 的 雨 點 ―― 李 添 嬡 牧 師 回 憶 錄》。香 港：聖 公 會 宗 教 教 育 中 心， 1993。 [Li Tim-Oi. Raindrops of My Life: The Memoir of the Reverend Florence Tim Oi Li. Hong Kong: Religious Education Resource Center, 1993.] 林步基等編。《中華聖公會江蘇教區九十年歷史（1845–1935）》。江蘇教區議會， 1935。 [Lin Buji. The 90-Year History of Jiangsu Diocese, CHSKH (1845–1935). Jiangsu Diocese Council, 1935.] 林美玫。 《婦女與差傳 ―― 19 世紀美國聖公會女傳教士在華差傳研究》。北京：社會 科 學 文 獻 出 版 社，2011。[Lin Mei-Mei. Women in Mission: A Study of the Epi­ scopal Women Missionaries and Their Endeavors in China (1835–1900). Beijing: China Social Sciences Academic Press, 2011.] 劉喜松。《中國首家痲瘋醫院：北海普仁醫院醫史再發現》。廣西：廣西人民出版社， 2014。 [Liu Xisong. The First Leper Hospital in China: Rediscovering the History of Pakhoi Po Yan Hospital. Guangxi: Guangxi People’s Press, 2014.] 劉 粵 聲。《香 港 基 督 教 會 史》。香 港：香 港 浸 信 教 會，1996。[Lau Yuet Shing (Liu Yue­s heng). The History of Churches in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Baptist Church, 1996.] 彭聖傭。《崇拜聚會程序與禮文》。上海：中國基督教協會，1993。[Peng Sheng­yong. Worship Orders and Liturgical Uses in Churches. Shanghai: Chinese Christian Council, 1993.] Schereschewsky, S. I. J.《舊 約 全 書》。北 平： 美 華 書 院 , 1874。[Schereschewsky, S. I. J. Old Testament. Peking: American Presbyterian Mission Press, 1874.]

Selected Bibliography 221

———。《舊約聖詩》。北平：美華書院，1874。[Hymns of the Old Testament. Peking: American Presbyterian Mission Press, 1874.] 沈子高。《中華聖公會新公禱書之原則芻議》。1949。[Shen, T. K. On the Principles of New Prayer Book Revision, 1949.] 石 建 國。《卜 舫 濟 傳 記》。北 京：社 會 科 學 文 獻 出 版 社，2011。[Shi Jianguo. Bio­ graphy of Francis Lister Hawks Pott. Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press, 2011.] 唐曉峰、熊曉紅編。《夜鷹之志 ―― “ 趙紫宸與中西思想交流 ” 學術研討會文集》。 北 京：宗 教 文 化 出 版 社，2010。[Tang Xiaofeng, and Xiong Xiaohong, eds. A Night­hawk’s Ambition: “T. C. Chao and the Sino-Western Exchange of Thought” Confer­ence Papers. Beijing: Religion and Culture Press, 2010.] 萬先法編。《韋卓民博士教育文化宗教論文集》。台灣：華中大學韋卓民紀念館， 1980。 [Wan Xianfa, ed. Dr. Francis C. M. Wei’s Writings on Education, Culture, and Religion. Taiwan: Huangzhong University Wei Zhuomin Memorial Hall, 1980.] 王治心。《中國基督教史綱》。上海：上海古籍出版社，2004。[Wang Zhixin. His­tory of Christianity in China. Shanghai: Shanghai Classic Publishing House, 2004.] 魏克利、陳睿文。《萬代要稱妳有福──香港聖公會聖馬利亞堂史（1912–2012）》。 香 港：基 督 教 中 國 宗 教 文 化 研 究 社，2014。[Wickeri, Philip L., and Chen Ruiwen. All Generations Shall Call You Blessed: The History of Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui St. Mary’s Church (1912–2012). Hong Kong: Christian Study Centre on Chinese Religion and Culture, 2014.] 邢福增、劉紹麟。《天國．龍城──香港聖公會聖三一堂史（1890–2009）》。香港： 基 督 教 中 國 宗 教 文 化 研 究 社，2010。[Ying Fuk-tsang, and Lau Siu-lun. In Kowloon City as It Is in Heaven: A History of Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui Holy Trinity Church (1890–2009). Hong Kong: Christian Study Centre on Chinese Religion and Culture, 2010.] 熊月之、周武編。 《聖約翰大學史》。上海：上海人民出版社，2007。[Xiong Yuezhi, and Zhou Wu, eds. History of St. John’s University. Shanghai: Shanghai People’s Press, 2007.] 徐以驊編。《上海聖約翰大學（1879–1952）》。上海：上海人民出版社，2009。[Xu Yihua, ed. St. John’s University, Shanghai (1879–1952). Shanghai: Shanghai People’s Press, 2009.] 燕 京 研 究 院 編。 《趙 紫 宸 文 集 第 一 卷》。北 京：商 務 印 書 館，2003。[Yenching Graduate Institute, ed. Works of T. C. Chao (Vol. 1). Beijing: The Commercial Press, 2003.] 《趙紫宸文集第二卷》 。北京：商務印書館，2004。[Works of T. C. Chao (Vol. ———。 2). Beijing: The Commercial Press, 2004.] 《趙紫宸文集第三卷》 。北京：商務印書館，2007。[Works of T. C. Chao (Vol. ———。 3). Beijing: The Commercial Press, 2007.] 《趙紫宸文集第四卷》 。北京：商務印書館，2010。[Works of T. C. Chao (Vol. ———。 4). Beijing: The Commercial Press, 2010.] ———。《趙 紫 宸 英 文 著 作 集 第 五 卷》。北 京：宗 教 文 化 出 版 社，2009。[The Collected English Writings of T. C. Chao (Vol. 5). Beijing: Religion and Culture Press, 2009.) 章開沅、馬敏編。 《韋卓民紀念文集》 。武漢：華中師範大學，2010。[Zhang Kaiyuan, and Ma Min, eds. Essays in Honor of Dr. Francis Wei. Wuhan: Huazhong Normal University Press, 2010.]

222

Selected Bibliography

《中華基督教會年鑒》，1914。[China Mission Year Book, 1914.] 中華聖公會中央辦事處編。《中華聖公會年鑒》。上海：中華聖公會中央辦事處， 1949。[CHSKH, ed. Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui Yearbook. Shanghai: CHSKH, 1949.] 鍾 仁 立。《中 華 聖 公 會 華 南 教 區 百 年 史 略》。香 港：中 華 聖 公 會 會 督 府，1951。 [Chung Yan Lap (Zhong Renli). The 100-Year History of the South China Diocese of the CHSKH. Hong Kong: CHSKH Bishop’s House, 1951.] ———。《莫 壽 增 傳》。香 港：聖 公 會 出 版 社，1972。[Biography of Mok Sau Tsang. Hong Kong: Sheng Kung Hui Press, 1972.] 周佳榮、黃文江。《香港聖公會聖保羅堂百年史》。香港：中華書局，2013。[Chow Kai-wing, and Wong Man-kong. The Centennial History of Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui St. Paul’s Church. Hong Kong: Chung Hwa Book Co., 2013.] 《主 教 集 議 初 稿》。上 海：美 華 書 館，1897。[Draft Report on Bishops Joint Meeting. Shanghai: American Presbyterian Mission Press, 1897.]

Important Websites on the Anglican-Episcopal Tradition in China Archives of the Episcopal Church http://www.episcopalarchives.org Biographical Dictionary of Chinese Christianity (in Chinese and English) http://www.bdcconline.net/en/ Church Missionary Society Archives http://www.cms-uk.org/Resources/LibraryArchives/Archives/TabId/194/ArtMID/3826/ ArticleID/607/In-Birmingham.aspx CSCA Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui Source Documents http://anglicanhistory.org/asia/skh/ Hong Kong Baptist University, Archives of the History of Christianity in China http://library.hkbu.edu.hk/sca/ahc.html Hong Kong Government Records Office (Chinese and English) http://www.grs.gov.hk/ws/english/home.htm The Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui (Anglican Church) (Chinese and English) http://www.hkskh.org/index.aspx?lang=1 Lambeth Palace Library and Archives http://www.lambethpalacelibrary.org/content/searchcollections Shanghai Municipal Archives (in Chinese only) http://www.archives.sh.cn USPG Papers and Archives http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/dept/scwmss/wmss/online/blcas/uspg.html Yale Divinity School Library, Special Collections http://web.library.yale.edu/divinity/special-collections

Index

A “Administration of Holy Baptism” (Norris), 108 Alford, Charles Richard, 7, 52, 55, 196 All Saints’ Church (Hong Kong), 15 American Bible Society, 84n10, 86–87 American Church Mission (ACM). See Protestant Episcopal China Mission American Church Mission Hymnal, 145 American Episcopal Church, 4, 9, 19, 91, 104, 120, 162, 193. See also Protestant Episcopal China Mission American Episcopal Theological Seminary (later Episcopal Divinity School; Cambridge), 155, 162 Amoy (Xiamen), 4, 209 Anderson, David L., 170 Anglican Communion, 11, 16, 19, 99, 105–6, 108–9, 211, 212 Anglican-Episcopal relations, 5, 9, 21, 113, 167. See also American Episcopal Church; Church of England Anglican-Episcopal tradition, 2, 19–20, 30, 34, 84n9, 103, 172–73, 187–88. See also under Chao, T. C. Anglo-Catholic theology, 72, 92, 161, 164–67, 175 Anglo-Chinese College, 52 Anking Diocese (Anqing; Wuhu), 9–10, 15, 30, 110, 210 anti-mui tsai campaign, 50, 57, 60, 64 Apostles’ Creed, 89, 109, 112, 114, 173 Appleton, George, 93–94 April 12 Incident (1927; Shanghai), 38 Archbishop of Canterbury, 2, 11, 16, 97, 170, 193. See also Church of England

architecture, church, 66–67, 147–48, 150 Art of the Missionary (Hall), 75 Assu, Mary, 51 Athanasian Creed, 89

B Baker, John Gilbert Hindley, 18–19, 156, 193, 206, 212 Banister, William, 198 baptism, 108, 115, 173, 182n52, 185n66, 190; of female students, 49–50, 52, 54, 57, 61 Barth, Karl, 156, 158–59, 167, 169, 170–71 Basel Mission, 57 Batavia, 4 Bawn Memorial Women’s Theological Seminary, 34 Baxter, Harriet, 49, 53–55, 58, 62 Baxter, Nona, 55 Baxter, Robert, 53 Baxter Memorial School (St. Matthew’s Primary School), 55n36, 56 Baxter Mission, 55 Baxter vernacular schools, 49, 53–56 BCP. See Book of Common Prayer Benevolent Society, 64n66 Berlin Mission, 57 Bevan, Kenneth Graham, 202 Bible, 172–73; translations of, 6, 84–85, 87, 91, 94–96, 100–101, 211 Biography of St. Paul (T. C. Chao), 179 “Bishop Roots’s Parting Words to Consolidate the United Front,” 39 Bishops of China and Korea Conference (1897), 103–4 Blodget, Henry, 85, 87 Boa Choi Chu, 142, 145

224 Index

Boa Siu, 141, 142 Boa Siu, Mrs., 142 Book of Common Prayer (BCP), 2, 12–13, 20–21, 81–102; 1662 Church of England, 13, 113; 1789 Episcopal, 13; 1870–72 Burdon and Schereschewsky Mandarin, 6, 21, 82–83, 86–90, 104, 209; 1879 Burdon wenli, 83, 89; 1880 Schereschewsky wenli, 83, 87, 89, 91; 1888 Blodget, 87; 1907 Blodget and Wilder, 87n18; 1917 Sheng Kung Hui (Union Prayer Book), 83, 86, 88–89, 105–7, 111–13, 211; American, 82, 91, 104, 106, 110, 112–13, 116; Anglican Communion and, 99, 106; Chinese Church and, 21, 81, 95–96, 98–99; Chinese politics and, 85–86; Chinese terminology and, 85, 87, 88–89, 91; CHSKH and, 103–16; church-state relations and, 97–98; contextualization of, 81, 90–91, 98–99, 106–8, 111; English, 82, 91, 104, 106, 110, 112–13, 116; foreign missions and, 111, 113–14; Fukien Diocese, 116; HKSKH and, 116; Kiangsu Diocese, 109–10, 115; Lambeth Conferences and, 99, 105–9; liturgical uniformity and, 13, 84n9, 87, 91, 96, 98, 100–102, 103, 112; North China Diocese, 107–8, 113–14; PRC and, 90, 102; revisions of, 82, 86–87, 89, 96, 97, 104, 107; special occasion prayers and, 104–5, 107, 112 Book of Songs, 39 Boone, William Jones, 4, 5, 9, 82, 196, 209 Boone, William Jones, Jr., 32, 92–93, 197 Boone University (Boone Memorial School), 13, 27–30, 32–33, 155, 162. See also Central China Normal University Borneo, 76 Boxer Uprising (1899–1901), 7, 210 British and Foreign Bible Society, 84n10

British and Foreign School Society (BFSS), 48n6 British East India Company, 3, 209 Broomhall, Marshall, 84n10 Buddhism, 66–69, 73, 77, 163, 169 Burdon, John Shaw, 6, 61, 85, 97–98, 196, 209. See also Book of Common Prayer Burdon, John Shaw, Mrs., 61 burial liturgy, 13, 82, 105n7, 107–8, 114, 115 Burlingame, Ansom, 86 Burma (Myanmar), 68, 69 Bush, Richard, 77

C Cai Fuchu (Tsai Fuh-tsu; Tsai Fuchu; F. T. Tsai), 204 California, 57 Canadian Anglican Church, 7, 31, 113, 193 Canton (Guangzhou), 4 Canton Union Theological College, 33 Cao Shengjie, 34–35, 42 Cao Yabo, 38 Cassels, William Wharton, 197 Catholicism, Roman, 1–2, 4, 85 CCC. See China Christian Council CCP. See Chinese Communist Party Central China Normal University (Huazhong University; previously Boone University), 21, 155–56, 158–59, 162 Central School (Hong Kong), 52 Central Theological School, 17, 32, 33–35 Ceylon (Sri Lanka), 68, 69 Chan, Andrew Au Ming, 207 Chan Poon, 141 Chang, Michael Kwang Hsu (Chang Kuang-hsu; Zhang Guangxu), 203 Chang, Stephen Hai-Sung (Zhang Haisong), 204 Chang Pui Yeung (Cheung Pui Yeung; P. Y. Chang), 208 Chao, T. C. (Zhao Zichen), 15n34, 17, 19–21, 35, 155–63, 166–67,

Index 225

Chao, T. C. (Zhao Zichen) (continued) 169–72, 211; Anglican tradition and, 155–57, 159–61, 169–71, 173, 175–76, 178, 182–83, 186, 188–92; Biography of St. Paul, 179; on chengzhilun, 175–79; Chinese Church and, 150, 160–61, 172–73, 179, 188, 191; CHSKH and, 169, 171; on Communist rule, 161, 167; Confucianism and, 164n43; contextualization and, 14, 21, 157–58, 169, 175, 179, 187–88, 191; ecumenism and, 155, 158, 169; Four Lectures on Christian Theology, 160–61, 173, 181, 185, 187; “Future of the Church in Social and Economic Thought and Action,” 160; Hall and, 156, 158–62, 167, 170–72; “Have We Done Justice to the Church?,” 160; humanism and, 157–58, 159–60, 171, 172n10, 173, 176; “Interpretation of Christianity,” 177, 179; Methodist influence and, 156, 169, 170, 175, 176–77, 178, 183, 191; My Experience in Prison, 159, 171, 181; neo-orthodoxy and, 156, 158, 169, 170–71, 192; “Possible Development of the Dogmatic Theology of Chinese Christianity in the Next Forty Years,” 174; sacraments and, 14, 173, 185n66, 188–90; Significance of the Christian Church, 160; Speaking of Christianity from the Perspective of Chinese Culture, 174; theology of, 21, 157–61, 162–63, 167, 173–92; on tongyilun, 175, 179–86; on yixin weizhi, 185n65, 187–91 Chau Lu-nin, 147 Chau Wai Cheung, 142 Cheeloo School of Theology, 33 Chefoo (Yantai), 30 Chekiang (Zhejiang) Diocese, 7, 10, 16, 113, 210 Chen Bentao, 35

Chen, Robin Chien-Tsen (Ch’en ChienChen; Ch’en Chien-Tsen; Chen Jianzhen), 202 Chen Ruiwen, 21, 135–51 Chen Tianhua, 37 Chen Yongtao, 21, 169–92 Ch’en Yun-en (Ding Ing-Ong; K. O. Ding; Chen Yong’en), 200 Cheng, David Cheng-ye. See Zheng Jianye Cheng Zhuping, 34 chengzhilun (theory of completing God’s own will), 175–79 Cheung Wing Ngok, 206 Cheung Wing Tai, Mrs., 144 Chiang Kai-shek, 38, 211 Chien, John C. T., 208 China Baptist Theological Seminary, 33 China Centenary Mission Conference (1907), 6–7, 9, 104, 210 China Christian Council (CCC), 18, 20, 34, 115, 212 China Inland Mission, 7, 30 Chinese Anglican-Episcopal Church. See Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui Chinese Church, 1, 19–21, 32, 43–45, 210–11; BCP and, 21, 81, 95–96, 98–99; T. C. Chao and, 150, 160–61, 172–73, 179, 188, 191; in Hong Kong, 15, 73, 136, 210; international status of, 35, 44, 45, 212; St. Mary’s and, 137, 141, 143, 149; St. Peter’s and, 134; women and, 50. See also Christianity, Chinese; Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui Chinese Churchman (Sheng Kung Hui Bao), 12, 108, 210 Chinese Communist Party (CCP), 17, 25, 33, 38–45, 76, 161, 167, 211; Chinese Christianity and, 35–36, 40–45. See also Civil War, Chinese Chinese communities, overseas, 4, 69, 72, 115–16 Chinese Enlightenment, 38 Chinese Home Missionary Society, 149 Chinese language. See Mandarin language

226 Index

Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, 35, 44–45, 172 Ching Feng (Jing Feng; CSCCR publication), 71, 74, 77 Chituchiao Chungkuo Tsungchiao Yenchiushe (Jidujiao Zhongguo zongjiao yanjiushe). See Christian Study Centre on Chinese Religion Chiu, Patricia P. K., 20, 47–64 Christ Church (Hong Kong), 52 Christ Church (Shanghai), 120 Christ Temple (Hong Kong), 66–67 Christian Mission to Buddhists (CMB), 66–67 Christian Missions and the Judgment of God (Paton), 161 Christian Study Centre on Chinese Religion (CSCCR; Christian Study Centre on Chinese Religion and Culture), 20, 66–78; establishment of, 67–71; Hall on, 70–75, 76, 78; mission of, 71–75, 76 Christianity, Chinese, 1–2, 7, 25, 30, 35–36, 40–45, 65, 137. See also Chao, T. C.; Chinese Church; contextualization Chun Oi-ting, 53 Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui (CHSKH; Chinese Anglican-Episcopal Church; Zhonghua shenggonghui), 3, 9–15, 17–20, 30n10, 65, 193–94, 210–12; BCP and, 103–16; bishops of, 34, 193, 199–205; T. C. Chao and, 169, 171; Chinese politics and, 17–18, 40–42, 212; church-state relations and, 35, 40–42; dioceses of, 31, 213; education and, 12–13, 29, 49; establishment of, 9–10, 103; General Synods of, 9–11, 13, 15n35, 17, 103–12, 114–15, 137, 210–11; House of Bishops of, 13, 17–18, 41, 105, 107, 195, 212; recognition of, 105, 108–9; St. Mary’s Church and, 135, 143, 149–50; St. Peter’s Church and, 120; TSPM and, 42; Unification of Worship and, 105, 115, 194; War against Japan and,

Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui (continued) 17, 122; WCC and, 15, 17, 211. See also contextualization Chung K’e-t’oh (Zhong Ketuo), 40, 119 Chung Shi, 55 Chung Yu Sang, Mrs., 141, 142, 144 Church Missionary Society (CMS; England), 4–7, 9, 26, 48, 135–36, 209; female education and, 50–52, 54, 57–64; FES and, 60–62, 63 Church of Christ in China, 15 Church of England, 5, 8, 31, 52, 92, 103, 136, 209, 211; BCP and, 104, 111, 113–14. See also Archbishop of Canterbury Church of England Zenana Mission Society (CEZMS), 6, 8–9, 61, 210 Church of Our Savior (Shanghai), 120 Church of the East, 1 Church of the Resurrection (Shanghai), 123 Civil War, American, 26, 85–86 Civil War, Chinese (War of Liberation; 1946–49), 17, 36, 40, 111, 134, 211 Clement XI (Pope), 1 CMS. See Church Missionary Society communion service. See Eucharist communism. See Chinese Communist Party Community of the Transfiguration, 9 Confucianism, 71, 74, 77, 157, 163, 164n43 Congregationalists, 15 contextualization, 2–3, 10–12, 15, 19, 43, 94–96; architecture and, 66–67, 147–48, 150; of BCP, 81, 90–91, 98–99, 106–8, 111; T. C. Chao and, 14, 21, 157–58, 169, 175, 179, 187–88, 191; Hall on, 66, 69, 72–74, 75–76, 78; St. Mary’s Church and, 135–36, 140–41, 143–51 Cooke, Mary Ann, 48n6 Correspondence in Connection with the Protest against the Consecration of Rev. W. J. Boone, 92 Craighill, Lloyd Rutherford, 203

Index 227

Cranmer, Thomas, 182n52, 188n80 CSCCR. See Christian Study Centre on Chinese Religion Cui Ying College, 156, 169–70 Cultural Revolution, 1, 18n46, 42, 44, 115, 134 culture, Chinese, 1–2, 7, 12, 14, 164–66. See also contextualization Curtis, John, 200

D Daoism. See Taoism Datong Kindergarten, 41 Davys (Reverend), 63 Deng Fucun, 34–35, 42 Deng Shukun. See Teng, Kimber H. K. Deng Xiaoping, 212 Denunciation Movement, 161, 167, 172 Ding Guangxun. See Ting, K. H. Ding Ing-Ong (K. O. Ding; Ch’en Yun-en; Chen Yong’en), 200 Diocesan Home and Orphanage (DHO), 52, 55, 60 Diocesan Native Females Training School (DNFTS), 49, 51–55, 58n49, 62 Dong Biwu, 38–39, 41 Dong Jianwu (H. C. Tung), 41, 119 Drake, F. S., 69 Du Guangyan, 34 Duan Qi, 21, 119–34 Duane Hall (school), 27 Dublin University Mission, 6, 96 Duppuy, Charles Ridley, 139, 199

E East and the West, The (Norris), 108 East Asian Anglican Conference, 116 East Szechuan (Sichuan) Diocese, 10n24, 211 Eaton, Mary Ann Winifred, 51, 54 ecumenism, 7, 12, 14–15, 65, 85, 155, 158, 169; Christian Ecumenical Movement, 35, 44 Edkins, Joseph, 84 education, 4, 7, 61n58, 93; CHSKH and, 12–13, 29, 49; in Hong Kong, 5,

education (continued) 18, 47–64, 83, 141–42; PECM and, 5, 25, 26–30, 32–34; theological, 13–14, 32–36, 44; women and, 9, 20 education, female, 47–64, 142; CMS and, 50–52, 54, 57–64; DNFTS and, 49, 51–55, 58n49, 62; female leadership and, 63; FES and, 48–51, 53–58, 60–63; for poor and abused, 50, 57, 60, 64; for teacher training, 58, 63; vernacular schools and, 49, 53–63 enculturation. See contextualization Encyclopedia of China: Religion Volume, 43 English Methodist College (Ningpo), 28 Episcopal-Anglican relations, 5, 9, 21, 113, 167. See also Church of England Episcopal tradition. See AnglicanEpiscopal tradition Eucharist, 82, 92, 94–95, 105n7, 107, 109–10, 112, 115, 182n52; T. C. Chao and, 173, 185n66, 190 evangelism, 5, 7, 44 Evening Prayer, 82, 88, 90, 109, 112, 115 Eyre Diocesan Refuge, 135–40 Eyre, Lucy, 58–59, 64n66, 136–37

F Fairlea School, 49–50, 56–58, 60–63, 64n66 Farrer, Austin, 181 Fay, Lydia Mary, 5, 26–27 Female Education Society (FES), 7, 8–9, 48–51, 53–58, 60–63 Feng Yu-hsiang (Feng Yuxiang), 39 Fenn, Christopher, 61 Feuerbach, Ludwig, 174 Five-Year Endeavor Movement, 148 Fletcher, Helena, 58–59 Fok Ching Shan, 63, 137, 139, 141–43 Fok Ching Shan, Mrs., 63 Fok Wing Ching, 139

228 Index

Foochow (Fuzhou), 5, 15 Four Lectures on Christian Theology (T. C. Chao), 160–61, 173, 181, 185, 187 Franciscans, 1 Fukien (Fujian), 5–7, 115; Diocese of, 7, 10, 15–16, 116, 210 fundamentalism, Chinese Christian, 33 “Future of the Church in Social and Economic Thought and Action” (T. C. Chao), 160

G Ge Piliu, 120 Gilman, Alfred Alonzo, 201 Gilson, Charles Packard, 207 Glüer, Winfried, 167, 178, 184, 186 Gong Peng, 119 Gospel Hymns, 145 Grant-in-Aid program, 55–57, 60, 62 Graves, Frederick Rogers, 12, 93–94, 120, 197, 210 Green, S. Withers, 69, 71 Grundy, J., 61, 63 Gu Heling (Ku Ho Lin; Ku Ho Ling), 200 Gu Ziren. See Koo, T. Z. Guangdong. See Kwangtung Guangren Hospital (St. Elizabeth’s Hospital), 124, 129–30 Guangxi. See Kwangsi-Hunan Diocese Guo Feng, 21, 103–16 Gutzlaff, Karl, 4

H Hall, Ronald Owen, 16–18, 20, 65–78, 115, 193, 200, 206, 211; Art of the Missionary, 75; T. C. Chao and, 156, 158–62, 167, 170–72; on contextualization, 66, 69, 72–74, 75–76, 78; on CSCCR, 70–75, 76, 78; on Hong Kong, 72–73, 75–76; “My Vision and Calling,” 78; St. Mary’s Church and, 146–47, 150; “Suggested Definition of the Purpose and Basis of the Hong Kong Study Centre

Hall, Ronald Owen (continued) in Relation to the Contemporary Situation,” 70, 71–72 Halward, Nelson Victor, 203 Hamper, Agnes K., 60, 62, 64n66 Hankow (Hankou) Diocese, 9–10, 210 Hannerz, Stig, 68–69 Haolian Zhaoxuan, 34–35 Harding, Henry, 3n5 “Have We Done Justice to the Church?” (T. C. Chao), 160 Hawks Pott, Francis Lister, 27–28 He Fengde, 34 He Long, 40 Hind, John, 199 HKSKH. See Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui Hoare, Joseph Charles, 8, 197 Hocking, William E., 162–63, 164 Holden, John, 199 Holy Trinity Church (Hong Kong), 15, 60, 68, 147 Honan (Henan), 7; Diocese of, 10, 115, 210 Hong Dao Church (St. Matthew’s Church), 40 Hong Deying, 119 Hong Kong, 7, 17–18, 44, 62, 150, 209; Anglican churches of, 136, 148, 151; Chinese Church in, 15, 73, 136, 210; Chinese rule and, 19, 212; church-state relations and, 97; education in, 5, 18, 47–64, 83, 141–42; Hall on, 72–73, 75–76; Seamen’s Mission of, 148. See also Christian Study Centre on Chinese Religion; particular churches of Hong Kong and Macao, Diocese of, 10n24, 18, 65, 115, 116, 193, 212 Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui (HKSKH), 19, 52, 68, 78, 102, 116, 193, 212; T. C. Chao and, 169, 172 Hooker, Richard, 166, 182n52, 184 Houghton, Frank, 201 Hsieh Fu-ya (Xie Fuya), 15 Hsü, Addison Ki-song (Xu Jisong), 202 Hsu Fu-kuan, 71

Index 229

Hsüeh Ping-hsi. See Xue Pingxi Hu Lang-t’ing, 38 Huang Chi-t’ing, 37–38 Huang Guangcai (Wong Kong Chai), 4, 28, 209 Huang Keqiang (Huang Xing), 37–38 Huang, Quentin K’uei-yuan (Huang Kuiyuan), 204 Hunan, 37. See also Kwangsi-Hunan Diocese Huntington, Daniel Trumbull, 198 Hutchinson, A. B., 55, 63 Hymns of Universal Praise, 15, 145, 211

I Iliff, Geoffrey Durnford, 197 India, 47, 48, 68 indigenization. See contextualization Indigenization Movement, 35 Ingle, James Addison, 37, 96, 197 International Development of China, The (Sun Yat-sen), 40 International Missionary Conferences, 159, 170 International Missionary Council (IMC), 67–68 “Interpretation of Christianity” (T. C. Chao), 177, 179

J Japan, 5, 47, 69, 209. See also War against Japan Japanese Anglican Church (Nippon Sei Kokwai; NSKK), 16–17, 105, 108–9 Jefferies, Paul, 69 Jesuits, 1 Jewel, John, 182n52 jidujiao (the religion of Christ), 3 Jinling Shenxuezhi (Nanjing Theological Review), 44 Johnstone, Margaret, 56–58, 61, 63–64 jurisdictional issues, 9, 83, 91, 97–98 justification by faith (yixin weizhi; yinxin chengyi), 185n65, 187–91

K Kan Sze Chiu, 144, 145 Kan Tat Choi, 141, 142–43, 146 Kan Tat Choi, Mrs., 142 Kan Yam Chin, Mrs., 144 Kennedy, Harry Sherbourne, 207 Kiangsu (Jiangsu) Diocese, 16, 120; Prayer Book of, 109–10, 115 KMT. See Kuomintang Kong-Yuet Diocese. See Victoria and South China Diocese Koo Lin Oi (Koo Sam Ku), 141, 144 Koo, T. Z. (Koo Ts-Zung; Ku Zizong; Gu Ziren), 40 Koo, Wellington, 40 Korean War, 15n34, 17, 211 Kowloon City Baptist Church, 148 Kraemer, H., 70, 73 Kramers, Robert P., 70, 73–74 Ku Ho Lin (Ku Ho Ling; Gu Heling), 200 Kucheng Massacre (Fukien; 1895), 7 Kung, H. H. (Kong Xiangxi), 39 Kuomintang (KMT), 13, 17, 25, 36, 38–40, 42. See also Civil War, Chinese Kwangsi (Guangxi)-Hunan Diocese, 7, 10, 106, 107n11, 110, 210 Kwangtung (Guangdong), 5, 7; Diocese of, 10n24, 212 Kwok, Timothy Chi Pei, 207 Kwong, Matthew Yat-sau (Kwong Yatshau), 60, 137, 141, 210 Kwong, Matthew Yat-sau, Mrs., 60 Kwong, Paul, 206 Kwong, Peter Kong Kit, 19, 193, 206, 212

L Lai, David Jung-Hsin, 208 Lai Kam, 60 Lam Chak Yan, 145 Lam Pei Yi Ku, 141 Lam Tin Sang, 141, 144 Lam Tin Sang, Mrs., 142, 144, 145 Lam Yuk Ngor, 142

230 Index

Lambeth Conferences, 11, 99, 105–9, 211 Lancashire, Douglas, 69 Lander, Gerard Heath, 136–37, 198 Latourette, Kenneth Scott, 43 Lau Yuk Ngor, 142 Lee Ching Ming, 69 Lee Ding San, Mrs., 63 Lee Kau Yan, 137, 139–43, 145, 148, 150 Lee Shau Ching (David Leigh), 145 Lee Shiu Keung, 74 Lee Yuen Tsaan, Mrs., 144 Lei Haifeng, 108 leprosy, 7 Leung, Lydia, 51 Leung Ting Hon, 142 Lew, Timothy Tingfang, 36–37 Li, Florence Tim-Oi, 16, 18, 211 Li Ho, 60 Li Jieren, 188 Lin Boqu, 40 Lin Buji (Lin Pu-chi), 111, 113, 130–31, 133–34 Lin, Timothy H. Y. (Lin Hsien-Yang; Ling Xianyang), 172n9, 204 Ling Duo Weekly, 138 liturgical worship, 13, 20, 92–96, 100. See also Book of Common Prayer; burial liturgy; marriage liturgy “Liturgy for All Saints Day” (T. K. Shen), 108 Liu Bing-kang, 40 Liu Ching-an, 38 Liu Fan-hou, 38 Liu Yao-ch’ang (Newton Y. C. Liu; Liu Yaochang), 204 Liu Yü-t’sang (Liu Yucang), 205 Lo Sam Yuen, 53 Lo San Tsoi, 60 “Logging” (Xiaoya; Book of Songs), 39 London Missionary Society (LMS), 48, 52, 57, 120 Lord’s Prayer, 87, 89–90, 109, 112 Luo Guanzong, 42 Lutz, Jessie, 63

M Ma Wing Chaan, Mrs., 63 Ma Ying Biu, Mrs., 63, 143 Macao, 4, 17, 19, 71. See also Hong Kong and Macao, Diocese of Mahan School (Yangchow), 28 Malaya, Chinese (Malaysia), 72, 116 Manchuria, 16–17 Mandarin language, 87n17, 104–5. See also under Book of Common Prayer “Manifesto to the World on Behalf of Chinese Culture,” 71 Manikam, Rajah, 68 Mao Ke Chung (Mao Keh-ts’ung; Mao Kezhong), 34, 194, 203 Mao Zedong, 41, 211 Marco Polo Bridge Incident (Lugou Bridge Incident; 1937), 38, 122, 123, 128, 131–32 marriage liturgy, 13, 82, 105n7, 115 marriages, mixed, 27–28 Mary Magdalene, 137n10 Maurice, Frederick D., 166 Maxwell, Harold Alexander, 203 May Fourth Movement (1919–21), 210 McClatchie, Thomas, 4–5, 209 McGrath, Alister, 172n10, 190 McKeige, Ferdinand, 92n28, 93 Medhurst, Walter, 82 medical services, 1, 4, 9, 29, 44; St. Elizabeth’s Hospital and, 124, 129–30 “Memorial Service” (Wei Xiben), 108 Methodist Church, 28, 48, 57, 156, 194. See also under Chao, T. C. Mid-China Diocese, 7, 210 Millican, Frank R., 39 Ming-li School (Shanghai), 28 Mission to Seamen, 8, 148 missionary movement, 42–43, 165 missionary societies, 6n15, 84n9, 103, 193; church-state relations and, 36–40; elite vs. mass approach and, 5, 20, 25, 29–32, 43, 45; female, 8–9, 48; missionary expulsions and, 1, 211. See also particular societies

Index 231

Moeller, Charles, 190 Mok Shau Tsang (Mo Shou-tseng; S. T. Mok; Mo Shouzeng), 58, 146–47, 201 Mok Shau Tsang, Mrs., 63 Molony, Herbert James, 198 Morning Prayer, 82, 88, 109, 112, 115 Morrison, Mary, 3 Morrison, Robert, 1, 3, 82, 86, 209 Mott, John R., 170 Mou Zongsan, 71 Moule, George Evans, 106, 197 Mowll, Howard West Kilvinton, 199 Mo-Yung, Nathaniel Hsien (Mo-Yung Hsien; Murong Xian), 205 Mui Kwai, 58 Mukden Incident (1931), 120, 122, 130, 133 Mung Yan, 58 “My Educational Experience” (H. J. Paul Pu), 41 My Experience in Prison (Xiyu ji, T. C. Chao), 159, 179–81 “My Vision and Calling” (Hall), 78

N Nance, Walter Buckner, 170 Nanchang Uprising, 40 Nanjing (Nanking), 40, 115; Treaty of, 4, 209 Nanking Theological Seminary, 32, 33 National Christian Council of China (NCCC), 15, 100, 119 National Day, Chinese, 130–31 National People’s Congress, 44 nationalism, Chinese, 163; St. Peter’s Church and, 120, 123, 125–26, 130–34 Nationalist Revolution (1911), 36, 37–38, 210 Nestorians, 1, 71 Ng, Peter Tze Ming, 21, 155–67, 169, 171, 173, 175 Ng Cheuk Kai, 141 Ng Cheuk Kai, Mrs., 141–43 Ng Hung Nam, 142 Ng Hung Nam, Mrs., 142

Nicene Creed, 72–74, 76, 89, 109, 112, 114, 173 Nichols, John Williams, 110, 201 Nippon Sei Kokwai (NSKK). See Japanese Anglican Church Noren, Loren, 69 Norris, Francis Lushington, 107–8, 113–14, 199 North China Diocese, 6, 10, 209, 210; Prayer Book of, 107–8, 113–14 North China Herald, 95 North China Theological Seminary, 33 Northeast China Compatriot Relief Plan, 123 Northern Expedition (1926–28), 36

O “Office of Instruction,” 108 Old Testament, 76, 85, 91 “On Prayer Book Revision” (Throop), 108 “On the 400th Anniversary of the Book of Common Prayer,” 111, 113 On the Principles of New Prayer Book Revision (T. K. Shen), 110–11 “On the Revision of the Book of Common Prayer” (Lin Pu-chi), 111, 113 Opening and Reform period (beg. 1978), 2, 43–44, 212 Opium Wars, 4, 5, 6, 209 Order of St. Anne, 9 orders, female religious, 9 ordination, 5, 13, 82; of women, 16, 18–19, 107, 211 orphanages, 48, 50, 52, 53–55, 57–59, 60–62 Ost, John B., 59–62, 63 Ost, Mary, 59–62 “Our Petition—A Union Prayer Book” (Wei Xiben), 111 Oxford Movement, 92, 156, 158 Oxlad, Mary J., 54–56, 58, 63

P Pacific War (World War II), 134 Pan-Anglican Congress, 137

232 Index

Paton, David M., 67, 161, 171 PECM. See Protestant Episcopal China Mission Pei Yuan School (Chuan-Chow), 28 Peking (Beijing), 6, 15, 30 Peking Translation Committee, 84–85, 86 Peng Shengyong, 115 People’s Republic of China (PRC), 1, 44, 65, 90, 102, 211; CHSKH and, 17–18, 212 Philips, Gerard, 190 Piper, J., 55, 63 Pitts, A. M., 141–42 Po Leung Kuk, 57, 60 politics, Chinese, 44–45, 85–86, 111, 134; CHSKH and, 17–18, 40–42, 212; KMT and CCP and, 38–40; PECM and, 25, 36–42 Pong, James Te Ming, 208 Pong Shi, 54, 55 Pong Siu Chi, 141, 142 Pong Yan Oi, 49, 55 Poon, Michael, 84n9, 89n20, 98, 116 “Poor Men’s Fortune” (H. J. Paul Pu), 41 “Possible Development of the Dogmatic Theology of Chinese Christianity in the Next Forty Years” (T. C. Chao), 174 post-denominational church. See Unification of Worship Prayer Book. See Book of Common Prayer PRC. See People’s Republic of China Presbyterians, 15, 169–70 Price, Horace McCartie Eyre, 198 Protestant Episcopal China Mission (PECM), 4–5, 9, 25–45, 103, 209; Chinese politics and, 25, 36–42; church leadership and, 34–36; church-state relations and, 37–40; education and, 5, 25, 26–30, 32–34; elite approach of, 5, 20, 25, 29–32, 43; influence of, 25, 29–30, 32; KMT and, 25, 40; location of, 5, 30–32, 35, 40

Protestant Missionaries Conferences, 210 Protestantism, 2 Pu, H. J. Paul (Pu Huaren), 18, 41, 119

Q Qin Bangxian, 38–39 Qing dynasty, 35, 37–38, 210; Prayer Book during, 81, 86–87, 96, 102, 108 Quarterly Notes (QN, CSCCR), 70, 71

R Rattenbury, H. B., 96 Rees, John Lambert, 120 Reichelt, Gerhard M., 67, 69, 70 Reichelt, Karl Ludvig, 66–67, 68, 70 Reinbrecht, Charles, 69 religions, traditional Chinese, 35–36, 71, 77, 169. See also Buddhism; Confucianism; Taoism Re-thinking Missions (Hocking), 162 Ricci, Matteo, 1 Richard, Timothy, 43 Rickomartz, Louisa, 55 Ridley, Mary, 60, 62 ritualism, 92–96, 100 Rizhi Society, 37–38 Roberts, William “Billy” Payne, 126, 134, 201 Roots, Logan Herbert, 38–39, 162, 197 Rose, A. P., 74 Russell, William Armstrong, 196

S sacraments, 14, 173, 182n52, 185, 187–90 Sargent, Christopher Birdwood Roussel, 202 Sayers, Mr., 93, 95 Schereschewsky, Samuel Isaac Joseph, 6, 26–27, 85, 99, 196, 210. See also Book of Common Prayer Schleiermacher, Friedrich, 174 Scott, Charles Perry, 6, 9, 196, 210 Scott, Thomas Arnold, 171, 199

Index 233

Seton, Rosemary, 48 Shanghai, 4–7, 115, 210; Civic Affairs Association of, 122; Diocese of, 9–10, 16, 30, 209; Federation of Christian Churches’ Government Bonds for National Relief Committee of, 125; Japanese occupation of, 41, 122, 131; PECM in, 5, 28, 30, 40. See also St. John’s University; St. Peter’s Church Shantung (Shandong) Diocese, 10, 210 Shashi (Hubei), 9 Shen, T. K. (Shen Tzü Kao; Shen Zigao), 34, 40, 100, 110–12, 114–15, 201, 211; “Liturgy for All Saints Day,” 108; On the Principles of New Prayer Book Revision, 110–11 Shen Yifan, 34–35, 42, 119, 194 Sheng Gong (CHSKH publication), 18, 111 Sheng Kung Hui Bao. See Chinese Churchman shenggonghui (Holy Catholic Church), 3 Shensi (Shaanxi) Diocese, 10n24, 16, 31–32, 149, 211 Significance of the Christian Church, The (T. C. Chao), 160 Sing Tsae-Seng (Shen Tsai-Sheng; Shen Zaichen), 193, 199, 210 Singapore, 4, 19, 76 Singapore and Malaysia, Diocese of, 116 Sino-Japanese War (1894–95), 16–17 Sino-Western Protestants, 35 slavery. See anti-mui tsai campaign Smith, Carl, 53 Smith, George, 4–5, 9, 51–54, 196, 209 Smith, Lydia, 51, 54 Smith, S. Stanley, 32 So Wah, 140–41, 144, 145 social welfare, 1, 7, 12, 18, 29, 126–28; anti-mui tsai campaign and, 50, 57, 60, 64 Society for Promoting Female Education in the East (SPFEE). See Female Education Society

Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts (SPG; Church of England), 6, 209 Song Ch’eng-Tsi (Song Ch’eng-chih; C. T. Sung; Song Chengzhi), 200 Song Jiaoren, 37 Soo, Thomas Yee Po, 206 Soochow Academy, 28 Soochow University (Dongwu University), 156, 167, 169 Soong, T. V. (Song Ziwen), 39, 40 South China, 6, 7, 210; Diocese of, 17. See also Victoria and South China Diocese Southeast Asia, 19, 30, 71 Southern Churchman, 93–95 Speaking of Christianity from the Perspective of Chinese Culture (T. C. Chao), 174 Spillett, H. W., 69 Spirit of Anglicanism (Wolf), 166 Spirit of Chinese Culture (Francis Wei), 164 Sri Lanka (Ceylon), 68, 69 St. Elizabeth’s Hospital. See Guangren Hospital St. James’ Church (Shanghai), 122 St. John’s Cathedral (Hong Kong), 5, 52, 157, 209 St. John’s Pro-Cathedral (Shanghai), 9, 11, 15 St. John’s University (St. John’s College; Shanghai), 6, 9, 13–14, 16, 27–34, 40–41, 83, 93, 210 St. Mary’s Church (Hong Kong), 15, 21, 68, 135–51; Chinese Anglicanism and, 137, 141, 143, 149; CHSKH and, 135, 143, 149–50; contextualization and, 135–36, 140–41, 143–51; Hall and, 146–47, 150; mission outreach and, 139, 144–46, 148–50; parishioners of, 137n10, 138–45, 151; TSPM and, 137, 141, 143–44, 148–49, 150 St. Matthew’s Church (Hong Dao Church), 40

234 Index

St. Paul’s Church (Hong Kong), 15, 138 St. Paul’s Church (Shanghai), 15, 122 St. Paul’s College (Hong Kong), 5, 51–54, 83 St. Paul’s Free School (Hong Kong), 141–42 St. Paul’s School (Anking), 28 St. Peter’s Church (Hong Kong), 52 St. Peter’s Church (Shanghai), 15, 18, 21, 41, 119–34; charity and, 126–28; Chinese nationalism and, 120, 123, 125–26, 130–34; War against Japan and, 120, 122–26; women’s group of, 129–30; youth group of, 127–29 St. Stephen’s Church (Hong Kong), 15, 49–50, 54–56, 57n46, 58–64, 136, 137, 142 St. Stephen’s Church (Shanghai), 122 Stanton, Vincent, 5, 52, 209 Star in the East, 95 Starr, Chloë, 21, 81–102, 103 Stevens, Percy, 200 Stewart, Frederick, 55–56 Stewart, Robert, 96 Straits Settlements, 47 Strandenaes, Thor, 85n11 Stringer, T., 54 Stuart, John Leighton, 170, 171 Student Volunteer Movement, 15 “Study of the Chinese Moral Tradition and Its Social Values” (Francis Wei), 163n37 Suen Chi Hing, Mrs., 142 Suen Yan Mei, 142 “Suggested Definition of the Purpose and Basis of the Hong Kong Study Centre in Relation to the Contemporary Situation” (Hall), 70–72 Sun Xipei, 34–35, 42 Sun Yanli, 194 Sun Yat-sen, 38, 40, 210 Suzhou Taowu Middle School, 170n1 “Synthesis of the Cultures of East and West” (Francis Wei), 163

Szechuan (Sichuan): East Diocese of, 10n24, 211; West Diocese of, 7, 10, 211

T Taiping Rebellion (1850–64), 209 Taiwan (Formosa), 16–17, 19, 44, 71–72, 76; Diocese of, 115, 193, 212 Tang dynasty, 71 Tang Junyi, 71 Tao Fong Shan (TFS; Hong Kong), 66–70 Taoism (Daoism), 66, 77, 163, 164n43, 169 Taylor, Hudson, 43 Temple, William, 166, 170 Teng, Kimber H. K. (Kimber Den; Teng Shu-k’un; Teng Hsu-k’un; Deng Shukun), 34, 204 terminology, Chinese: BCP translations and, 85, 87, 88–89, 91; T. C. Chao and, 175, 177–83, 186, 187–88; for Christianity, 3; for God, 84n10, 85, 88, 91 Thailand, 69 theology, Chinese, 44. See also Chao, T. C.; Wei, Francis C. M. Three-Self Patriotic Movement of the Protestant Churches of China (TSPM), 18, 34–35, 42, 119, 135–36, 172, 212; St. Mary’s Church and, 137, 141, 143–44, 148–49, 150 Throop, Montgomery H., 108, 110 tianzhujiao (Lord of Heaven), 3 Ting, K. H. (Ting Kuang Hsun; Ding Guangxun), 18–19, 34, 41–42, 119, 188, 194, 205, 212 tongyilun (union or identification theory), 175, 179–86 Treaty of Nanjing (1842), 4, 209 treaty ports (China), 4, 8, 47 Tsai Fuh-tsu (Tsai Fuchu; F. T. Tsai; Cai Fuchu), 204 Tsen Chien-yeh. See Zheng Jianye Tsen, Philip Lindel (Tsen Ho-p’u; Zheng Hefu), 201

Index 235

Tseng, Francis Yu-Shan (Zeng Youshan), 203 TSPM. See Three-Self Patriotic Movement of the Protestant Churches of China Tsu, Andrew Yu-Yue (Tsu Yu-yü; Andrew Tsu; Zhu Youyu), 30, 34, 40, 202 Tsui, Louis Tsan Sang, 206 Tung, H. C. (Dong Jianwu), 41, 119

U Unification of Worship (1958), 19, 105, 112, 115, 134, 191, 212 Union Prayer Book. See under Book of Common Prayer Union Theological Seminary (New York), 164 United Front (KMT and CCP), 38–39, 40

V Vachell, George H., 3n5 Venn, Henry, 135–36 Victoria and South China (Kong-Yuet) Diocese, 10, 135, 137, 147, 149, 150, 193 Victoria Diocese, 5, 7–8, 209 Victoria Home and Orphanage, 50, 59–62

W Wan Sze-kar, 101 Wang Ching Ch’ing, 69 Wang Ch’ung-hui (Wang Chonghui), 39 Wang Hsu Yao, 69 Wang Shenyin (Stephen S. Y. Wang), 194, 205 War against Japan, 16–17, 21, 33, 36–42, 150, 156, 159, 211; Chinese nationalism and, 130–34; CHSKH and, 17, 122; refugees and, 120, 122–26; Shanghai occupation and, 41, 122, 131; St. Peter’s Church and, 120, 122–26 Warren, C. F., 55, 63 WCC. See World Council of Churches

Wei, Francis C. M. (Wei Zhuomin), 15, 35, 155–56, 162–67; American Episcopal tradition and, 162; Anglo-Catholic orientation of, 164, 165–66, 167; Hewett Lectures of, 163–64, 165; Spirit of Chinese Culture, 164; “Study of the Chinese Moral Tradition and Its Social Values,” 163n37; “Synthesis of the Cultures of East and West,” 163; theology of, 21, 163–66 Wei Xiben, 108, 110, 111 Wellington, John, 202 Wenlin Hostel, 171 Wesley, John, 175, 177, 183 Wesleyan Methodist Missionary Society, 48, 57 West China Diocese, 210 West China Union University School of Religion, 33 West Szechuan (Sichuan) Diocese, 7, 10, 211 White, William Charles, 198 Who’s Who in China (1933), 30 Wickeri, Philip L., 1–22, 135–51 Williams, Channing Moore, 5, 82, 196 Wimberley, Charles, 3n5 Winter, Ralph D., 42–43 Wolf, William, 166 Wolfe, John R., 51 Wong Chi Tong, 138 Wong Fook Ping, 138 Wong, James Chang Ling, 207 Wong Kiu Tak (Wong Kiu-tak), 51, 209 Wong Kong Chai (Huang Guangcai), 4, 28, 209 Wong Shi, 55 Wong Wai Lam, 141 Wong Wai Lam, Mrs., 141, 142, 145 Wong Woo-ngoo (Susan N. Wong), 28 Woo, Catherine F., 63 Woo Yee Kai, Mrs., 63 World Council of Churches (WCC), 15, 17, 67, 211 World War II, 134 Worship Orders and Liturgical Uses in Churches (CCC), 115

236 Index

Wu, K. C. (Wu Guozhen), 39 Wu Leichuan, 15, 35 Wu Ting-fang, 53 Wuchang, 5; Diocese of, 15, 28, 30, 37–38 Wuchang Uprising (1911), 38 Wuhu Diocese. See Anking Diocese

X Xiang Jianhua, 34 Xie Fuya (Hsieh Fu-ya), 15 Xu, Edward Yihua, 20, 25–45 Xu Jisong (Hsü, Addison Ki-song), 202 Xu Qian, 35 Xue Pingxi (Hsüeh Ping-hsi; Moses Hsüeh), 194, 205

Y Yantai (Chefoo), 30 Yen Yun-ching (Yung King Yen; Yan Yongjing), 5–6, 27 Yenching University School of Religion, 33, 155–56, 170, 171 Yeung Chik Sam, 141 Ying Fuk-tsang, 20, 65–78 yixin weizhi (justification by faith; yinxin chengyi), 185n65, 187–91 YMCA (Young Men’s Christian Association), 7, 15, 18, 41–42 Yongzheng emperor, 1 Yu, David, 40 Yu Ensi (Yü En-ssu; E. S. Yu), 16, 120–23, 125, 131–34, 203 Yu Mingjian, 35 Yu Rizhang, 38, 119 Yuan dynasty, 1 Yun-Kwei (Yunnan-Kweichow) Diocese, 10n24, 31–32, 211 Yunnan Evangelistic Society, 149 YWCA (Young Women’s Christian Association), 7, 15, 18, 63–64

Z Zenana Mission. See Church of England Zenana Mission Society Zeng Baosun, 171 Zeng Youshan (Francis Yu-Shan Tseng), 203 Zhang Guangxu (Michael Kwang Hsu Chang; Chang Kuang-hsu), 203 Zhang Haisong (Stephen Hai-Sung Chang), 204 Zhang Junmai, 71 Zhang Kaiyuan, 155 Zhang Qun, 39 Zhang Zhidong, 38 Zhao Fusan, 42 Zhao Jingxin, 170n1 Zhao Luorui, 167, 170n1 Zhao Zichen. See Chao, T. C. Zhejiang (Chekiang) Diocese, 7, 10, 16, 113, 210 Zheng Hefu (Philip Lindel Tsen; Tsen Ho-p’u), 201 Zheng Jianye (David Cheng-ye Cheng; Cheng Chien-Yeh; Tsen Chien-yeh; C. Y. Cheng), 34, 42, 205 Zhong Ketuo (Chung K’e-t’oh), 40, 119 Zhonghua shenggonghui. See Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui Zhou Enlai, 38–41 Zhu Youyu. See Tsu, Andrew Yu-Yue Zongjiao (Religion; journal), 44