To the Edilor of the "Norra-CHiva Daty. News."
Sm:—Your issue of October 22, contains a Tong article by Mr. Rodney Gilbert ov "A Policy In hina" published by Dr. H. T. Hodekin about six months ago. " Some remarks in this article need com-
of this "Policy" or his disagreement ment, "With Mr. Gilbert's ertiism therefrom no one objects, least of all myself or Dr. Hodgkin. One! wishes, however, that the diplomats would produce one as definite and as progressive, But let that pass. But Heis time the missionaries rey some of the diatribes against, them freely flung around by Mr. Gilbert fand others. Such comments as I herewith make, it should be understood, are written entirely own initiative, The National Christian Council has nothing whatever to do with them, 'Two points in Mx. Gilbért's article require' special comment. After that is done I propose to add a few the article says that Dr. Hodgkin tional words.
wrote his Policy' to "play upon the] Ignorance and credulity of generous-minded folk" and that the sugges-Hons made by him and approved other missionaries are "supremely)
Such a slur upon missionary sincerity and motive is entirely uncalled for, Dr. Hodgkin and thos who sympathize with him may be mistaken in their judgment. None} of them, so far as'i know, claim the fame degree of infallibility that seems to trouble Me, Gilbert. In any revent they need not be charged wit! insincerity whenever they venture disagree with others on such vital "and dificult. problems. Such utterances by missionaries are effor'a to find a lead out of the sorry mess which residents in China find themselves, a mess for which, as one prominent Chinese member of the! National Christian Coureil said during Its recent annual meeting, Chinese as well as Westerners ars responsible. Mr. Gilbert should curb hin facile pen somewhat, Such discourteous insinuations day not help matters or win adherents to his of the Churches of Christ in Amjerica, an organization directly re-[presenting 25-30 millions of Christians, put forth one of the strongest statements against Mr. Gilbert's Position. He should find time to zead it. In contrast to the lack of public challenge mentioned by Mr. [Gilbert we find that twenty-three groups of Christians (mostly missionaries) passed resolutions favouring the general attitude ex pressed finally in the statement} adopted unanimously by the National Eh Council, an international group. Most of these are large jand influential groups. Seven mis-ion groups passed a neutral resolution on this problem, one of which was composed of one missionary conly and all of which were compara {tively small in number. No mission }group has, so far as I know, opposed the action of the Home "Boards. Such letters as appeared in opposition thereto in the public press were written with a rare exception or two by individuals. The opinion of such should be noted. It should no, however, be overvalued. The iden, therefore, that the majority of missionaries line up with Mr, Gilbert is a pure fiction. He could have wu better if he had tried. Most of the group actions referred were f¢aken some months since. The jection of the National Christian Council represents in my opinion the mind of the majority of Christians in China though very wisely the Council did not itself make this [precise claim.
Another notion needs to be punctured. Those missionaries and Ghristians who favour the statement, the National Christian Council do not live in a few treaty ports only. As a matter of fact, contrary to Mr, Gilbert's assertion, no representative group action has been taken by groups living either in Shanghai or Canton, The resolu tions referred to above represent a widely scattered group of Chri in many other places than a treaty ports." The great majority of those Christians who have spoken in favour of the ideas expressed by the National Christian Council.
Now I should like to add a few more remarks, I do not resent the criticism of the missionaries. I incan "again Me. Gilbert avers that such ideas as he disagrees with in his (of missionaries) in Pekin hai and Canton of the missions: in China" he says again, "have been sociating themselves" from such opinions, He simply does not know what he is talking about. He is no more a safe as to missionary tion along there lines than he is to missionary motives. The facts, are the reverse, Mr. Gilbert bases his statement a few odd conver-! mations in his rapid flights around China, In eotyast to such shallow attempts to sum up Christian} opinion the National Chistian Council has for fifteen months been conducting a scientific inquiry into what Christiars, do think on the problem of China's treaty situation. 'Until its recent meeting the National Christian Council made no. pronouncement on this opinion neither: did it try to tell acy one what to do. There were presented to the! annual meeting, however, the results' dulge in that pastime myself times. Missionaries thrive criticism. I desire to spretest ever, against the way statements} are made about the missionaries by those who do not know what they! are talking about..I have yet to hear of an editor or reporter of one {of our leading papers who hag gone some seeponsible person and tried to get the facts when contemplating grilling the missionaries. They could interpret the facts as_ they please. But they ought to show sufficient! courtesy to get them. The writers {of several books published during Teeent months have suggested that these "troublesome"—missionaries should be silenced by their govers-ment or sent home. What superd Hntolerance! Mr. Woodhead in_his book, "The Truth about the Chinese Republic" quotes at length certain actions of the Tientsin Missionary] Association, dated December 1925. He ignores entirely equally Yprtant resolutions passed by the Peking Missionary Association (al much larger group) about a month earlier than this: Furthermore the of its careful inquiry. These do not! resolutions quoted were not passed include any random conversations.' by the Tientsin Missionary As-'This docuntent probably influenced! sociation! Such propaganda against the mind of those attending the' the missionaries is neither fair nor annual meeting though even so the'
Lonest. It is time some one said so. National Christian Council did not! So here goes!
Fashly declare it knew the mind' of should like in conclusion to men-all Christians in China. The facts ition one bit of sophistry floating} as. regards Christian opinion in around. The missionary is frequent-China on international relationships ly reminded that he cannot cease are briefly as follows. All but a being a citizen of his _respective very few of the Home' Boards country. However this citizenship is interested in Christian work in China apparently to consist of a silent declared against the present treaty acquiescence® in bolstering up the system, None of them stood up for resent unsatisfactory treaty system it, In' China the majority of or at least following those who seen: Christians, Western and Chines: want it indefinitely postponed. have said' nothing. Mr. Gilbert When it come to his taking a part in correct in saying that there has been'his obligations as a citizen and try-challenge from any|ing to help find a way out of the church or mission organization" in! present muddle which the China of the statements either of thz diplomats seem to leave us, he must] Board in the West or the mission-!ceaso being.a citizen and follow aries in China. This hardly agrees somebody, whom is not clear. Public with the other statement quoted' reference' is sometimes made by from Mf Gilbert's article that "all! diplomats to the fact that certain the missions in China" have dis-expressions of opinion by mission-eclated themselves from such state-, have been a source of T would hho wrote this article. May T remind) most respectfully suggest that mach him further that the Federal Council! that is dove by them and others is a
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.