[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.Torn between not wantingto politicize an address on missions and yet not wanting seemingly to endorsethe statement by failing to denounce it, Judd wrote to the rally organizersand offered to withdraw.It appears that a compromise was arranged allowinghim to mention briefly  the difference of opinion on American policy thatexisted among missionaries, in the process of delivering his prepared speechon  The World Mission of the Christian Church. 70William Richard Johnson, perhaps even more irate than Walter Judd, com-posed a six-page letter in response to the statement.While addressed to theleadership of the Methodist church, Johnson titled it an  open letter andmailed 10,000 copies to clergy and mission executives around the country.In a rambling, kinetic discourse on the history of communist aggression,Johnson made the acid observation that the China Committee s policy sug-gestions closely resembled those recommended by the Communist Party ofthe United States.Besides identifying himself as a retired missionary, John-son s letter made almost no mention of the potential ramifications of eventsin China for missionary work and the Christian faith.He dwelt instead onwhat he regarded as American policy errors in not supporting the KMT moreactively, and on the general menace posed by communism to world peace andfreedom.71This particular exchange of letters and arguments by missionaries is remark-able for being almost completely devoid of theological issues.All the partic-ipants stood solidly in the tradition of mainline Protestantism.Because ofthis kinship, theological convictions do not seem to have determined anyparticular political positions.Rather than arguing over religious doctrine ormissionary practices, these Christians carried on an extensive public debateabout foreign policy.In the process of making their arguments in terms acces-sible to all Americans, the missionaries abandoned any distinctive appeal torevealed truths or the unique interests of missionary work.Their identitiesas  missionaries came to connote not so much a religious vocation as itindicated a particular experience with and concern for another country  inthis case, China.The China Committee s letter opposing support for the Nationalists alsorevealed what had been a growing sentiment among some China missionaries:perhaps the Communists were not so bad.One of Ambassador Stuart s former70Judd, letter, May 7, 1949.WHJ Collection, Box37, HIA.71Letters, May and June, 1949.WRJ Collection, RG 6, Boxes 19, 28, folders 32, 319, YDSA.178 PART TWOfaculty colleagues at Yenching University wrote to him in May 1949 describinglife in Beijng under the new Communist authorities. The work they dois most inspiring, he proclaimed. China never had a better governmentwithin the last 3,000 years. 72 A senior executive with Judd s old missionagency, the ABCFM, in July passed on to Judd a letter from an ABCFMmissionary currently serving in Beijng.The missionary s letter chided Juddfor his support for Chiang, and concluded that  we have to decide whetherwe hate communism so much that we d rather give up China than be friendswith communists, or whether we love China so much that we ll work withher even though it means being friends with communists. 73Some missionaries found it little problem to be friends with communists.Albert Smit, a Christian Reformed pastor working in the city of Xuzhou inJiangsu province, wrote a glowing letter to his mission board in June 1949,shortly after communist forces occupied his city.He contemptuously relatedthe oppression and looting by the Nationalist troops before the communistsarrived, and described the new government as  a great improvement for thecommon people. Crime had decreased dramatically, order had been restored,the military obeyed its leaders, and  the present government is much closerto the common people than the former regime. As to his own work, Smitacknowledged an uncertain future. Just what, if any, restrictions will beplaced on the work of missionaries is not as yet clear.No doubt, much willdepend upon America s attitude towards the new government. He remainedoptimistic, however, for himself and for China. The mode of life of the peoplewill not be affected much, but wealth will be more equally distributed.[andwe] are hopeful that the work of our Mission can go on. 74Though subsequent developments in China would prove his predictionsprofoundly wrong, Smit did not stand alone in his optimism.Through the endof 1949, the Messenger, a liberal Protestant fortnightly, published a series ofletters and articles from other China missionaries reporting favorably on lifeunder the new communist control.One related that conditions were  normaland peaceful and described Mao s forces  without any apparent irony as  liberators. Another article by Lucius Porter, a professor at Stuart s oldschool, Yenching University, described the CCP s victories as  one more act inthe great drama of revolution that has been enacted by the Chinese since the72Letter to Amb.Stuart, May 31, 1949.John Leighton Stuart Collection, Box 1, HIA.Eventhoughthe CCP had not yet conquered all of the mainland and established the PRC, at this pointthey controlled significant portions of the country, including Beijing.73Letter from Alice Mary Huggins, July 11, 1949.WHJ Collection, Box159, HIA.74June 14, 1949 letter from Albert Smit to Christian Reformed Board of Missions; EFMA Papers,Box 2, Folder 2; BGCA.TO SAVE CHINA 179Boxer Movement of 1900, and happily reported that  Yenching has receivedespecially favorable treatment from the new regime [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]