This review is a follow up to my previous review of the
first volume of this same title: David Kohl, Lutherans on the Yangtze: A Centenary Account of the Missouri Synod in China
Volume 1: 1912-1952, Portland : One Spirit Press, 2013 found at http://bennickodemus.blogspot.com/2014/02/david-kohl-lutherans-on-yangtze.html
Just as with the previous review, I consider this only insofar as my skill set
is concerned. I am not an expert in China, the history of Missions (at least
after the 4th century), the LCMS, and certainly not LCMS
missionaries in China. Rather, I am considering this topic only insofar as I am
a historian and will be considering this history as an outsider who is
analyzing how the history is presented. I leave it to those with specific
knowledge in these fields to address the content for its accuracy or
inaccuracy.
David Kohl’s second volume (while the book was apparently
written with the consultation of Hank Rowold, I will refer to the author simply
as Kohl throughout this text simply for ease of reference) improves on many of
the challenges that I levied in his first volume. The merits of this book are
equally presented given the merits of the first volume. The work is timely and
important in that Kohl has presented here a tome of knowledge that could have
soon been lost to memory. Further, the history of LCMS missions is of
particular interest as worldwide foreign missions are in the long process of
waning in the LCMS in order to “hand off” to local churches who develop from
within rather than relying upon foreign missionaries. As such, these churches
need to understand their own foundations from the perspective of the LCMS. Once
again, Kohl continues his greatest merit – the hermeneutic of respect of LCMS
missions that does not judge the work that was done, the causes of challenges
(both political and ecclesiastical), and the consequent solutions. Once again,
this is simultaneously Kohl’s greatest strength and his greatest limitation.
First, it should be noted that a historiographic account of
this nature is quite different than what was considered in the first volume.
The history from 1912-1952 requires less data to manage simply because there is
less data. Not only are there fewer records (and far fewer living memories),
but the founding of the mission was developed by a small group that is easier
to follow than a true denomination of Christians (which would be developed).
The history between 1949-2013 would necessarily include a glut of information.
This history would include a tremendous number of resources – both in better
records, a larger number of congregations and schools, and – most of all – a
tremendous number of living members available for interview. Therefore, all of
us should honor the work that was entered into this second volume.
While the more contemporary history presented new challenges
for Kohl, the glut of information solved one of the problems in Kohl’s first
volume. One of the challenges I levied was that there were simultaneously too
many small details of the mission while not providing us the “large scheme” of
what this Christianity looked like. This is a common problem when there is a
dearth of information. It is likely Kohl presented so many fine details without
always giving us the larger picture because he presented to us the details he
had. Building projects and the coming and going of personnel tend to be
recorded – how service was run on a Sunday morning often is not. This second
volume does not have that problem. There is so much information there is not
space for these catalogues of details and it pushes Kohl into a much larger
scheme conversation which make very clear what the “major point” was and why
these developments were important. For instance, Kohl spends a large part of
chapter 12 discussing the new mission statement and larger strategy of missions
developed in 1962 that showed the general interest and plan that would then be
implemented by these finer details.[1]
This was the kind of thing that would have been more helpful in the first
volume and here is well presented.
Another value of this more complicated history is that Kohl
has done a fantastic job managing very difficult chapters of history both
politically and ecclesiastically by keeping focused on the history of missions.
The period of 1949-2013 would have been very easy to cause political tangents
that began as a history (or even expose) of the politics of China. Kohl
laudably avoids that. He instead focuses on the mission and provides enough
data so that an educated reader with no real knowledge of China’s political
history can follow the development of the mission. Further, his discussion of
politics within the Missouri Synod – particularly the fallout of the politics
surrounding the 1973 “Seminex” explosion is impressive for how quickly he dealt
with its implications for the China missions, but did not get bogged down into
its implications for LCMS World Missions as a whole (which were vast but only
related to China to a small extent). To show Kohl’s model of dealing with this
problem consider his recounting of the event:
The Chinese Lutherans had plenty of
their own issues to resolve. Theology was not high on the list, until stateside
LCMS leadership became seriously interested in influencing local Hong Kong
church politics…Theology became a smokescreen masking other divisive issues. In
Hong Kong, the majority group chaired by Andrew Chiu, chose to be identified as
Lutheran Church-Hong Kong Synod in its first Memorandum of Articles of
Association.[2]
Kohl is able to discuss the Seminex issue without feeling
the need to get bogged down into the political conversation that often comes
with it. Instead, he uses it as a key event that helps shape a key development
in Hong Kong – the development of their own Synod as a partner church body
rather than remaining in the LCMS proper.
Like the first volume, one of the strengths of this book is
the intimacy Kohl creates with the book. Like the first volume, he enjoys
telling this as a story of key figures who the reader begins to get to know.
The discussion of the establishment of the Hong Kong mission is a good example.
It is a story of 4 displaced missionaries from mainland China who are evacuated
to Hong Kong to await further reassignment. Those four figures saw an opportunity
and began doing work. This then eventually led to a full mission in Hong Kong.[3]
It would have been easy to avoid that story and instead just move into the hard
data of the mission. Further, like the first volume, every other page is
dedicated to photographs, maps, and lists which provide a sense of who these
figures are and where they are located. All of this creates an intimacy less
common in history books.
Where Kohl’s hermeneutic of respect limits him is precisely
the same as it did in the first volume – it limits a hermeneutic of suspicion.
One wonders about all of the data presented – what kind of development and
change were present? One thing that seems to be a key issue is the development
from a very foreign based mission to a far more local based one. This seems to
be a turning point beginning with the conference in 1962 wherein the major
emphasis was to create autonomous churches to be sister churches with the LCMS
that developed their own local leadership.[4]
This led to a clear development wherein a change had occurred so that the
church became more autonomous:
Racial and national differences
faded, as a spirit of unity in Christ dominated. Laymen and missionaries were
equals, learning form each other, not shepherds leading or tending the sheep.
In a spirit of unity and sharing, mutual respect grew.[5]
This seeming turning point is what would eventually lead
toward the Hong Kong Synod to
become an independent synod:
Local and international forces and
events aligned in the late 1960s to culminate in the formation in 1976 of the
Lutheran Church-Hong Kong Synod, as a sister church and partner with the LCMS.
One goal of the Missionary Conference had always been to “put themselves out of
a job” as foreign missionaries; they desired to establish a self-sustaining
local or indigenous church that would depend minimally on the LCMS.[6]
All of this suggests that such a thing was not always the
case. There seems to have been a time when the missions were run by foreigners
who did not see the local population as equals (due most probably to
ecclesiastical hierarchy). Kohl hints at this issue in a few places:
With additional staffing came a
more defined division of responsibilities in the conference…At the time,
Chinese evangelists and laymen were not included in decision-making.[7]
After two years, the BFM authorized
a seminary in Hong Kong, headed by Missionary Thode. Students were designated
as “Special Students of Concordia Seminary.” Called the “crash program,”
candidates studied one or two days weekly while working within a local
congregation full-time. Missionaries supervised these several locations, and
taught various classes at the seminary.[8]
Kohl does not explain why it was that Chinese evangelists
were not allowed to participate or why they needed to be supervised. It is
quite possible that such was simply because of ecclesiastical authority – the
lack of Chinese evangelists having been ordained. However, this is precisely a
moment where a hermeneutic of suspicion would have been helpful in order to
give us a clearer picture of precisely what happened and why this seeming
turning point occurred. The data is implied in the text, but it could have been
made explicit to present the nature of the change more clearly.
Further, Kohl could have spent more time clarifying growth
patterns over time sociologically. Kohl does provide a good deal of data about
the growth and declines of particular churches, and clearly has good evidence
of numerical data. It might have been helpful to collate that data so that it
could be easily seen. In many ways, this was probably omitted due to the data
being incomplete as well as this being a history of missions rather than a
history of the Hong Kong Synod – but such a chart might have been helpful if
the data did exist to get a larger picture.
The final major question that the reader is interested in
asking is what was the nature of the content of the missions. Kohl does an
excellent job showing how the
material was presented, less of a clear job of exactly what that material was.
Specifically, were these churches preaching very traditional Lutheran doctrine?
Was Law and Gospel the primary elements? Were there regular catechism classes?
Kohl implies a fair amount of continuity between the standard practice of the
LCMS and these missions via descriptions of resources – he does clearly suggest
that they were able to obtain traditional Lutheran documents (catechisms,
hymns, Lutheran Hour, etc.) in translation in many cases. This implies that
there was an essential continuity in content; however, the reader is not sure.
How much was borrowed and how much was it adapted? What did regular church look
like? What was the primary message? Many answers to these questions may not have been easy to access, but it
certainly would be possible to entertain them.
The final quibble is a brief one. Kohl’s analysis does a
fantastic job of taking a tremendous amount of data and presenting a very clear
picture. However, there is one major confusion that is presented in the book.
In his conversation of Concordia Middle School in Chai Yi, he seems to have
conflicting information. He argues that the school was founded on the idea of
Christian example rather than specific Christian curriculum:
Concordia translates as “harmony”
(Hsieh Tong) – a perfect and auspicious name for an institution bridging
cultures. Implicit in plans from day one was a program of Christian exposure,
without the structure of a curriculum. With no required religion classes, would
all of the effort and expense yield a positive and appealing witness of the
Christian beliefs of the administration and staff? [9]
This idea of exposure without curriculum is bolstered by a
commentary on the later development of this same school:
Mandatory religion classes at CMS
are not allowed by the Republic of China (ROC) government, but the school does
have an active worship program and voluntary study programs that supplement the
normal curriculum.[10]
This is then challenged by an intermediate comment he makes
that suggests there are religion classes at the school:
The Christian character and context
of the school remains a unique and dynamic feature of CMS, as of 2014. There
has always been a missionary on staff, working with the religion department.
One class period utilize a weekly curriculum developed from Scripture – Old
Testament in grade 8 and New Testament in grade 9.[11]
It is quite possible that this minor confusion is simply
chronological – that at certain times they had Bible study in the curriculum
and at other times it was voluntary. However, this particular issue was a
little confusing. This one issue should not, however, give one the impression
that Kohl’s presentation is confusing or rife with problems – given the amount
of data he managed in such a short space, his work is amazing.
In all, this two volume series is excellent and deserves to
be read. It is accessible to a non-specialist and provides an important element
of history that otherwise would have been less accessible.
No comments:
Post a Comment