Richard Wilhelm’s “Cultural Approach to Evangelism” and His Contributions to the Spread of Christianity
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsOverall, the paper offers theoretical insights into concepts such as Direct Christology and the indigenization of Christianity. However, there are several areas where clarity and argumentative rigor could be enhanced.
Style: Clarity and Focus of Argumentation
While the paper presents a wealth of theoretical insights, the core arguments occasionally become obscured by extensive historical details and descriptive passages. This diffusion of focus can make it challenging for readers to discern the central thesis of each section.
It would be beneficial to begin each major section with a clear thesis statement that succinctly outlines the key point. Following this, each section should develop succinct sub-arguments that are directly linked to the stated thesis. This structured approach would sharpen the focus and improve the progression of ideas, ensuring that the reader can more readily grasp the paper’s central arguments.
Substantive Arguments
- Inconsistent Integration of Theory and Practice
The paper introduces rich theoretical constructs, notably Direct Christology and the indigenization of Christianity. However, the connection between these theories and the practical examples from Wilhelm’s career is sometimes ambiguous. For instance, while Blumhardt’s concept of Direct Christology is presented as a basis for Christian universalism—thereby inspiring opposition to forced baptism—it can also be interpreted as potentially leading to a broader opposition to missions and evangelism. This raises the further question of how this theory directly relates to Wilhelm’s noted distaste for numerical success in conversions and his practice of alternating between Christian and Chinese canonical texts.
The argument would benefit from a more robust linkage between theory and empirical evidence. Explicitly framing each practical instance as a case study that illustrates a corresponding theoretical point will ensure that each step of the argument logically supports the overall thesis.
- Limited Engagement with Counterarguments or Alternative Perspectives
The article largely presents Wilhelm’s approach in a positive light, without sufficiently engaging with potential criticisms or alternative interpretations of his missionary practices. This one-sided presentation can reduce the overall persuasiveness and robustness of the argument. Two primary concerns emerge:
- First, although the literature review provides valuable context, it remains unclear how the article advances our understanding of Wilhelm beyond the prevailing consensus. The studies surveyed tend to portray him as cultural, liberal, ethical, and enlightened. The paper should clarify whether it seeks to nuance our understanding of his career by reinterpreting key moments or if it is primarily summarizing established views.
- Second, a critical reflection on Wilhelm’s own thinking is notably absent. For example, while Wilhelm critiques rigid missionary strategies, his conception of “traditional missions” appears equally rigid. Did Wilhelm consider the long-term work of the China Inland Mission, which had engaged deeply with Chinese culture over decades? Was there any dialogue with Chinese Christians regarding the integration of Christianity with indigenous spiritual traditions such as Buddhism or Daoism? Moreover, in his effort to dismantle the dichotomy between “Christian” and “heathen,” does Wilhelm risk constructing a strawman argument—that the abandonment of Western pride necessarily entails the rejection of Christianity—thereby overlooking the possibility of an authentically Chinese Christianity? These reflections suggest that Wilhelm’s shift from being an ambassador of Christ to an ambassador of culture may be more complex and less normative or progressive than the paper assumes.
The paper should incorporate a more balanced discussion that critically examines these counterarguments and alternative perspectives.
While the paper makes a commendable effort to engage with significant theoretical constructs and historical details, improvements in clarity, integration of theory with practice, and balanced engagement with alternative perspectives would substantially enhance its scholarly contribution.
Author Response
|
1. Summary |
|
|
|
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions in the re-submitted files.
|
||
|
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors |
||
|
Comments 1: [Paste the full reviewer comment here.] Style: Clarity and Focus of Argumentation While the paper presents a wealth of theoretical insights, the core arguments occasionally become obscured by extensive historical details and descriptive passages. This diffusion of focus can make it challenging for readers to discern the central thesis of each section. It would be beneficial to begin each major section with a clear thesis statement that succinctly outlines the key point. Following this, each section should develop succinct sub-arguments that are directly linked to the stated thesis. This structured approach would sharpen the focus and improve the progression of ideas, ensuring that the reader can more readily grasp the paper’s central arguments. |
||
|
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. The authors of this paper have agreed to revise these statements. We have added an overview paragraph in front of each subsection in Chapter 3 so that the reader knows exactly what is at the heart of the discussion in this paragraph.
|
||
|
Comments 2: Inconsistent Integration of Theory and Practice The paper introduces rich theoretical constructs, notably Direct Christology and the indigenization of Christianity. However, the connection between these theories and the practical examples from Wilhelm’s career is sometimes ambiguous. For instance, while Blumhardt’s concept of Direct Christology is presented as a basis for Christian universalism—thereby inspiring opposition to forced baptism—it can also be interpreted as potentially leading to a broader opposition to missions and evangelism. This raises the further question of how this theory directly relates to Wilhelm’s noted distaste for numerical success in conversions and his practice of alternating between Christian and Chinese canonical texts. The argument would benefit from a more robust linkage between theory and empirical evidence. Explicitly framing each practical instance as a case study that illustrates a corresponding theoretical point will ensure that each step of the argument logically supports the overall thesis. |
||
|
With regard to the practical effects of “direct Christianity”, it must be noted that in Richard Wilhelm intentionally avoided the obligation to baptize believers and obtained permission from the German mission organization AEPM. However, his diary still contains a large number of records of his consultations with believers and his preparation of them for baptism. It must also be noted that although Richard Wilhelm once told a friend, after he had become a professor of Chinese studies, that he had never baptized a Chinese person, in recent years it has been found that he at least baptized Chinese people. In recent years, however, it has been found that he at least mentioned in a letter to his wife that he had baptized a Chinese child. Wilhelm's influence can be seen mainly in the reaction of the Chinese people. His colleague Pater Schueler also highly praised Wilhelm's missionary approach in a letter to the AEPM, noting that his efforts had dramatically changed the situation of the German churches on the ground. |
||
|
Comments 3: Limited Engagement with Counterarguments or Alternative Perspectives The article largely presents Wilhelm’s approach in a positive light, without sufficiently engaging with potential criticisms or alternative interpretations of his missionary practices. This one-sided presentation can reduce the overall persuasiveness and robustness of the argument. Two primary concerns emerge: First, although the literature review provides valuable context, it remains unclear how the article advances our understanding of Wilhelm beyond the prevailing consensus. The studies surveyed tend to portray him as cultural, liberal, ethical, and enlightened. The paper should clarify whether it seeks to nuance our understanding of his career by reinterpreting key moments or if it is primarily summarizing established views. Response: Much of the research to date has explored Wilhelm in terms of his contributions to the study of Sinology, especially his translations and interpretations of Chinese classics. This paper provides a lesser coverage of his missionary work, which has only been studied to a small extent by Sun Lixin, and which we discussed at the Wilhelm Symposium in Wuhan in 2011, which I initiated, but which Sun based primarily on the Protestant missionary community, and which did not make use of Wilhelm’s archives. This paper is the first in the study to summarize Wilhelm's missionary position in the context of his archives. Second, a critical reflection on Wilhelm’s own thinking is notably absent. For example, while Wilhelm critiques rigid missionary strategies, his conception of “traditional missions” appears equally rigid. Did Wilhelm consider the long-term work of the China Inland Mission, which had engaged deeply with Chinese culture over decades? Was there any dialogue with Chinese Christians regarding the integration of Christianity with indigenous spiritual traditions such as Buddhism or Daoism? Moreover, in his effort to dismantle the dichotomy between “Christian” and “heathen,” does Wilhelm risk constructing a strawman argument—that the abandonment of Western pride necessarily entails the rejection of Christianity—thereby overlooking the possibility of an authentically Chinese Christianity? These reflections suggest that Wilhelm’s shift from being an ambassador of Christ to an ambassador of culture may be more complex and less normative or progressive than the paper assumes. The paper should incorporate a more balanced discussion that critically examines these counterarguments and alternative perspectives. While the paper makes a commendable effort to engage with significant theoretical constructs and historical details, improvements in clarity, integration of theory with practice, and balanced engagement with alternative perspectives would substantially enhance its scholarly contribution. |
|
Response 3: He had extensive contacts with the more active Christians in China at the time, such as Dr. Sun Yat-sen. He also supported the Chinese in establishing their own churches, stating in “The Chinese Soul”: “After all, the Chinese must take the whole matter into their own hands, so that they will become neither Baptists nor Presbyterians, but remain Chinese. It is therefore all the more important to work in this direction from the beginning, so as not to go astray.” Thus he never rejected Christianity, but attached great importance to “true Chinese Christianity,” but unfortunately I have found no correspondence to that effect. We have revised to emphasize this point. |
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article discussed a very interesting missionary and one who is not well know in the English language literature. Thus, it is worth publishing more about him in English. However, the current paper needs a good bit of work. Many of the claims are overstated or false and the author does not cite (and seems unfamiliar with) the substantial historical literature about non-German Protestant missionaries in China. Are a number of non-German Protestant missionaries who did similar things to Richard Wilhelm: Karl Reichelt, Timothy Richard, Young J. Allen, Alexander Wylie, James Leege, W.E.B. Martin, etc. Thus, the frequence references to Wilhem being “unique” need to be cut or nuanced.
Introduction:
For the past 30 – 40 years there has been a significant literature showing that Protestant missionaries did not align particularly well with European colonial enterprises and did lots to resist the worst parts of colonial exploitation, many were quite sensitive to local cultures (including Chinese culture), and most did not appeal to European military intervention – The Bible and the Flag, Errand to the World, Protestants Abroad.
Thus statements like “This study aims at a paradigmatic breakthrough by challenging the traditional binary narrative of “missionary-colonizer.”” (p. 3 lines 117-118) seems stretched and needs to be tone back. For people who know the literature, there is nothing paradigm shifting about this research.
Similarly, the following sentenced needs to be changed or supported:
“His approach was distinctly characterized by its principle of “non-forced conversion,” which contrasts sharply with the contemporary missionaries who frequently emphasized “conquest through Gospel” and sometimes relied on military expansion.” (P. 2 line 41-43);
“Wilhelm broke away from prevailing prejudices and rejected the colonial missionaries’ practice of forcibly converting indigenous inhabitants” (p. 4 line 154-55);
“Unlike many missionary schools of the time, Wilhelm’s institution did not mandate baptism for students” (p. 5 lines 189-190)
“some Western missionaries offered material incentives to attract converts and even relied on military intervention” (p. 8 lines 350-351)
I am not aware of any Protestant missionaries using forced conversion, forcing people to be baptized to attend their schools, or giving people material incentives to convert (in a quid pro quo fashion). Spanish and Portuguese colonizers did, but elsewhere. Missionaries did talk about things like “the conquest of the cross” but did not use forced conversion and were often hesitant to baptize people (they wanted to make sure they were truly converted first). It is also important to differentiate between
Incentivized exposure
Forced exposure
Incentivized conversion
Forced conversion.
Incentivized exposure was common – e.g., providing education and including Bible reading or chapel as part of the curriculum. The other ones were not. If the author thinks otherwise, he or she should give specific concrete examples of it (not just opponents of missionaries claiming they did these things).
Many missionaries used education, medical work, and social services to help soften the hostile attitudes of potential Chinese converts, in fact that seems like it was standard procedure.
Many of the things Wilhelm did and thought were common to a broader circle of liberal/modernist missionaries in the early 20th century (some views were also held by those who believed in ‘fulfillment theology’ even if they were not modernists). The article should link him to this broader pattern, rather than repeatedly stating the Wilhem was “unique.”
p. 9 lines 397-398 water baptism did not “originate from Germanic customs” – it was practiced by Jews and is discussed in the New Testament – John the Baptist, Jesus, and the Apostles all did it based on Jewish practices of the time.
Combining Chinese and Western education in missionary schools was not something unique to Wilhelm. Calvin and Julia Mateer had been doing this in Shandong province since at least 1872 – well before Wilhelm arrived. Tengchow/Peng-lai, there the Mateers started their schools (which eventually became Shandong University) is not far from Qingdao. Moreover, Mateer was a conservative missionaries (not a modernist or liberal) and students from their school did participate in the Confucian exam system.
Author Response
|
1. Summary |
|
|
|
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions in the re-submitted files.
|
||
|
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors |
||
|
Comments 1: This article discussed a very interesting missionary and one who is not well know in the English language literature. Thus, it is worth publishing more about him in English. However, the current paper needs a good bit of work. Many of the claims are overstated or false and the author does not cite (and seems unfamiliar with) the substantial historical literature about non-German Protestant missionaries in China. Are a number of non-German Protestant missionaries who did similar things to Richard Wilhelm: Karl Reichelt, Timothy Richard, Young J. Allen, Alexander Wylie, James Leege, W.E.B. Martin, etc. Thus, the frequence references to Wilhem being “unique” need to be cut or nuanced. |
||
|
Response 1: Many thanks to reviewer for pointing this out; this paper is written primarily in relation to German missionary activity in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and indeed does not take into account the missionary activity of missionaries from other countries, such as the United States. The authors of this paper have agreed to make changes to such statements.
|
||
|
Comments 2: For the past 30 – 40 years there has been a significant literature showing that Protestant missionaries did not align particularly well with European colonial enterprises and did lots to resist the worst parts of colonial exploitation, many were quite sensitive to local cultures (including Chinese culture), and most did not appeal to European military intervention – The Bible and the Flag, Errand to the World, Protestants Abroad. Thus statements like “This study aims at a paradigmatic breakthrough by challenging the traditional binary narrative of “missionary-colonizer.”” (p. 3 lines 117-118) seems stretched and needs to be tone back. For people who know the literature, there is nothing paradigm shifting about this research. |
||
|
Response: Thank you to the reviewer for pointing out that we have overstated the historical significance of Wilhelm in changing missionary practices. It should be noted that this article is mainly about German missionary activities in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. 1897, Germany had just occupied Jiaozhou Bay (Qingdao) under the pretext of the murder of two missionaries in Shandong and the protection of German missionaries. Since then until November 1900, when Wilhelm mediated the struggle between the German army and the Chinese militia organizations in the Gaomi area, the relationship between the German army and the locals had been very tense. Therefore, this paper argues that Wilhelm's missionary practice changed the pattern of German missions. However, in view of reviewer's observation that American missionaries had previously had a similar missionary model, the authors of this paper agreed to delete this controversial statement. |
||
|
Comments 3: Similarly, the following sentenced needs to be changed or supported: “His approach was distinctly characterized by its principle of “non-forced conversion,” which contrasts sharply with the contemporary missionaries who frequently emphasized “conquest through Gospel” and sometimes relied on military expansion.” (P. 2 line 41-43); “Wilhelm broke away from prevailing prejudices and rejected the colonial missionaries’ practice of forcibly converting indigenous inhabitants” (p. 4 line 154-55); “Unlike many missionary schools of the time, Wilhelm’s institution did not mandate baptism for students” (p. 5 lines 189-190) “some Western missionaries offered material incentives to attract converts and even relied on military intervention” (p. 8 lines 350-351) Response: As noted above, this paper is written primarily about German missionary activity in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and does not take into account positive changes in missionary activity by missionaries from other countries, such as the United States. The authors of this paper agree to make changes in such statements.
Comments 4: Similarly, the following sentenced needs to be changed or supported: “His approach was distinctly characterized by its principle of “non-forced conversion,” which contrasts sharply with the contemporary missionaries who frequently emphasized “conquest through Gospel” and sometimes relied on military expansion.” (P. 2 line 41-43); Response: As noted above, this paper is written primarily about German missionary activity in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and does not take into account positive changes in missionary activity by missionaries from other countries, such as the United States. The authors of this paper agree to make changes in such statements.
Comments 5: “Wilhelm broke away from prevailing prejudices and rejected the colonial missionaries’ practice of forcibly converting indigenous inhabitants” (p. 4 line 154-55); “Unlike many missionary schools of the time, Wilhelm’s institution did not mandate baptism for students” (p. 5 lines 189-190) “some Western missionaries offered material incentives to attract converts and even relied on military intervention” (p. 8 lines 350-351) I am not aware of any Protestant missionaries using forced conversion, forcing people to be baptized to attend their schools, or giving people material incentives to convert (in a quid pro quo fashion). Spanish and Portuguese colonizers did, but elsewhere. Missionaries did talk about things like “the conquest of the cross” but did not use forced conversion and were often hesitant to baptize people (they wanted to make sure they were truly converted first). It is also important to differentiate between Incentivized exposure Forced exposure Incentivized conversion Forced conversion. Incentivized exposure was common – e.g., providing education and including Bible reading or chapel as part of the curriculum. The other ones were not. If the author thinks otherwise, he or she should give specific concrete examples of it (not just opponents of missionaries claiming they did these things). Response 5: The authors of this paper agree with reviewer that the use of coercion to convert the indigenous people to Christianity occurred mainly among the Spanish and Portuguese colonizers, but not among the Chinese believers. The above statement does not take into account the contemporaries of foreign missionaries to China who, like Wilhelm, adopted a cultural missionary strategy. However, it must also be noted that it was actually very common in church schools to force students to attend services, read the Bible, and sing hymns. Take the example of Calvin Mateer, mentioned by reviewer, who on February 14, 1881, submitted a report to the Presbyterian Church in the United States in the name of the Shantung Presbyterian Mission, recommending that the Tengchow Boy's High School be upgraded to the status of When the College of Shantung was upgraded to The College of Shantung, it included the Bible as a required textbook (Section 3) and stated that “the object of the College is to give the pupils a thorough education in both Western and Eastern studies, according to the Christian point of view, and under the influence of the Christian religion” (Section 4). The Rules of Worship established by Calvin Mateer describe the school's detailed organization of religious studies and religious activities for the students. Every morning at eight o'clock, the pupils worshipped collectively. During the period when Calvin Mateer was superintendent, it was Calvin Mateer who “advocated the reading of the Scriptures and prayed with the congregation.” At eight o'clock in the evening, “the assembly worships, and the duty student reads the Scriptures and prays.” On Wednesdays, at 7:30 p.m., “all go to the synagogue to worship and listen to the sermon.” On Sundays, in addition to the 9:00 a.m. service, the students “go to the synagogue at 3:00 p.m. for the service and for the examination of the Sunday school class.” At 7:30 p.m. “the classes assemble for prayer, and the instructor interrogates them on the main points they have heard before noon.”
Comments 6: Many missionaries used education, medical work, and social services to help soften the hostile attitudes of potential Chinese converts, in fact that seems like it was standard procedure. Many of the things Wilhelm did and thought were common to a broader circle of liberal/modernist missionaries in the early 20th century (some views were also held by those who believed in ‘fulfillment theology’ even if they were not modernists). The article should link him to this broader pattern, rather than repeatedly stating the Wilhem was “unique.” While the paper makes a commendable effort to engage with significant theoretical constructs and historical details, improvements in clarity, integration of theory with practice, and balanced engagement with alternative perspectives would substantially enhance its scholarly contribution. |
||
|
Response 6: As noted above, this paper is written primarily about German missionary activity in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and does not take into account positive changes in missionary activity by missionaries from other countries, such as the United States. The authors of this paper agree to make changes in such statements. |
||
Comments 7: p. 9 lines 397-398 water baptism did not “originate from Germanic customs” – it was practiced by Jews and is discussed in the New Testament – John the Baptist, Jesus, and the Apostles all did it based on Jewish practices of the time.
Response: As stated in the text, this is a quote from Blumhardt's letter, and the authors of this article are well aware of the Gospel's representation of baptism in water, and are therefore puzzled by it.
Comments 8: Combining Chinese and Western education in missionary schools was not something unique to Wilhelm. Calvin and Julia Mateer had been doing this in Shandong province since at least 1872 – well before Wilhelm arrived. Tengchow/Peng-lai, there the Mateers started their schools (which eventually became Shandong University) is not far from Qingdao. Moreover, Mateer was a conservative missionaries (not a modernist or liberal) and students from their school did participate in the Confucian exam system.
Response: Many thanks to reviewer for bringing up this situation. Wilhelm had a lot of cooperation with American missionaries, and he used to introduce Chinese who wished to become Christians to American Presbyterian missionaries active in Shandong. Not least because the US had already built many church schools in the area adjacent to Jiaozhou Bay (e.g., Calvin Mateer's school in Dengzhou), and Wilhelm had once even placed some German church schools in the trusteeship of the Presbyterian Church in the US during the First World War. Even some of his journals were apparently from English-speaking counterparts. Perhaps Wilhelm has been influenced by the Mateers? But I haven't found evidence of that so far. In any case, Wilhelm was indeed a pioneer among German missionaries.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis version is significantly better than the previous one, but still needs work to be publishable. The subject and person are still important to be highlighted, especially in the English language scholarship. However, the article still relies almost exclusively on Richard Wilhelm’s writing (and assumptions) to make claims about historical reality. It is OK to say that Wilhelm thought something in the late 1920s, It is a different thing to claim that his view is historically accurate (or that an even stronger version is historically accurate). There is a significant literature on Protestant missions in China which should be cited/integrated into the paper.
- 2 line 50-1 “Wilhelm’s missionary practice was characterized by ‘non-compulsory conversions’”
This implies that other missionaries used compulsory conversion. Which specific missionaries were they? As I mentioned in my last review, it is important to distinguish incentivized exposure (e.g., required chapel in a mission school) from forced conversion. We may be forced to watch commercials when we watch free television programs, but that is different from being forced to buy a product.
- 8 lines 375-78 “some German missionaries, backed by Kaiser Wilhelm II, who was eager to expand his power, utilized material gain to lure converts to join them.”
This implies missionaries were consciously using this as a strategy. Which is stronger than what Wilhelm says and I think and I am not aware of concrete examples of this. Also problematic is that the only citation given for any of the claims in these pages is Wilhelm 1926 (1928 in English)
Continuing on page 8 lines 379-382 – to support this claim the author quotes Wilhelm:
“If the Christians had been persecuted, they now endeavored to fight back. In fact, many joined the church for other purposes. They want to use the church to support their legal actions. If, for example, he happens to have a quarrel with his neighbor and is bent on revenge, it is indeed to his advantage to join the Church.” (ibid., p. 33)”
The author then extrapolates from Wilhelm on Page 8-9 lines 382-402
“In addition, some German missionaries even relied on gunboats from their home countries to intervene in disputes between Chinese Christians and non-Christians, which further intensified the conflicts. For example, in 1897, because German missionaries in Juye (巨野), Shandong Province, interfered in lawsuits between Chinese Christians and non-Christians and pressured the local government to favor the Christians, which triggered the discontent of the local people. On the night of November 1, two German missionaries were killed by the Chinese people who suddenly intruded into the church, and only one missionary escaped. Twelve days later, under the pretext of protecting the missionaries, the German navy sent troops to occupy Jiaozhou Bay.
As Wilhelm observed:
Naturally enough these methods provided peace neither for the Chinese people nor for the missions. It was a circulus vitiosus. The missionary brought pressure to bear on the local official in favour of his Christians, and threatened him with gunboats or other diplomatic means of intervention. The official gave way and oppressed the people in favour of the Christians. Eventually, when the misdeeds had accumulated, the population would rise in some sort of local revolt; they would burn down the mission buildings, and every now and again they would kill the missionary. Then the foreign powers interfered, dispatched gunboats, executed sanctions—the occupation of Tsingtao was, for instance, one of these sanctions—and everything started from the beginning again (ibid., pp. 401 238-239).”
For this entire discussion of the missionary movement and the motivation of Chinese converts (and missionaries) the author riles only on quotes from Wilhelm 1926 (The Soul of China – English title). This is a polemic work where Wilhelm is making an argument supporting his view of missions, it is not a careful historical analysis. Moreover, the author’s selected quotes are stronger than Wilhelm’s general argument. Wilhelm discusses a missionary trying to get a Chinese judge to reanalyze a case after Chinese Christians complained to him about discrimination. However, the missionary ends up being disgusted with the Christians after the missionary finds out the details of the case (i.e., Chinese Christians had tried to manipulate him) (Wilhlem 1928: 227-8 – I used the English version The Soul of China - which is published in 1928). Wilhelm adds “The Christians were not, of course, always to be blamed.” P. 228
Wilhelm is advocating that even when Christians are oppressed, Christians should respond in love. Pp 228. Moreover, Wilhelm is referring to a very specific place and time – areas of China under direct German) colonial influence, immediately after the Boxer Uprising – when huge numbers of Christians were killed and had the property destroyed. Both Wilhelm description the caused of German colonization (and the author’s extension of it), require more historical nuance. Wilhelm was not in China during the Juye Incident and is not a historian.
Mark Driscoll’s 2021 book about the origins of the Boxer Uprising “The Whites are the Enemy of Heaven” argues that the killing of the two Catholic priests that spurred the Juye incident was because the German Catholic priest George Stenz had serially raped Chinese women in the area. Two Catholic priests were visiting him and they were the people killed. Stenz blamed the incident on a dispute over Christians not wanting to pay for a local temple festival. Driscoll adds some other potential causes: 1) In Catholic villages tearing down old temples and building churches that did not follow feng shui (Catholic Churches typically faced east regardless of the local context). 2) the Germans destroying local burial grounds to lay train tracks and telegraph lines, 3) famine and drought from an El Nino weather system (P. 211). Driscoll does not mention missionaries biasing court trials or incentivized/compulsory conversion as a cause. Perhaps other sources cite these as causes, but the current author does not cite them.
My understanding is that the German Kiaser used the Juye incident as a convenient pretext for occupying Jiaozhou Bay 12 days later. But it is complicated to say that Protestant missionaries advocated this occupation, that the killing of missionaries was the real reason, or that this is an example of missionaries using gunboats to incentive conversion. The missionaries killed were Catholic – and French Catholic were more likely to call in military intervention in response to killings of missionaries and Christians (perhaps German ones were as well). However, the German Kaiser was Protestant and there had recently been persecutions of Catholics in Germany (the Kulturkampf). Germany was also rapidly expanding its colonies in the Pacific and Africa at this time: i.e., the Caroline Islands, Mariana Islands, Palau, West Samoa, Burundi, and Rwanda – were all colonized within about a year of this. The Germans had previously forced concessions in Wuhan and Tianjin, and none of these acquisitions were motivated by missionaries being killed. Moreover, most invasions take more than 12 days to plan (especially ones half way around the world from Germany). Thus, the killing of two Catholic missionaries seems like an excuse, not the real cause. Moreover, none of this shows any example of missionaries knowingly incentivizing conversion with the threat of military force. At best (if missionaries advocated the German intervention) it shows some missionaries incentivizing their access to potential converts and trying (perhaps badly) to even the playing field when they perceived (perhaps falsely) that Christians were being discriminated against.
The author uses these incidents to argue that “some German missionaries, backed by Kaiser Wilhelm III, … utilized material gain to lure converts to join them.” This is a much stronger claim than Richard Wilhelm makes, even if that can be justified by the German occupation of part of Shandong. The author never sights a reliable modern history of missions in China to support this claim, just an extrapolation from Wilhelm 1926 (which the original text does not support).
In Wilhelm’s retelling Stenz’s explanation/excuse (Christians not paying for local temple festivals) is shifted to missionary intervention in legal cases and some Christians manipulating missionaries to try to get material gain. The author then inflates the argument to be that missionaries purposely tried to incentivize conversion by intervening in legal cases, etc. This inflated claim is not supported by Wilhelm or by any other evidence the author provides.
P 13 lines 620-21 “the Chinese are not too interested in these differences. They are accustomed to looking at things as a whole and tolerating each other's peculiarities.”
Wilhelm may have believed this (it fit what he wanted to be true) but the conflict between various types of reformists/Marxists/Maoists suggests Chinese are also capable of arguing and fighting over particularities.
p 14 lines 646-650
“translating classics such as the Analects of Confucius and the Book of Changes, thus laying the foundation of Sinological studies. … Wilhelm's practice not only creates a new missionary paradigm centered on cultural exchange”
This statement is too strong. Missionaries and their Chinese co-workers had already translated these works into English (e.g., James Legge & Wang Tao). Wilhelm was part of a broader movement of missionaries doing this type of thing and helping found a more careful and mutual Sinology. Wilhelms work was valuable and an example of this, but did not lay the foundation for Sinological studies. He is an important representative of a particular strand of missionary work that began before him and continued after him. He was more central to the German part of this, but missionary scholarship was not limited to one language.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your comments!
Comments 1
[P 2 line 50-1 “Wilhelm’s missionary practice was characterized by ‘non-compulsory conversions’”
This implies that other missionaries used compulsory conversion. Which specific missionaries were they? As I mentioned in my last review, it is important to distinguish incentivized exposure (e.g., required chapel in a mission school) from forced conversion. We may be forced to watch commercials when we watch free television programs, but that is different from being forced to buy a product.]
Response 1
"characterized by ‘non-compulsory conversions’" does not mean that "all other missionaries used forced conversions," but rather that previous missionaries used force to deterrence. In order to avoid misunderstandings, I have decided to delete this comparison and to keep only the discussion of Wilhelm's "cultural mission" itself.
Comments 2
[P 8 lines 375-78 “some German missionaries, backed by Kaiser Wilhelm II, who was eager to expand his power, utilized material gain to lure converts to join them.”
This implies missionaries were consciously using this as a strategy. Which is stronger than what Wilhelm says and I think and I am not aware of concrete examples of this. Also problematic is that the only citation given for any of the claims in these pages is Wilhelm 1926 (1928 in English)
Continuing on page 8 lines 379-382 – to support this claim the author quotes Wilhelm:
“If the Christians had been persecuted, they now endeavored to fight back. In fact, many joined the church for other purposes. They want to use the church to support their legal actions. If, for example, he happens to have a quarrel with his neighbor and is bent on revenge, it is indeed to his advantage to join the Church.” (ibid., p. 33)”
The author then extrapolates from Wilhelm on Page 8-9 lines 382-402
“In addition, some German missionaries even relied on gunboats from their home countries to intervene in disputes between Chinese Christians and non-Christians, which further intensified the conflicts. For example, in 1897, because German missionaries in Juye (巨野), Shandong Province, interfered in lawsuits between Chinese Christians and non-Christians and pressured the local government to favor the Christians, which triggered the discontent of the local people. On the night of November 1, two German missionaries were killed by the Chinese people who suddenly intruded into the church, and only one missionary escaped. Twelve days later, under the pretext of protecting the missionaries, the German navy sent troops to occupy Jiaozhou Bay.
As Wilhelm observed:
Naturally enough these methods provided peace neither for the Chinese people nor for the missions. It was a circulus vitiosus. The missionary brought pressure to bear on the local official in favour of his Christians, and threatened him with gunboats or other diplomatic means of intervention. The official gave way and oppressed the people in favour of the Christians. Eventually, when the misdeeds had accumulated, the population would rise in some sort of local revolt; they would burn down the mission buildings, and every now and again they would kill the missionary. Then the foreign powers interfered, dispatched gunboats, executed sanctions—the occupation of Tsingtao was, for instance, one of these sanctions—and everything started from the beginning again (ibid., pp. 401 238-239).”
For this entire discussion of the missionary movement and the motivation of Chinese converts (and missionaries) the author riles only on quotes from Wilhelm 1926 (The Soul of China – English title). This is a polemic work where Wilhelm is making an argument supporting his view of missions, it is not a careful historical analysis. Moreover, the author’s selected quotes are stronger than Wilhelm’s general argument. Wilhelm discusses a missionary trying to get a Chinese judge to reanalyze a case after Chinese Christians complained to him about discrimination. However, the missionary ends up being disgusted with the Christians after the missionary finds out the details of the case (i.e., Chinese Christians had tried to manipulate him) (Wilhlem 1928: 227-8 – I used the English version The Soul of China - which is published in 1928). Wilhelm adds “The Christians were not, of course, always to be blamed.” P. 228
Wilhelm is advocating that even when Christians are oppressed, Christians should respond in love. Pp 228. Moreover, Wilhelm is referring to a very specific place and time – areas of China under direct German) colonial influence, immediately after the Boxer Uprising – when huge numbers of Christians were killed and had the property destroyed. Both Wilhelm description the caused of German colonization (and the author’s extension of it), require more historical nuance. Wilhelm was not in China during the Juye Incident and is not a historian.
Mark Driscoll’s 2021 book about the origins of the Boxer Uprising “The Whites are the Enemy of Heaven” argues that the killing of the two Catholic priests that spurred the Juye incident was because the German Catholic priest George Stenz had serially raped Chinese women in the area. Two Catholic priests were visiting him and they were the people killed. Stenz blamed the incident on a dispute over Christians not wanting to pay for a local temple festival. Driscoll adds some other potential causes: 1) In Catholic villages tearing down old temples and building churches that did not follow feng shui (Catholic Churches typically faced east regardless of the local context). 2) the Germans destroying local burial grounds to lay train tracks and telegraph lines, 3) famine and drought from an El Nino weather system (P. 211). Driscoll does not mention missionaries biasing court trials or incentivized/compulsory conversion as a cause. Perhaps other sources cite these as causes, but the current author does not cite them.
My understanding is that the German Kiaser used the Juye incident as a convenient pretext for occupying Jiaozhou Bay 12 days later. But it is complicated to say that Protestant missionaries advocated this occupation, that the killing of missionaries was the real reason, or that this is an example of missionaries using gunboats to incentive conversion. The missionaries killed were Catholic – and French Catholic were more likely to call in military intervention in response to killings of missionaries and Christians (perhaps German ones were as well). However, the German Kaiser was Protestant and there had recently been persecutions of Catholics in Germany (the Kulturkampf). Germany was also rapidly expanding its colonies in the Pacific and Africa at this time: i.e., the Caroline Islands, Mariana Islands, Palau, West Samoa, Burundi, and Rwanda – were all colonized within about a year of this. The Germans had previously forced concessions in Wuhan and Tianjin, and none of these acquisitions were motivated by missionaries being killed. Moreover, most invasions take more than 12 days to plan (especially ones half way around the world from Germany). Thus, the killing of two Catholic missionaries seems like an excuse, not the real cause. Moreover, none of this shows any example of missionaries knowingly incentivizing conversion with the threat of military force. At best (if missionaries advocated the German intervention) it shows some missionaries incentivizing their access to potential converts and trying (perhaps badly) to even the playing field when they perceived (perhaps falsely) that Christians were being discriminated against.
The author uses these incidents to argue that “some German missionaries, backed by Kaiser Wilhelm III, … utilized material gain to lure converts to join them.” This is a much stronger claim than Richard Wilhelm makes, even if that can be justified by the German occupation of part of Shandong. The author never sights a reliable modern history of missions in China to support this claim, just an extrapolation from Wilhelm 1926 (which the original text does not support).
In Wilhelm’s retelling Stenz’s explanation/excuse (Christians not paying for local temple festivals) is shifted to missionary intervention in legal cases and some Christians manipulating missionaries to try to get material gain. The author then inflates the argument to be that missionaries purposely tried to incentivize conversion by intervening in legal cases, etc. This inflated claim is not supported by Wilhelm or by any other evidence the author provides.]
Response 2:
The reviewer mentions that "there is an important document on Protestant missions in China that should be cited/integrated into the paper", and if I refer to The Whites are the Enemy of Heaven mentioned later, I don't think this is an important document to discuss the Boxer Rebellion, especially the conflict between the mission and the native culture of Shandong. But this opinion of the reviewer also explains why it is difficult for him to understand Richard Wilhelm's position. I suggest that the reviewers consult another important book, Klaus Mühlhahn: Rule and Resistance in the "Model Colony", Kiautschou, published in Germany in 2000. Interactions between China and Germany, 1897-1914, Munich 2000 (Klaus Mühlhahn: Herrschaft und Widerstand in der „Musterkolonie" Kiautschou. Interaktionen zwischen China und Deutschland, 1897-1914, München 2000). The book draws on a large number of unpublished diplomatic correspondence and missionary archives. The evidence cited in the book shows that the German Church had used economic means to attract Chinese to be baptized long before Richard Wilhelm came to China in 1899, and had intervened in China's judicial process to shield criminals, leading to tensions between China and Germany. This is concentrated in the third chapter of the book under two subheadings: Hoffnung auf politisch-rechtlichen Schutz (Hope for political-legal protection, pp. 360-362) and Materielle Erwartungen (Material expectations, pp. 362-363) although I work with Richard Wilhelm, like him, is very reluctant to draw the reader's attention to this inglorious history, but if the reviewer really thinks that it is just a Chinese conjecture, then I have to ask the reviewer to read the following quotation.
1. First of all, about the interference of German missionaries in the Chinese judiciary by relying on the power of the mother country, the book mentions a number of cases, here is just one example:
Hope for political-legal protection (360)
"However, the sources also show conversions in which primarily or exclusively secular motives such as hope for political protection or the expectation of material advantages played a central role. In particular, several examples of conversions in this category can be found on the inaccessible and impoverished edges of the mission area, in Yishui and Yizhoufu in eastern Shandong and in Chengwu and Shanxian in the south." (360)
"Another example was the village of Niuxinzhuang near Yishui. The village had 70 inhabitants, who accepted Christianity as a whole in 1882.330 A short time later, at the beginning of 1883, they turned to Freinademetz with a request for help: they had been falsely accused of stealing wood by a neighboring village. They called on Freinademetz to intercede for them at the magistrate. He first sent a catechist to the village to investigate and then campaigned for the village in the Yamen. Through his intervention, the village emerged victorious from the trial. A few months later, however, Freinademetz found out that he had been deceived. It was in fact the village of Niuxinzhuang that had committed the thefts." (361)
German original: Hoffnung auf politisch-rechtlichen Schutz (360)
„Es lassen sich in den Quellen jedoch auch Bekehrungen nachweisen, bei denen primär oder ausschließlich weltliche Motive wie Hoffnung auf politischen Schutz oder die Erwartung materieller Vorteile eine zentrale Rolle spielten. Insbesondere an den unzugänglichen und verarmten Rändern des Missionsgebiets, in Yishui und Yizhoufu im Osten Shandongs sowie in Chengwu und Shanxian im Süden, lassen sich mehrere Beispiele für Konversionen dieser Kategorie finden. […] "In any case, this conversion was hoped for from the outset protection in the Yamen by the missionary.“ (360)
„Ein anderes Beispiel stellte das Dorf Niuxinzhuang in der Nähe von Yishui dar. Das Dorf hatte 70 Einwohner, die geschlossen 1882 das Christentum annahmen.330 Kurze Zeit später, zu Anfang des Jahres 1883 wandten sie sich an Freinademetz mit der Bitte um Hilfe: Sie seien von einem Nachbardorf fälschlicherweise des Holzdiebstahls angeklagt worden. Sie forderten Freinademetz auf, beim Magistrat für sie einzutreten. Dieser sandte erst einen Katechisten zur Untersuchung in das Dorf und setzte sich dann im Yamen für das Dorf ein. Durch seine Intervention ging das Dorf als Sieger aus dem Prozeß hervor. Einige Monate später fand Freinademetz jedoch heraus, daß er getäuscht worden war. Es war in Wahrheit das Dorf Niuxinzhuang gewesen, welches die Diebstähle begangen hatte. […] In jedem Fall lag dieser Konversion von vornherein die Hoffnung auf Schutz im Yamen durch den Missionar zugrunde.“ (361)
I am sure that the reviewers, after reading the analysis of the German political scientist, will not continue to think that it is the author of this article who exaggerates Richard Wilhelm's arguments. In my opinion, even if the missionaries did not intend to shield the criminals in the first place, even if the missionaries eventually discovered that the believers had violated the law, they never tried to correct their own cover-ups, so they still acted as an umbrella for the criminals. As the reviewers found in the English edition of The Soul of China (Wilhlem 1928: 227-8), after the missionaries discovered the truth of the case, the missionaries eventually became disgusted with Christians, but did not report to the Chinese judicial authorities in order to uphold the fairness of justice. The reaction of the Chinese side can be imagined. In the same book, Klaus Mühlhahn writes:
“A completely different view of the events is revealed in the report of the governor of Shandong, Zhang Rumei, on this incident. For him, the incident was due to the provocations of Chinese Christians, who had committed fraud under the protection of the foreign missions and had gone unpunished in court due to the intervention of the missionaries.” (Eine ganz andere Sichtweise von den Vorgängen offenbart der Bericht des Gouverneurs von Shandong, Zhang Rumei, über diesen Vorfall. Für ihn ging der Zwischenfall auf die Provokationen von chinesischen Christen zurück, die unter dem Schutz der ausländischen Missionen Betrügereien verübt hätten und vor Gericht auf Intervention der Missionare straffrei davonkämen. p.392)
The above quote responds, in particular, to the criticism of the reviewers: "This inflated claim is not supported by Wilhelm or by any other evidence the author provides."
Comments 2
[P 8 lines 375-78 “some German missionaries, backed by Kaiser Wilhelm II, who was eager to expand his power, utilized material gain to lure converts to join them.”
This implies missionaries were consciously using this as a strategy. Which is stronger than what Wilhelm says and I think and I am not aware of concrete examples of this.]
Response 2
I certainly do not believe that the German missionaries relied solely on force and economic gain to expand their Christian influence by force and economic gain, but it cannot be denied that German missionaries skillfully used financial gain to attract believers and flaunted and promoted it as a successful experience. This is exactly what Richard Wilhelm opposes. I will still quote here an example from Klaus Mühlhahn's work:
"‘At the opening of the schools, I immediately established the rule that the children could only be admitted to school if the whole family wanted to become Catholic. [...] On Sundays, if they did not live too far away, the men had to gather in the church where their children went to school. After the morning prayer, in the absence of the priest of the catechist, the men had to examine whether they were studying prayers. If one or the other had not studied prayers and catechism, his child was excluded from school until the parents had learned prayers. Why this strictness? His episcopal graces had allowed that the children, because of the great famine that prevailed everywhere, were allowed to be given a hot soup of water and dry black bread for free twice a day. ’ [Report of Vilstermann 9.7.1889]
In this way, very many catechumens were gained who, out of material considerations, accept Christianity. In a circular dated January 15, 1892, on the occasion of the first Synod of the same year, Freinademetz made no joke that the congregations thus converted pursued exclusively economic interests towards the Church. In summary, the mission managed to gain a considerable following in southern Shandong from 1880 to about 1900. Christians have always been a minority, but their numbers have been growing. Christianity exercised an attractiveness grounded in both the religious messages and the social and political benefits that Christianization promised. While there were conversions out of purely secular interests, as shown above, most conversions were based on a complex motivational structure in which religious and secular moments were inextricably mixed." (Klaus Mühlhahn: Rule and Resistance in the "Model Colony" Kiautschou. Interactions between China and Germany, 1897-1914, Munich 2000, pp.362-363.)
Original in German:
Materielle Erwartungen (362)
"Bei der Eröffnung der Schulen setzte ich sofort die Regel fest, daß die Kinder nur dann Aufnahme in die Schule finden könnten, wenn die ganze Familie katholisch werden wollte. [...] Am Sonntag mußten die Männer, wenn sie nicht allzu weit entfernt wohnten, sich in der Kirche versammeln, wo ihre Kinder in die Schule gingen. Nach dem Morgengebet mußte in Abwesenheit des Priesters der Katechist die Männer examinieren, ob sie wohl Gebete studierten. Wenn einer oder der andere Gebete und Katechismus nicht studiert hatte, wurde sein Kind so lange aus der Schule ausgeschlossen, bis die Eltern Gebete gelernt hatten. Warum diese Strenge? Seine Bischöflichen Gnaden hatten zugestanden, daß den Kindern wegen der großen Hungersnot, welche überall hier herrschte, zweimal am Tag eine warme Wassersuppe und trockenes, schwarzes Brot umsonst verabreicht werden durfte. (Bericht Vilstermann vom 9.7.1889)"
Auf diese Weise wurden sehr viele Katechumenen gewonnen, die aus materiellen Erwägungen das Christentum annahmen. In einem Zirkular vom 15.1.1892 anläßlich der ersten Synode im selben Jahr machte Freinademetz kein Hehl daraus, daß die auf diese Weise bekehrten Gemeinden ausschließlich wirtschaftliche Interessen gegenüber der Kirche verfolgten. Zusammenfassend läßt sich feststellen: Der Mission gelang es in der Zeit von 1880 bis ca. 1900, eine erhebliche Anhängerschaft in Süd-Shandong zu gewinnen. Zwar bildeten die Christen immer eine Minderheit, ihre Zahl wuchs aber kontinuierlich. Das Christentum übte eine Attraktivität aus, die sowohl in den religiösen Botschaften begründet war wie in den sozialen und politischen Vorteilen, die die Christianisierung versprach. Zwar gab es, wie oben gezeigt wurde, durchaus Konversionen aus ausschließlichen weltlichen Interessen heraus, den meisten Konversionen lag aber eher eine komplexe Motivationsstruktur zugrunde, in der religiöse und weltliche Momente unentwirrbar vermischt waren. (- Klaus Mühlhahn: Herrschaft und Widerstand in der „Musterkolonie" Kiautschou. Interaktionen zwischen China und Deutschland, 1897-1914, München 2000, pp.362-363.)
The author of this article argues that the above is not necessary to appear in this paper as background information in order to justify Richard Wilhelm's criticism. But to make the logic clearer, I can simply cite it in the paper and refer the reader to the numerous examples in Klaus Mühlhahn's book.
Incidentally, it is worth mentioning in great detail the Juye incident (the murder of two Catholic priests), the long-standing conflict between the German Catholic priest George Stenz and local Chinese organizations, and the outbreak of the Boxer Rebellion in Shandong. I recommend reading Chapter 3.3: Conflicts and Disputes between Mission and Chinese Society: Case Study (Konflikte und Auseinandersetzungen zwischen Mission und chinesischer Gesellschaft: Fallbeispie) ( pp.371-393). The relevant paragraph begins like this:
“The hitherto unnoticed prehistory of the Juye Mission Incident, in which the missionaries Nies and Henle were killed in 1897, is a vivid example of this.” (Die bislang unbeachtete Vorgeschichte des Juye-Missionszwischenfalles, bei dem 1897 die Missionare Nies und Henle getötet wurden, stellt dafür ein anschauliches Beispiel dar. p.371)
"The result of the symbolic mobilization on both sides was the social and symbolic exclusion of the other, which went as far as the depersonalization and demonization of the other. The other was not seen as a person, but as the embodiment of an abstract principle. The demonization caused the other to be interpreted as the essence of absolute evil. This was not to be fought, but to be extinguished. The result was the grab for arms. Since mid-1899, the mission had been trying to transfer weapons from the stocks of the German army. The boxers also armed themselves. In the summer of 1900, an unconditional killing began, which lasted in varying degrees of intensity until May 1901. The German government initially rejected this request. In April 1900, it was granted.
German Original:
„Das Ergebnis der symbolischen Mobilisierung auf beiden Seiten war die soziale und symbolische Exklusion des jeweils Anderen, die bis zur Entpersonalisierung und Dämonisierung des Anderen reichte. Der jeweils Andere wurde nicht als Person, sondern als Verkörperung eines abstrakten Prinzips gesehen. Die Dämonisierung bewirkte, daß der Andere als Essenz des absolut Bösen gedeutet wurde. Dieses galt es nicht zu bekämpfen, sondern auszulöschen. Der Griff zu den Waffen war die Folge. Die Mission bemühte sich bereits seit Mitte des Jahres 1899 um Überlassung von Waffen aus Beständen der deutschen Armee. Auch die Boxer bewaffneten sich. Im Sommer 1900 begann ein bedingungsloses Töten, das in unterschiedlicher Intensität bis Mai 1901 andauerte. Die Deutsche Regierung beschied diesen Wunsch zunächst abschlägig. Im April 1900 wurde dann stattgegeben. “
Comments 4：[P 13 lines 620-21 “the Chinese are not too interested in these differences. They are accustomed to looking at things as a whole and tolerating each other's peculiarities.”
Wilhelm may have believed this (it fit what he wanted to be true) but the conflict between various types of reformists/Marxists/Maoists suggests Chinese are also capable of arguing and fighting over particularities.
Response 4:
What Wilhelm is saying here is that Chinese believers see both Catholicism and Protestantism as a single Christian whole, rather than two opposing denominations. This had nothing to do with the partisan struggle in China at the time.
Comments 5：
[p 14 lines 646-650
“translating classics such as the Analects of Confucius and the Book of Changes, thus laying the foundation of Sinological studies. … Wilhelm's practice not only creates a new missionary paradigm centered on cultural exchange”
This statement is too strong. Missionaries and their Chinese co-workers had already translated these works into English (e.g., James Legge & Wang Tao). Wilhelm was part of a broader movement of missionaries doing this type of thing and helping found a more careful and mutual Sinology. Wilhelms work was valuable and an example of this, but did not lay the foundation for Sinological studies. He is an important representative of a particular strand of missionary work that began before him and continued after him. He was more central to the German part of this, but missionary scholarship was not limited to one language. ]
Response 5:
The issue is complex. But I basically agree with the reviewers that this argument is too strong and the way to deal with it is to remove such controversial testimonials. The author's point is that although the study of Sinology in Germany began as early as the 19th century, with the first specialized sinology departments established in Hamburg and Berlin in the early 20th century, Weber's translations were revolutionary in the German-speaking world and made an important contribution to the introduction of Chinese culture to Germany. His contributions are mainly to prove the possibility of dialogue between traditional Chinese culture and Western religions, and his series of translations has had a great influence on later generations, and is still regarded as the most important foundational German translation for the study of traditional Chinese culture.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis version is better than previous versions. The responses to my previous comments are also quite helpful. Thankyou. I still think some of the statements in the text are too strong – at least if we are talking about Protestant missionaries – but this version is better. During this time period Continental Catholic missionaries were more willing to use government intervention and had a more sacramental view of conversion – where some might think baptism under duress might have some salvific value. I just don’t know of any examples like this among Protestant missionaries. They may exist, I just don’t know about them, and the examples the author gives are all from Catholics. Given that Wilhelm was a Protestant missionary and (presumably) primarily influenced Protestant missions, it seems valuable to make a distinction is there are not Protestant examples of this type of behavior.
p. 2, lines 88-90 “most missionaries … exploited their privileged status to suppress non-Christians, which ultimately led to cultural conflict.” The author cites Su Weizhi (2004), which I assume is a self-citation, but does not say what the evidence for the claim is. Did most missionaries do this? Are there examples of Protestant missionaries doing this? The sentence is long and complicated, and I think should be broken in parts. I also think ‘some missionaries’ would be more accurate.
p. 8 line 371-372 “… some German missionaries, backed by Kaiser Wilhelm II, who was eager to expand his power, utilized material gain to lure convert to join them.” This statement is better, in that it uses the words “some German missionaries” – and the author gives an example in the ‘response to reviewers’ that shows some Catholic missionaries did to this. However, I do not know of any Protestant missionaries who did this and I can’t imagine any of the Protestant missionaries I am most familiar with being OK with this type of behavior.
Speaking up when you think an official is discriminating against Christians is different from setting up a situation you know to be unfair so that Chinese will be motivated to convert to Christianity and get legal and material benefits. Missionary perceptions may be wrong, but it matters if they perceived their actions as creating greater equality or creating systematic favoritism.
Because the author focuses so directly on Richard Wilhelm, it creates the impression (at least to me) that Wilhelm was close to unique in thinking this type of behavior was wrong. I don’t think he different from all (or almost all) Protestant missionaries in thinking withholding food or education from people who did not convert was wrong or in thinking biasing a legal system in favor of Christians was wrong. How Wilhelm did differ from many Protestant missionaries was in the issue of ‘incentivized exposure’ – forcing students who attended Protestant mission schools to attend chapel or study the Bible. Protestant missionaries did generally incentivize exposure. Most Protestant missionaries were also more critical of traditional Chinese culture than Wilhelm.
The Protestant missionaries that I know about were sometimes concerned about people converting for the wrong reasons and so tried to set up probationary periods and other mechanisms to check if people were truly converted. The earlier part of the authors sentence says that some lower class people were more motivated by material gain than abstract tenets of Christianity. I believe that, but it is different from missionaries knowingly using material gain to incentivize conversion. The [Protestant] missionaries I am most familiar with would think a ‘conversion’ motivated by a desire for material gain was not a real conversion and thus would not see it as having any salvific benefit. Are there any missionary sources where Protestant missionaries advocate either creating or keeping a policy because it created material and political incentives to convert?
p. 8 line 377-379 ” some German missionaries even relied on gunboats from their home countries to intervene in disputes between Chinese Christians and non-Christians, which further intensified the conflicts. (Mühlhahn 2000, pp. 360-361)”
I don’t have access to this source (Mühlhahn 2000, pp. 360-361), but I can read the table of content online and this section is about Catholic Missionaries: “Übernatürliche Eingebung und Abwendung von den Göttern: Motive für die Annahme des katholischen Glaubens durch Gruppen der chinesischen Bevölkerung”, (pp. 355-362) i.e., [Supernatural inspiration and turning away from the gods: Motives for the adoption of the Catholic faith by groups of the Chinese population]. In fact, the entire third section of the book (and the only mission mentioned in any heading) is the Society of the Divine World (SVD / Steyler Mission), which is a Catholic mission. The quotations provided in the ‘response to reviewers’ are very helpful, but again only about Catholic missionaries.
Because Wilhelm is a Protestant missionary and influence Protestant missionary policy, it would be most helpful to have an example where Protestant missionaries called for gunboats to intervene in disputes between Chinese Christians and non-Christians, or advocated setting up a system that legally favored Chinese Christians over Chinese non-Christians.
p. 9 lines 390-392: Be careful about claiming WEB Martin supported ancestor worship. My understanding of the debate was that it was about ‘worship’ versus ‘veneration.’ My understanding is that all (or virtually all) missionaries were against worshiping ancestors, they disagreed about what constituted ‘worship’ and what was merely ‘veneration.’ Also, the cleavage lines weren’t just between theological liberals and theological conservatives.
I still wish there was greater acknowledgement of the broader context of Protestant missions in China during this period. It is great to highlight the role of Richard Wilhelm (who is less know in the English language literature). If I only read this article, I would think that he was close to unique, rather than part of a broader movement. I still think learning about him is very valuable, however.
Copy editing:
p. 2 line 44 a space and comma are missing between Qingdao, and i.e.
p. 4 lines 162-163 – which incident does this refer to. It is not clear from the context.
Author Response
Thank you sincerely for taking the time to review this manuscript and for your thoughtful and constructive comments. Detailed responses are provided below, and all corrections have been marked using track changes in the revised submission.
Comments 1
This version is better than previous versions. The responses to my previous comments are also quite helpful. Thankyou. I still think some of the statements in the text are too strong – at least if we are talking about Protestant missionaries – but this version is better. During this time period Continental Catholic missionaries were more willing to use government intervention and had a more sacramental view of conversion – where some might think baptism under duress might have some salvific value. I just don’t know of any examples like this among Protestant missionaries. They may exist, I just don’t know about them, and the examples the author gives are all from Catholics. Given that Wilhelm was a Protestant missionary and (presumably) primarily influenced Protestant missions, it seems valuable to make a distinction is there are not Protestant examples of this type of behavior.
Response 1
Thank you for your helpful insight. In response to your concern regarding the generalizations in the discussion of missionary behavior, we have revised the relevant sections to clarify that the examples cited—particularly those involving the use of state intervention—primarily concern Catholic missionaries. As you rightly note, Richard Wilhelm was a Protestant missionary, and there is currently limited documented evidence that Protestant missionaries engaged in the same kinds of practices, such as tolerating coercive baptism or leveraging state-backed privileges for conversion. We have therefore included a clarifying sentence to acknowledge this distinction and to avoid overgeneralization.
Comments 2
- 2, lines 88-90 “most missionaries … exploited their privileged status to suppress non-Christians, which ultimately led to cultural conflict.” The author cites Su Weizhi (2004), which I assume is a self-citation, but does not say what the evidence for the claim is. Did most missionaries do this? Are there examples of Protestant missionaries doing this? The sentence is long and complicated, and I think should be broken in parts. I also think ‘some missionaries’ would be more accurate.
Response 2
In the revised version, we have broken the sentence into two parts for clarity and replaced “most missionaries” with “some missionaries” to avoid overstatement.
The passage cited from Su Weizhi (2004: 119–120) refers to events following the 1897 Jüye Incident, particularly the outbreak of anti-German resistance in Gaomi, Shandong. In this context, two Catholic missionaries—Andreas Amann and Joseph H. Tsi—actively supported the use of German military force to suppress local opposition and protect church interests. Su notes that these missionaries appealed to German authorities for armed intervention, which contributed to escalating local tensions. Importantly, Su’s account does not refer to Protestant missionaries in this context. We have clarified this distinction in the revised text to avoid conflating the actions of Catholic and Protestant missions.
Comments 3
- 8 line 371-372 “… some German missionaries, backed by Kaiser Wilhelm II, who was eager to expand his power, utilized material gain to lure convert to join them.” This statement is better, in that it uses the words “some German missionaries” – and the author gives an example in the ‘response to reviewers’ that shows some Catholic missionaries did to this. However, I do not know of any Protestant missionaries who did this and I can’t imagine any of the Protestant missionaries I am most familiar with being OK with this type of behavior.
Speaking up when you think an official is discriminating against Christians is different from setting up a situation you know to be unfair so that Chinese will be motivated to convert to Christianity and get legal and material benefits. Missionary perceptions may be wrong, but it matters if they perceived their actions as creating greater equality or creating systematic favoritism.
Response 3
Thank you for this insightful comment. We fully agree that it is important to distinguish between speaking up against perceived injustice and intentionally creating conditions of favoritism in order to attract converts. We also acknowledge your point that such behavior is not associated with Protestant missionaries you are familiar with.
In our previous response, we cited the case of the Niuxinzhuang timber theft incident, in which the missionary involved—Joseph Freinademetz—was indeed a German Catholic missionary affiliated with the Society of the Divine Word. According to historical records, his intention was not to protect wrongdoing, but to uphold what he saw as justice. However, his intervention allowed the Christian villagers to win the case despite having committed the theft.
Therefore, the earlier formulation—“some German missionaries, backed by Kaiser Wilhelm II, who was eager to expand his power, utilized material gain to lure converts to join them”—was imprecise. We have revised the sentence to reflect a more accurate understanding: these missionaries did not intentionally offer systematic favoritism to attract converts, but rather, the objective existence of legal and material benefits made Christianity appealing to some Chinese individuals.
That said, it cannot be denied that some German Catholic missionaries did consciously use material incentives to attract converts and even promoted such methods as part of their evangelization strategy—something that Richard Wilhelm strongly opposed. We now cite two historical examples that document this pattern:
Example 1:
“At the opening of the schools, I immediately established the rule that the children could only be admitted to school if the whole family wanted to become Catholic. […] On Sundays, if they did not live too far away, the men had to gather in the church where their children went to school. After the morning prayer, in the absence of the priest or catechist, the men had to examine whether they were studying prayers. If one or the other had not studied prayers and catechism, his child was excluded from school until the parents had learned prayers. Why this strictness? His episcopal graces had allowed that the children, because of the great famine that prevailed everywhere, were allowed to be given a hot soup of water and dry black bread for free twice a day.”
(Hartwich, Richard (ed.), P. Arnold Janssen und P. Josef Freinademetz, Briefwechsel 1904–1907, St. Augustin 1978, p. 144)
Example 2:
“In this way, very many catechumens were gained who, out of material considerations, accept Christianity. In a circular dated January 15, 1892, on the occasion of the first Synod of the same year, Freinademetz made no joke that the congregations thus converted pursued exclusively economic interests towards the Church.”
(Bornemann, Fritz, Der selige P.J. Freinademetz 1852–1908, Rom 1976, p. 184)
These cases show that while the missionary’s own intentions may not always align with imperial or expansionist agendas, the mechanisms through which material gain encouraged conversion did exist—and were at times even institutionalized. In contrast, Protestant missionaries do not appear in our sources as engaging in this kind of practice, and we make this distinction clear in the revised manuscript.
Comments 4
Because the author focuses so directly on Richard Wilhelm, it creates the impression (at least to me) that Wilhelm was close to unique in thinking this type of behavior was wrong. I don’t think he different from all (or almost all) Protestant missionaries in thinking withholding food or education from people who did not convert was wrong or in thinking biasing a legal system in favor of Christians was wrong. How Wilhelm did differ from many Protestant missionaries was in the issue of ‘incentivized exposure’ – forcing students who attended Protestant mission schools to attend chapel or study the Bible. Protestant missionaries did generally incentivize exposure. Most Protestant missionaries were also more critical of traditional Chinese culture than Wilhelm.
Response 4
Thank you for this important clarification. We agree that Wilhelm was not alone among Protestant missionaries in rejecting practices such as withholding food or education from non-converts or seeking legal advantage for Christians. We have revised Section 4 of the manuscript to reflect this point. However, we also clarify that Wilhelm differed from many Protestant missionaries in other significant ways. In particular, he avoided incentivized religious exposure in mission schools, which was otherwise widely practiced. Furthermore, Wilhelm maintained a notably open and respectful attitude toward traditional Chinese culture, which he engaged as a partner in dialogue rather than as an object of critique. These aspects help contextualize Wilhelm's distinct position within the broader spectrum of Protestant missions in China.
Comments 5
The Protestant missionaries that I know about were sometimes concerned about people converting for the wrong reasons and so tried to set up probationary periods and other mechanisms to check if people were truly converted. The earlier part of the authors sentence says that some lower class people were more motivated by material gain than abstract tenets of Christianity. I believe that, but it is different from missionaries knowingly using material gain to incentivize conversion. The [Protestant] missionaries I am most familiar with would think a ‘conversion’ motivated by a desire for material gain was not a real conversion and thus would not see it as having any salvific benefit. Are there any missionary sources where Protestant missionaries advocate either creating or keeping a policy because it created material and political incentives to convert?
Response 5
Thank you for this important clarification. In Response 3, we cited the example of a German Catholic missionary who did employ material incentives in connection with conversion. However, we fully acknowledge that we have found no historical sources indicating that Protestant missionaries explicitly advocated for the use of material or legal advantages as a deliberate strategy to attract converts. We have revised the relevant section of the manuscript to reflect this distinction more accurately and to avoid generalization.
Comments 6
- 8 line 377-379 ” some German missionarieseven relied on gunboats from their home countries to intervene in disputes between Chinese Christians and non-Christians, which further intensified the conflicts. (Mühlhahn 2000, pp. 360-361)”
I don’t have access to this source (Mühlhahn 2000, pp. 360-361), but I can read the table of content online and this section is about Catholic Missionaries: “Übernatürliche Eingebung und Abwendung von den Göttern: Motive für die Annahme des katholischen Glaubens durch Gruppen der chinesischen Bevölkerung”, (pp. 355-362) i.e., [Supernatural inspiration and turning away from the gods: Motives for the adoption of the Catholic faith by groups of the Chinese population]. In fact, the entire third section of the book (and the only mission mentioned in any heading) is the Society of the Divine World (SVD / Steyler Mission), which is a Catholic mission. The quotations provided in the ‘response to reviewers’ are very helpful, but again only about Catholic missionaries.
Because Wilhelm is a Protestant missionary and influence Protestant missionary policy, it would be most helpful to have an example where Protestant missionaries called for gunboats to intervene in disputes between Chinese Christians and non-Christians, or advocated setting up a system that legally favored Chinese Christians over Chinese non-Christians.
Response 6
The passage from Mühlhahn (2000, pp. 360–361) refers specifically to Catholic missionaries, particularly those associated with the Society of the Divine Word (SVD). In light of this, we have revised the sentence on p. 8 (lines 377–379) to clarify that the missionaries involved in calling for gunboat intervention were Catholic, not Protestant.
Comments 7
- 9 lines 390-392: Be careful about claiming WEB Martin supported ancestor worship. My understanding of the debate was that it was about ‘worship’ versus ‘veneration.’My understanding is that all (or virtually all) missionaries were against worshiping ancestors, they disagreed about what constituted ‘worship’ and what was merely ‘veneration.’ Also, the cleavage lines weren’t just between theological liberals and theological conservatives.
Response 7
Thank you for the information. We agree that it is important to avoid oversimplified descriptions when discussing missionaries’ positions on ancestral practices. In the revised version, we have clarified that William Martin did not support ancestor worship itself; rather, it was his views on the distinction between “worship” and “veneration” that sparked debate within the church at the time.
Comments 8
I still wish there was greater acknowledgement of the broader context of Protestant missions in China during this period. It is great to highlight the role of Richard Wilhelm (who is less know in the English language literature). If I only read this article, I would think that he was close to unique, rather than part of a broader movement. I still think learning about him is very valuable, however.
Response 8
Thank you very much for this thoughtful comment. We agree that it is important to situate Richard Wilhelm’s efforts within the broader context of Protestant missions in China during this period. To address this, we have added a clarifying note in Section 4 to acknowledge the larger missionary landscape and to avoid giving the impression that Wilhelm was a complete outlier. While his approach was indeed distinctive, we now more clearly position him as part of a broader—though not mainstream—movement within Protestant mission history.
Comments 9
Copy editing:
- 2 line 44 a space and comma are missing between Qingdao, and i.e.
- 4 lines 162-163 – which incident does this refer to. It is not clear from the context.
Response 9
Thank you for pointing this out. These issues have been corrected in the revised version.
