| OCR Text |
Show 8 Christian consistency is a rare and wonderful thing and easy opportunities of displaying it are not so many that professional Christians can afford to mishandle them so ruthlessly. Much more could be said of the precious man-ifesto on the lines of the Devil quoting Scripture for his own purposes etc., etc. but as it would merely sound, in this instance, like biased vituperation. I refrain. Thanking you in anticipation of publication, t Yours faithfully. "PRO CHRISTIAN". P. S. I enclose my card. Tientsin, July 30th, 1931. . Sir,- As a church member, but not a missionary, I wish to add my word to that of Mr. Moore and many others in expressing disgust at the unchristian action of the 27 American Board missionaries. Their attitude is unfortunately that of a considerable section of missionaries in China nowadays, whose policy seems to be to seek to curry favour with the Chinese in any case that arises, irrespective of decency or fairplay. They seem to think that they can win the Chinese by telling them that they are always right and the wicked foreigner always wrong. In the present case they turn against a fellow missionary in the hour of his need just in order to obtain cheap popularity with the crowd. This is just the action of the "false prophets" denounced by Christ. The modern method seems to be to flatter the Chinese, tell them of their superior morality, gloss over their faults, exaggerate those of the/r own countrymen and so to make converts. What is the value of converts so made? Christ Himself supplies the answer, and in these days when soft and feeble language is thought to be the only language permissible, it is well to quote the strong sayings of the Founder of their religion and mine;- "Woe unto you, Pharisees, Hypocrites! Ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him two-fold more the child of hell than yourselves." With regard to the present case, another saying of Christ might well apply:- "Depart from me, Ye Cursed, for I was in prison and ye visited me not." Enclosing my name, which is available to the 27 if they want it, Yours etc., ANOTHER LAYMAN. Sir,- On opening your paper of July 28th I rubbed my eyes with astonishment and felt a sense of shame as I read the manifesto of the twenty-seven missionaries of Amsrican Board regarding the Tehchow incident. I am a British missionary of 40 years' standing in Shantung, and though I cannot claim Dr. Tucker as an intimate friend I have met him several times and have a high regard for him as a Christian gentleman and a devoted missionary. And at this time in common with many others my unreserved sympathy goes out to him, and I should never dream of judging him, as his colleagues have virtually done in the irost public way, when they disapprove his action and speak of the remorse he must be suffering. Now remorse implies guilt, and whatever Dr. Tucker may be feeling he has no need to feel remorse. Most people will feel satisfaction that the robber did not get away scot-free. He could have surrendered and so saved his life had he chosen to do so when challenged, but few waste maudlin sentiments on the miscreant who had apparently long abused his position to line his own pockets by systematic robbery. Nor do I enter on the legal aspects of the question, except to express satisfaction that Dr. Tucker is now in the hands of his Consul and is therefore assured of fair play. I am, however, surprised that a body of his Colleagues should have choen this moment to rush into print. That was surely an unconsidered and untimely act. It is difficult to imagine any motive for it. Two possible courses would have seemed fitting, either dignified silence while the case is sub jndite or, if it was thought needful, a public expression of sympathy and affection for their colleague in his predicament. But for this manifesto I should have refrained from comment on the case, which is no direct affair of mine. But lest silence should be misunderstood and give the impression that missionaries all agree with the views expressed publicly at Pei-tai-ho, I have felt impelled to disassociate myself from those views and to express my deep sympathy with Dr. Tucker. I do this with sorrow and reluctance, for I number many friends among the American Board, and indeed for no missionaries have I individually a higher regard, but in this instance I regret their collective action, and not to say so would be moral cowardice on my part. I think their public statement, which practically reflects on or censures Dr. Tucker, will do harm, and in as far as it has any effect will hinder rather than help a satisfactory settlement of the case. Enclosing my card &.C. X. Y. Z. Tientsin, July 31, 1931. |
