Chapter 6: The background of the American Missions
in Nanjing supporting the Chinese Army
１． Action guidelines of the Protestant Church in China
The first chapter of this book verified that American missionaries in Nanjing supported the Chinese
Army in order to promote their evangelical work and created the Nanjing Incident to fulfil their goal.
However, American missionaries in Nanjing were only a tiny fraction of all Protestants who weredevoted to spreading Christianity in China. Although American missionaries were in Nanjing, thecapital of China at the time, they were not representatives of the Protestant sect in China. So how wasit possible that a small number of Protestants in Nanjing disseminated most of the Protestantevangelical work in China, by merely supporting the Chinese Army in Nanjing? Were the Chinese
willing to allow the spread of Protestantism all over China in exchange for very limitedly Protestantsupport rendered to the Chinese Army in Nanjing? These are important questions that need to beanswered.
In order to more precisely understand the motives of the American missionaries’ actions in Nanjing,
let us examine activities of the Chinese Protestant Church as backgrounds.
(1) The resolution by the National Christian Council to support the “New Life Movement”
Here, I show the resolution explicitly demonstrating the relationship between the Protestant Church in
China and the Chinese Government. On May 6, 1937, at the General Assembly of the National
Christian Council, held every two years, in response to the call from Madam Chiang Kai-shek, orSoong Mei-ling, the following resolution was made:“We have heard with great interest and sincere appreciation the address of Madame Chiang to
the National Christian Council Biennial Meeting, particularly where in the concluding
paragraph it is said; ‘The most important factor in reconstruction is the spiritual renewal of thepeople and the improvement of their character. In a very large measure this part ofreconstruction is pre-eminently the work of the church. Then let us do it together, --the New
Life Movement and the Church.’...
We therefore recommend:(a) That Mme. Chiang’s message to the N.C.C. to be printed for wide distribution in both
Chinese and English, and(b) That, recognizing in the ideals of the New Life Movement many of the same objectives that1

Christians have always sought, Christians, whether individuals or church groups, be urged toco-operate in the New Life Movement program as far as possible.”1
The National Christian Council, representing Chinese Protestant churches, was established upon theunion of all Protestant sects in 1922. Therefore, the resolution made at the biennial meeting of the
National Christian Council was policy decided by all Chinese Protestants churches. The important partof this resolution is stated at the end, that, in response to Madam Chiang’s call, “Christians[Protestants] whether individuals or church groups, be urged to cooperate in the ‘New Life Movement’program as far as possible.”(2) What was the “New Life Movement”?
Now, let me explain what the “New Life Movement” was. The “New Life Movement” was launchedby Chiang Kai-shek in February 1934 to guide the Chinese towards building a modern state, based on
traditional Chinese virtues of “ritual/decorum,” “rightness or duty,” “integrity,” and “sense of shame,”and strict discipline in daily life.
However, the “New Life Movement” was not simply a life reforming movement. This can be clearlyseen in the fact that Chiang Kai-shek supported the “three Life transformations”, namely,“Militarization of Life, Productivization of Life, and Aestheticization of Life [or rationalization],”from the initial stage of the movement.
Moreover, as mentioned earlier, the author of the book Chiang Kai-shek and the New Life Movement(2006), Professor Duan Ruicong of Keio University, stated that the purpose of Chiang Kai-shek’s New
Life Movement was to project his personal power throughout China and to realize his political aim
and vision for nation building. For further understanding of the New Life Movement, I will quote
some of Chiang Kai-shek’s own statements regarding the New Life Movement.
First, let us examine “Militarization of Life” as a slogan for transforming life:“Militarization means to have the military organization, disciplines, spirits, actions and life
permeate through economy and society, and by doing so, to make the entire society one combat
unit, eventually attaining the goal that the general public is army, army is general public, life iscombat, and combat is life.” (Chiang Kai-shek’s address at a military camp in Nanchang on
October 2, 1933.)2

1

The China Christian year book 1936-37, P77.

2

Chiang Kai-shek and the New Life Movement, p. 183.
2

From Chiang’s address, it is clear that the New Life Movement included military mobilization.
His next address was given at a civic rally held in Nanchang on launching the Movement:“Do our comrades in various fields, particularly, young students in general know what I am? Mostof you probably know that I was formerly head of the National Government and once
commander-in-chief of the Revolutionary Army and now the Chairman. That’s all. ...A man was
not born to become chairman nor commander-in-chief. ...Now I am chairman all because I was
most strictly educated in my boyhood and I have always made tremendous efforts since I was asmall boy...I want my comrades in each field to know that I, Chiang Kai-shek, was most strictlyeducated by my parents and teachers to become “orderly” and clean. ... At present here in China,
there is only one Chiang Kai-shek, me. I expect that all of you start to educate and produce
thousands of and tens of thousands of Chiang Kai-shek, revolutionary leaders, in future, devoting
yourselves for the sake of our country and people. Lastly, one more thing, all of you, modelingyourselves upon me and with the firmest determination and will, carry out the great work of New
Life Movement and accomplish China’s revolution! (March 11, 1934.)3
In this address, Chiang Kai-shek emphasized that a person can be successful through education andeffort, that a revolution can be accomplished and that Chiang Kai-shek is the role model for success,thus promoting his own authority.
From his own words, readers can clearly understand that the New Life Movement was not just a
campaign to reform Chinese living but a tool to idolize Chiang Kai-shek and his nation-building
political activities, including military mobilization.
In summary, the afore-mentioned National Christian Council resolution was a declaration of theirdetermination to totally cooperate in Chiang Kai-shek’s nation-building political activities and was aconsensus of Chinese Protestants, whether as individuals or church groups. Readers can now see theimportance of the National Christian Council resolution.
Incidentally, the New Life Movement was incorporated into the Nationalist Party’s wartime schemeof fighting the enemy for the purpose of nation-building, “as planned,” after the start of the Second

3

Chiang Kai-shek and the New Life Movement, pp. 144-145.
3

Sino-Japanese War. The Movement was to be involved in “War Area Service” and other actions. 4
After the Second Sino-Japanese War broke out, Chiang Kai-shek made another radio address on
February 19, 1938:“I proposed militarization of the people’s life, more productive life and rationalized [or artistic]
life...in order to have all of you respond to the national emergency and feel responsible during
the time of emergency.” 5
Chiang’s words clearly shows that he anticipated and planned on coping with the wartime situation at
the very start of the New Life Movement.
(3) Did the missionaries grasp the political and military colors of the “New Life Movement”?
Incidentally, I wonder if the missionaries in China decided to cooperate with the Chinese in the New
Life Movement without knowing that the New Life Movement was, in fact, a part of Chiang Kaishek’s political activities towards nation-building, which including military mobilization. The fact isthat Protestant missionaries working in China clearly recognized the true nature of the New Life
Movement. For example, Mr. Ronald Rees, secretary of the National Christian Council, wrote to theeffect that he knew of the political and military characteristics of the New Life Movement and that he
was apprehensive:“On various occasions since the New Life Movement was launched appeals have been made to
the churches to co-operate. Church leaders have shown some hesitation to go into the movement
officially or to form local branches in their churches. They felt that being promoted from thehighest quarters of the government there might be certain political motives behind it, and thatarmy methods of regimentation were a danger.” 6
2. Why did the Protestant Church meddle in politics?
Why, then, did the missionaries decide to fully cooperate with the Chinese at this time in particular(May 1937), knowing full well of the danger ensconced in the New Life Movement?

4

Ibid., p.222.

5

Ibid., pp.218-219.

6

China Faces the Storm, Ronald Rees, Edinburgh House Press, 1938, p. 61.
4

First of all, it was very well known that Chiang Kai-shek and Soong Mei-ling were Protestants andthat Christianity had significant influence over the New Life Movement. In addition, Chiang Kai-shek
and Soong Mei-ling demanded the cooperation of the Protestant Church in the New Life Movement
as early as in 1934, when the Movement was launched. At the beginning of the Movement, the couple
invited Mr. G. W. Shepherd of the American Congregational Church and Mr. J. Endicott of theCanadian United Church as advisors to the General Assembly to promote the New Life Movement.
However, as mentioned earlier, the consensus of the Protestant Church in China was to keep a certain
distance from the New Life Movement, out of caution, as Mr. Ronald Rees pointed out.
Naturally, there were reasons why the protestant churches in China decided to fully cooperate with the
Chinese in the New Life Movement, Chiang Kai-shek’s political activities for nation-building, at thistime in May 1937. Two major reasons were:
1) Finally, by this time, Chiang Kai-shek was firmly established within the Nationalist Party.
2) Chiang Kai-shek and Madame Chiang (Soong Mei-ling) became heroic figures during the Xi’an
Incident (in December 1936) and Chiang Kai-shek’s religious confession about his Christianbelief while he was held prisoner greatly impressed Christians, particularly Protestants and gave
rise to religious fervor.
(1) Establishment of Chiang Kai-shek’s power within the Nationalist Party government
Concerning the first reason, let me briefly outline some history. Currently, it is popularly believed that
Chiang Kai-shek became the head of the Nationalist Party, duly succeeding Sun Yat-sen after Sun Yatsen death (which was partly due to Chiang Kai-shek’s own efforts). This is an utter misreading of
history. There were in fact many who contended to be Sun Yat-sen’s successor. After many twists andturns, Chiang Kai-shek eventually held power within the Nationalist government as a despot.
In recent years, there has been new progress in the study of this history. Next, I will briefly describe
how Chiang Kai-shek’s position in the Nationalist Party changed, based on a study by Keiai University
Professor Iyechika Ryoko, who is a leading authority on Chiang Kai-shek.
First, Chiang Kai-shek was a superb military general and as such he was indispensable to Sun Yat-sen.
However, he was not at all regarded as a successor to Sun Yat-sen. Professor Iyechika Ryoko wrote inher book, Shokaiseki no gaiko senryaku to nicchusenso [Chiang Kai-shek’s Diplomatic Strategy andthe Second Sino-Japanese War] (Iwanami shoten, 2012, p. 47),

5

“Sun Yat-sen appreciated Chiang Kai-shek only in terms of military capacity and treated him simply
as the president at the Huang-pu Military Academy. Chiang was strongly discontented with Sun Yatsen’s apparent slight to his ability. In fact, after Sun Yat-sen died in Beijing on March 12, 1925, it was
Wang Jingwei that succeeded Sun Yat-sen in the Nationalist Government in Guangdong.
After the Guangdong government moved to Wuhan, the so-called 4-12 Coup d’etat that occurred in
Shanghai on April 12, 1927, in which Chiang Kai-shek significantly contributed militarily. However,it was Hu Hanmin that became the head of the Nanking Nationalist Government, while Chiang Kaishek was not included even among those who established the Nanking Nationalist Government.
Chiang Kai-shek, a despot, was strongly rebuked by not only the Communists but also by leaders
promoting democratic government. Later, Chiang Kai-shek resigned as commander-in-chief of the
Revolutionary Nationalist Army and left the political scene in August of the same year, for he wasregarded as an obstacle, in the way of unification of the Nanking and Wuhan governments.
“Later, although the Wuhan and Nanking governments merged into the new Nanking Government,
various political conflicts ensued. Consequently, Chiang Kai-shek officially returned to the post ofcommander-in-chief of the Revolutionary Nationalist Army on January 4, 1928, and in August of thesame year he took office as the head of the Nanking Nationalist Government. However, Chiang Kaishek’s political power was limited due to supervision by the Central Political Conference, in a form ofgroup leadership. Under such a circumstance, in March 1931, Chiang Kai-shek tried to pass a bill toenabled himself to concentrate power on to the head of the state. Hu Hanmin, then chief of theLegislative Chamber, strongly opposed Chiang’s bill. Chiang Kai-shek, in turn, confined Hu Hanminto the outskirts of Nanjing (known as the Tangshan Incident), appointed a new head of the Legislative
Chamber and forcibly passed the bill in May. In response, the anti-Chiang Kai-shek interim
Guangdong Nationalist Government rose up and fierce protests erupted. Eventually, in October,
Chiang Kai-shek set Hu Hanmin free. On release, Hu Hanmin met with Wang Jingwei in Shanghai
and together decided on basic policies, that administrative responsibilities rest with the Executive
Chamber and not with the head of the Nationalist Government (which cut political power for ChiangKai-shek ) and that the general commandership be abolished (which avoided concentrating military
power in Chiang Kai-shek). In response, Chiang Kai-shek was obliged to state, “What honorable
Messrs. Hu and Wang agreed upon, I have no option but to obey and therefore I will do what they ask
me to do.”” (Chiang Kai-shek and the Nanking Nationalist Government, written by Iyechika Ryoko,
Keio University Press, 2002, p. 149.) Later, on December 15, 1931, Chiang Kai-shek resigned fromhis public post and left the political stage for a second time—he was very well politically defeated.
Here, let me discuss Wang Jingwei and Hu Hanmin a little further. They were important figures in
6

Chinese history after Sun Yat-sen’s death. How Chiang Kai-shek, Wang Jingwei and Hu Hanmin
mingled with one another is described in detail in Many Troubles and Successes: Hu Hanmin, Wang
Jingwei and Chiang Kai-shek and Rise and Fall of the Nationalists and Communists, written by Mr.
Chiang Yong-jing, former chief at the Central History Committee of the Nationalist Party. Here, I referto Ms. Iyechika Ryoko’s brief summary about Messrs. Wang and Hu in relation to Chiang Kai-shek:“Wang Jingwei was born on May 4, 1883, four years senior to Chiang Kai-shek, and Hu
Hanmin was born on December 9, 1879, eight years senior to Chiang Kai-shek. They bothpassed the Imperial Examination and studied at Hosei University in Tokyo, Japan. They wereclosely related in their respective careers. While they were engaged in revolutionary activities
in Japan, they edited the Chinese Alliance’s organ People’s Newspaper and were very active
as controversialists within the Nationalist Party. They were fully trusted by Sun Yat-sen. They
needed Chiang Kai-shek’s military strength but strongly opposed Chiang’s despotic behavior
and rose to act against Chiang en mass.” 7
By understanding the relationship between Wang Jingwei and Hu Hanmin, we now know clearly
Chiang Kai-shek’s position within the Nationalist Party.
Although Chiang Kai-shek was obliged to temporarily leave politics, he remained a military
nonetheless. In fact, he came back to his position as the head of the military in no time. However, he
was not fully in power during the so-called “Chiang-Wang administration” established in March 1932.
It was a two-way administration with Wang Jingwei in charge of politics as head of the Executive
Chamber and Chiang limited to head the military as chairman of the Military Committee.
Under such a circumstance, Chiang Kai-shek launched the New Life Movement in Nanchang in
February 1934. The afore-mentioned Mr. Duan Rui-cong made this note of Chiang Kai-shek’s New
Life Movement: “It had the objective to strengthen Chiang’s own power which had been weakened
within the Nationalist Party at that time and spread it throughout the country.” Regarding the fact that
Chiang, as chairman of the Military Committee, directly ordered provincial and city governments topromote the New Life Movement, beyond the authority of the Central Nationalist Party and the
Nationalist Government, Mr. Duan said, “Clearly, it was excess of authority on Chiang’s part.”
While the New Life Movement turned out to be a success and Chiang Kai-shek held considerable

7

Chiang Kai-shek’s Diplomatic Strategy and the Second Sino-Japanese War, p. 52.
7

power, his political rival Wang Jingwei resigned as head of the Executive Chamber on account ofchronic illness and an injury he sustained during a shootout. (As a result, Chiang came to hold theoffice of the Executive Chamber; Chiang became the top political official.) Chiang’s other political
rival, Hu Hanmin, died a sudden death in May 1936. By then, Chiang Kai-shek was finally regarded
as the supreme leader of the Nationalist Government. The American missionaries in China who had
closely observed domestic politics felt the same. The other political power, Mao Zedong’s Chinese
Communist Party, was anti-religion and not at all in agreement with the Protestants. Being Protestants,
American missionaries had no other alternative to Chiang Kai-shek among all Chinese centers ofpolitical power. When it came to the question of who to support, this situation was most likely one of
the factors that led American missionaries to make the resolution supporting the New Life Movementin May 1937. Incidentally, Chiang Kai-shek became the President of the Nationalist Party in March
1938, further consolidating his position.
(2) Chiang Kai-shek’s religious confession after the Xi’an Incident
One more decisive factor we cannot overlook is the influence of the Xi’an Incident of December
1936. Readers may wonder why. Today, it is widely known that the Xi’an Incident triggered a second
alliance between the Nationalists and the Communists and strengthened Chinese pressure against
Japan. But this is only one side of the story. The other side is no less dramatic. The Xi’an Incident
made heroes out of Chiang Kai-shek, who emerged from detention alive and Soong Mei-ling, who, in
person, went to rescue her husband. In addition, Chiang Kai-shek, amidst his agonies and pains during
custody, reportedly reconfirmed his love of Jesus Christ, which greatly moved Christians, especiallyProtestants—both Chiang Kai-shek and Soong Mei-ling were Protestants. This was a great message
for the Christian world. Mr. Mizoguchi Yasuo stated, “Such words [confession of religious faith] werea great message of friendship not only to the Chinese Christians but also for Western Christians.”
I quote the first part of a letter that Chiang Kai-shek sent to the Central Conference of Eastern Asia of
the Methodist Episcopal Church in session on Good Friday, March 26, 1937, in Nanjing:“Without religious faith there can be no real understanding of life. ...I have now been a Christianfor nearly ten years, and during that time I have been a constant reader of the Bible. Never before
has this sacred book been so interesting to me as during my two weeks’ captivity in Sian. This
unfortunate affair took place all of a sudden, and I found myself placed under detention without
having a single earthly belonging. From my captors I asked but one thing, a copy of the Bible. In
my solitude I had ample opportunity for reading and meditation. The greatness and love of Christ
burst upon me with new inspiration, increasing my strength to struggle against evil, to overcome8temptation, and to uphold righteousness.”

8

In response, Mr. Ronald Rees, secretary at the National Christian Council, expressed his admiration
for Chiang Kai-shek for being a true Christian:“Meanwhile the personal faith and experience of the Generalissimo [Chiang Kai-shek] have been
growing through a period of ten years. ...The diary he wrote during the days of captivity at Sianand the message he sent on Good Friday 1937 to the Methodist Episcopal Conference are very
revealing. He acknowledges the influence of Dr. Sun Yat-sen, the revolutionary hero who prayedin his time of trouble. But he now witnesses to the great influence of Jesus Christ as he faced
temptation and forgave his enemies.” 9(As an aside, Chiang Kai-shek was baptized by the Rev. Jiang Zhang-chuan of the Methodist Church
in 1930. However, on his marriage to Protestant Soong Mei-ling in 1927, he promised Soong’s parents
that he would be a Christian. Therefore, Chiang said he had been a Christian for ten years, from 1927
to 1937.)
We do not know for certain whether Chiang Kai-shek reawakened to his Christian faith during theXi’an Incident. However, he lived up to his name as a politician by sending the afore-mentioned letter
on Good Friday to the Protestant meeting, propagating himself as a true Christian (further promoting
himself as an “authentic” successor to Sun Yat-sen). One can easily imagine that in the background
Soong Mei-ling, a Protestant, gave instructions. Soong was educated in the United States and perfectlyversed in the American Protestants’ psychology.
Certainly, it was not that Chiang Kai-shek suddenly became popular among Protestants after the Xi’an
Incident. Missionary Wilson Mills wrote that as early as 1931 he was very appreciative of Chiang Kaishek and his understanding of Christianity and his baptism:“It is interesting in this connection [Mr. Mills was told that the dominant view within thegovernment was that religious freedom should continue to be the Nationalist Party’s fundamental
principle] to recall the fact that the message which President Chiang Kai-shek wrote for the
National Convention of the Y.M.C.A. in October, 1929 was ‘Religious Freedom.’ No more

8

China Faces the Storm, p. 155.

9

Ibid. p. 48.
9significant words could have been chosen. ...We have now entered upon what seems a third stage
in the Kuomintang’s attitude toward religion. There is less opposition and less tolerance. This isdue in large measure undoubtedly to the bold act of President Chiang Kai-shek himself inembracing Christianity. By this step the President showed the words “religious freedom” meant
what they said, and that the Party’s declaration in behalf of freedom of belief was a real statementof principle. The President’s conversion indicates more clearly perhaps than anything else thelong way [the oppression against Christianity after Sun Yat-sen’s death in 1925 and the end of
the oppression] that has been travelled since 1926.” 10
Therefore, his religious confession after the Xi’an Incident served as the last push to propel national
admiration for Chiang Kai-shek. With these factors, leaders of the Protestant Church, while fully awareof the political and military elements of the “New Life Movement,” decided on a policy to fully support
the New Life Movement, that is, Chiang Kai-shek’s political activities and nation-building, as theconsensus of the Protestant Church in China.
3. The key figure to connect the influence of the resolution to support Chiang Kai-shek by the
National Christian Council and the activities by the American missionaries in Nanjing—"Huang
Jen Ling,” Chiang Kai-shek’s right-hand man
Now, on seeing the cooperative relationship between the Protestant Church in China and Chiang Kaishek, let us reexamine the activities on the part of American missionaries in Nanjing. Readers alreadyunderstand that Missionary Mills’ statement in Nanjing to support and protect the Chinese Army [refer
to Chapter 2--3. (2)] was made following the National Christian Council’s resolution to fully cooperatewith the Chinese in the New Life Movement: to support Chiang Kai-shek.
To clarify the relationship between both parties, let me mention the statement of Mr. Ronald Rees,
secretary at the National Christian Council, regarding the resolution to fully support the New Life
Movement.
“The deep religious note in Madame Chiang’s appeal made a great impression. ...'Then let us do
it together, the New Life Movement and Church.’...The National Christian Council responded byrecommending that Christians, whether individuals or church groups, be urged to co-operate in
the programme of the movement as far as possible, and practical ways and means will be worked

10

The China Christian Year Book 1931, p. 85.
10

out by both sides to give effect to the recommendation.
An added source of confidence in New Life Movement was the fact that Colonel J. L. Huang had
recently been appointed as general secretary...” 11
What is interesting here is the statement that Colonel J. L. Huang had recently been appointed as
general secretary: in fact, Mr. Huang Jen Lin was appointed general director of the General Assemblyto Promote the New Life Movement by Chiang Kai-shek in February 1937. 12
Colonel Huang Jen Lin, as previously mentioned, was the very person missionary Mills informed of
the American missionaries’ intention to support and protect the Chinese Army within the Nanking
Safety Zone [refer to Chapter 3--3-(1)]. In Nanjing, Mr. Mills proposed to Mr. Huang Jen Lin, who
was in charge of the New Life Movement, to support and protect the Chinese Army as American
missionaries (Protestants). As I described earlier, the New Life Movement was incorporated into ananti-enemy nation-building regime after the start of the Second Sino-Japanese War and engaged in the
support the Chinese Army mission via the War Area Service Corps. Mr. Mills’ offer can be seemed tobemerely an actualization of

its cooperation with the Chinese in the New Life Movement as

resolved by the National Christian Council.
The problem in Nanjing can be simply reduced to the fact that Protestant American missionaries inNanjing, following Catholic Father Jacquinot and declaring neutrality and protection of refugees, infact, supported and protected the Chinese Army.
Neutrality and one-sided support cannot stand together. It is totally impossible, in the first place, forProtestant missionaries, who resolved to fully cooperate with Chiang Kai-shek in his nation-building
political activities, to establish a neutral organization. In order to conceal this hypocrisy, the Protestantmissionaries needed an absolute evil, Japanese “military atrocities” in Nanjing, that is, the “Nanjing
Incident.”

4. Missionary Bates’ concerns come true
Incidentally, prior to the resolution made by the National Christian Council to support Chiang Kaishek, Mr. Bates, who was very active as the person in charge of publicity during the process of creating
the Nanjing Incident, warned against being too enthusiastic over Chiang Kai-shek, as stated in the

11

China Faces the Storm, p. 62.

12

Chiang Kai-shek and the New Life Movement, p. 107.
11

“National Affairs series from China Missions Newsletter,” dated May 6, 1937:13“The visits of Kung [a Protestant, Chiang Kai-shek’s brother-in-law and married to Soong Ailing, the eldest of the Soong sisters] in western countries, the departure of C. T. Wang as
Ambassador to the United States, and the wide publicity given in Christian circles to the Eastermessage of Chiang Kai-shek, as well as to Kung’s earlier telegram to the Oxford Group
Conference and other such communications, prompt a warning of reasonable caution. It is natural
to rejoice in the Christian stand taken by such persons; and this writer [Bates] for one is convincedof their sincerity. Nevertheless, there is danger in missionary enthusiasm over the present
governmental group, as well as in the response and expectations aroused among westerners
generally. In the first place, Christianity cannot afford in principle or in practice to be linked to aparticular political faction, good, medium, or bad. In the second place, no alert and well-informed
person should seem to give complete approval to the acts and policies of this Government as awhole or of these individual men in particular. The very real improvement in Chinese national
life as compared with former periods is encouraging. But it is only a tiny beginning. Nepotism
and corruption, the secret and unchecked spending of vast sums of the peasants’ money, narrow
bureaucracy protected by a dangerous censorship and a political judiciary, management ofrailways and of rural reconstruction in ways highly profitable to Shanghai financiers: theresponsibility for these evils rests on high shoulders. Human nature is such that men can betouched by good motives and can do real service for the nation, yet maintain large reservationsof profit and malpractice. We need a selective and constructively critical support of the new men
and new measures; not sectarian blindness. Feng Yu-hsiang’s case is not a complete analogy, but
it has lessons for today. M. S. B. May 6, 1937.”
Key phrases such as “the very real improvement in Chinese national life” and “the new men and newmeasures” clearly indicate that Mr. Bates referred to support for the New Life Movement. Nevertheless,Bates was very much concerned of the danger of Chiang Kai-shek’s “Easter” (in fact, Good Friday,
two days previously) message and other communications on the part of the Chinese were given wide
publicity in Christian circles and stoked missionary enthusiasm for the Chinese government at the time,
eventually leading to complete and blind support for the Nationalist Party and Chiang Kai-shek, which
was against the Church’s principle of distancing itself from politics. Above all, Mr. Bates mentioned
Feng Yu-hsiang,14 a.k.a. a Christian general, and pointed him out as a lesson. From this passage, we

13

https://web.library.yale.edu/divinity/nanking/documents

14

Feng Yu-hsiang was born in 1882 in Anhu Province. With the slogan “Governing the military withthe religion,” Feng was called the “Christian General”. He was the leader of the Xibei clique and12can see Mr. Bates’ strong concerns for blind personal support for Chiang Kai-shek.
Mr. Bates’ statement was dated May 6, 1937, which was exactly the same day the National ChristianCouncil adopted the resolution to fully support, in response to Soong Mei-ling’s appeal, Chiang Kaishek’s New Life Movement. Mr. Bates often contributed his reports to the voluminous annual (orbiennial) China Christian Year Book, compiled by the National Christian Council along with leading
the General Assembly. Mr. Bates’ reports appeared in the 1931, 1932-33 and 1938-39 Year Books.
Incidentally, Mr. Mills contributed to the 1931 and 1936-37 Year Books and was editor of the 1928
Year Book. Since Mr. Bates was closely involved in the activities of the National Christian Council,
he was most likely informed of Soong Mei-ling’s appeal well in advance.
In the end, Mr. Bates’ concerns became reality as the National Christian Council resolved to fully
support the New Life Movement, in fact, Chiang Kai-shek, as the Protestants’ consensus. And in
Nanjing, under Mr. Mills’ leadership, following the Catholic model, they declared establishment of aneutral, demilitarized zone for civilians. In fact, the National Christian Council supported the Chinese
Army in a supposedly demilitarized zone, which was nothing but an act of deception. In their processof deception, the National Christian Council created the Nanjing Incident, as I have pointed out.
Mr. Bates, who carefully watched this process before the National Christian Council resolved tosupport Chiang Kai-shek, clearly understood what dangerous work they were doing. Therefore, basedon his assessment, he made utmost efforts not to reveal the fact that American missionaries supported
Chiang Kai-shek and the Chinese Army; Bates greatly succeeded in this. Although the deception on
the part of American missionaries has yet to be widely revealed, it is an inerasable fact that they clearly
lied and acted against teachings written in The Bible. The American missionaries, while pretending to
be neutral, supported Chiang Kai-shek—an act of sheer deception. The Bible does not encourage lying:“Lying lips are an abomination to the LORD, but those who do the truth are his delight.” Proverbs
12:22.

during the 1922 coup-d’etat (the Beijing Incident), he fought against the Beijing government that wasunder control of the Zhili clique. After Feng joined the Nationalist Party, he served as director ofmilitary politics. However, he lost to Chiang Kai-shek in the Chiang-Feng Battle (1929-1930) andresigned from public office. He often collaborated with the Soviet/Communists. He died in 1948. On
the first anniversary of Feng’s death, Mao Zedong dedicated an eulogy and he was highly appreciatedby the Chinese Communist Party.
13

Protestant missionaries claiming to be true to The Bible were in fact untrue to The Bible during theirunholy mission. What an ironical end!

1415