November 2, 2009

China Notes #27

Greetings Friends and Family,

Many of you know of John Leighton Stuart, a Presbyterian missionary to China who served as president of Yenching University for thirty years, and later as the last U.S. ambassador to China before the Communist party took power. Recently, Wei Hong and I attended a symposium in Hangzhou sponsored by the Zhejiang Christian Council and Christian Leadership Exchange. Its final session was a talk on Stuart given by a researcher from the Shanghai Religious Research Institute. I found this talk quite interesting as a reflection of how Stuart is now officially viewed in China—or at least how one academic working in a government research institute views Stuart—so let me offer the following abridged and translated version:

Stuart was successful as an educator but failed as a diplomat. His main contribution was through his service as president of Yenching University. It was largely through his efforts that Yenching became a strong university, and he successfully made it both Chinese and international. Unlike the other Christian colleges, Stuart saw that both Chinese and foreign faculty got the same pay and benefits at Yenching, and he was able to attract talented Chinese scholars and create a predominantly Chinese faculty and staff. Stuart encouraged students’ Chinese identity, and Yenching was the first Christian college to register with the Chinese government. He also set up the Harvard-Yenching Foundation. All of this was achieved even in the midst of the 1920s anti-Christian movement in China and also despite criticism from fundamentalist missionaries who were unhappy that he eliminated requirements that students take religious courses and attend chapel.

As a diplomat, he accepted America’s policy goals in China, so was willing to accept the position as ambassador. In this role, he tried to encourage the Nationalists to accept other political parties, and tried to persuade the Communists to accept a role as opposition party, but he eventually failed to persuade either party, and also failed to persuade the United States to moderate its support of the Nationalists. Eventually, he sided with the Nationalists. After the Communists defeated the Nationalists, he wanted to establish relations between the United States and the Communist government, but the State Department forced him to leave rather than following through.

In what ways did he fail as a diplomat? He failed in his efforts to get the two Chinese parties to cooperate. He also became the symbol of America as an enemy, partly because Mao Zedong’s famous anti-imperialist article “Goodbye John Leighton Stuart” was a text in Chinese schoolbooks for decades. After he left China, he was suspected by the McCarthy camp, and even his friend Chiang Kai-shek never forgave him for considering establishing relations with the Communists.

There are three key points to make about Stuart. First, he loved China but loved America more. He opposed the unequal treaties, and stood with China against the Japanese invaders. But his basic viewpoint was American, and he worked to promote American interests.

Second, he was a typical missionary, and his purpose was to reform China through the Christian spirit. Even as president of Yenching he was still an evangelist—just using a different method. In his life he was also like Jesus—for example, he gave all his money to Yanjing, so when he went back to the United States his life was difficult because he had no savings and no retirement package.

Third, he wanted to bring East and West together. For example, instead of criticizing Confucianism, he felt its strong points were to be learned from.

I would differ with the researcher’s perspective in some ways. Perhaps most obviously, she tended to judge Stuart on the basis of how closely he sided with the Communist party and its interests, which naturally loaded the scales against him. Also, while her comments about his loving the United States more than China and about really being a missionary were not explicitly framed as criticisms, it seemed that she meant these more as rebukes than as praise, whereas to me these would seem natural and expected of someone who served as a missionary and a U.S. diplomat. However, it is not surprising that her view of Stuart was not entirely positive. After all, she was looking from the perspective of a Communist government at a man who was not only a missionary and then ambassador of an enemy nation, he was even a personal friend of Chiang Kai-shek, the Communists’ arch-enemy.

More significant to me were some of the other themes in her portrayal, such as her praise for his work as an educator, and also her explicit and detailed description of the personal price he paid as a result of his love for China. She also pointed out his significant contributions as a bridge-builder between China and the West.

What do I draw from this experience? First, when the long-maligned subject of “Goodbye John Leighton Stuart” gets a mild and at times even cautiously positive public review from an academic in an official research institute in China, it’s a sign that times are definitely changing, and we have most certainly entered a new period in which China is taking a more open and balanced view of the past. Of course, the rules of the game have not changed entirely, but they have changed.

A second reflection has to do with the degree to which the work of Stuart and his family members is remembered in China. This talk was delivered in a church originally built by Stuart’s missionary father, and a plaque commemorating Stuart’s father is located at the entrance to the church. The church itself is located on “Jesus Alley”—yes, this is actually the Chinese name on the street signs—and a little way down the street there is a plaque commemorating Stuart himself. Also, the Stuart family home has recently been restored by the city government, and apparently it will become a museum.

A final reflection has to do with what we can learn from Stuart’s example. I was proud to hear a government researcher telling the story of a missionary who loved not only his home country but also his adopted country, who contributed to education in that country, and who strived—even if not always successfully—to “tear down dividing walls of hostility” between political parties, nations, and also between humankind and God. Let us go and do likewise.

God’s peace to you all,

The 2009 Mission Yearbook for Prayer & Study, p. 117