Entangled history in mission studies

As a response to the limitations of traditional, nation-centered historiography, entangled history emerged in the late 20th century as a critical framework within global and comparative historical research. Michael Werner and Bénédicte Zimmermann developed ‘Histoire Croisée’ (Crossed History) (Werner and Zimmermann Reference Werner and Zimmermann2002, pp. 607–636), advocating for an approach that examines the mutual constitution of historical objects and observers, rather than static national comparisons. The framework was further enriched by postcolonial critiques like Dipesh Chakrabarty’s, which challenged Eurocentric historical narratives (Chakrabarty Reference Chakrabarty2000). Sanjay Subrahmanyam’s ‘Connected Histories’ (Subrahmanyam Reference Subrahmanyam1997, pp. 735–762), which pointed out transregional ties between India and Europe. Focusing on exchanges between Europe and non-European societies, especially Asia, Jürgen Osterhammel was among the first German historians of the late 20th century to move beyond intra-European perspectives (Osterhammel Reference Osterhammel2009). His analysis integrates political, social and economic dynamics alongside cultural transfers, broadening the scope of historical inquiry. Moreover, entangled history has proven particularly valuable in studying colonialism, transnational religious movements and global economic networks. Sebastian Conrad illustrates how this framework enhances the interactions between Europe and Asia during the colonial era (Conrad Reference Conrad2016).

In mission studies, the framework of entangled history is frequently applied and further developed, especially he metaphorical concept of ‘mission spaces’ (Egger and Gugglberger Reference Egger and Gugglberger2013, pp. 5–18), as discussed in an Austrian history magazine, indicates the need for an interdisciplinary approach to the history of Christian missions. This perspective integrates concepts and theories from history, social sciences cultural studies and gender studies. At its core, entangled history focuses on the interplay among events, phenomena and actors, rejecting the notion of one-directional influence. It goes beyond political or economic domains, incorporating cultural, religious and intellectual dimensions to uncover hidden power structures and asymmetries. Especially in mission studies, looking at the entangled history helps us better understand how missionary societies, local cultures and colonial powers were connected and influenced each other. As Moritz Fischer, a scholar of religious studies, points out, when exploring the entangled history of missions, first, include church history in the discussion. Second, it should be addressed how different historical approaches—such as intersectional history and transnational history—are connected. By looking at these entanglements, the exchanges and interactions between societies can be traced back. Third, the discussion about how mission history should be written should not be limited to theology alone. Drawing from interdisciplinary fields is very valuable and necessary (Fischer Reference Fischer, Fischer and Thiel2022) So, Missionary history should not be limited to the actions of missionaries alone, but must also consider the outcomes, strategies, and their connections to the church, theology and colonial experiences. It cannot be understood as a simple, linear narrative or just the reception of missionaries by local communities. Instead, it must account for how it is intertwined with broader social, political and cultural dynamics of the time. The entangled nature of these interactions will become particularly evident in the analysis of conflicts in the following sections, illustrating how various actors were interconnected through these exchanges.

Unfolding the conflict

In the aftermath of the Opium War and the signing of the Treaty of Nanjing in 1842, the Qing government of China was compelled to open its land to Western powers, which included the cession of Hong Kong to the British and the designation of Canton as a treaty port for trade. This provided an opportunity for missionary work in China, with an influx of missionaries arriving in the region. The Rhenish Missionary Society (RMG) had already established effective missionary activities in the area between Hong Kong and Canton in 1847. Subsequently, the RMG and BMGFootnote ⁴ joined forces to expand their efforts in converting Chinese individuals to Christianity.Footnote ⁵ In 1872, both societies signed a contract to collaboratively establish the Canton missionary school, with the objective of cultivating Chinese youth as future pastors or missionaries. The RMG took on the responsibility for the management and oversight of the BMG, as stated by Hubrig (Hubrig Reference Hubrig1875), enabling them to compensate for their specialization in the Punti mission, while the BMG focused on the Hakka mission.Footnote ⁶ The partnership between the two missionary societies facilitated a coordinated approach to missionary work in the region, leveraging their respective strengths and resources to advance their common goal of spreading Christianity and establishing a presence in Canton Province and Hong Kong.

Hubrig,Footnote ⁷ a BMG missionary, possessed prior experience in building missionary schools since his arrival in China. Faber, a RMG missionary, was assigned to the Canton province, which served as the new stronghold for the RMG mission center in China, encompassing both Punti and Hakka missions, aimed at consolidating the missionary presence in the country (3.087, p. 267). From 1872 to 1876, Hubrig, along with RMG missionaries Dilthey and Eichler, who had previously worked with Faber, led the school. Dilthey and Eichler dedicated two years to learning the Hakka language as assistants to Hubrig (3.087, p. 266). However, due to health issues, Hubrig temporarily stepped back from his position, leaving Dilthey and Eichler in charge of the school’s administration. None of the missionaries expected Hubrig to return, since he had a long-time lung ailment (Kriele Reference Kriele1928). Yet in 1880, Hubrig declared his intent to return to China, and he expressed his desire to reassume his role as the head of the school. Fabri, serving as the inspector of the RMG, readily acquiesced to Hubrig’s request for reinstatement as head of the school (3.087, p. 257). Upon receiving this news, four RMG missionaries wrote a letter to Fabri, urging him to entrust the school’s administration to ‘Barmen-educated missionaries’ and rejecting Hubrig’s return to his original position (3.087, p. 252).

The leadership dispute between Fabri and the RMG missionaries, particularly Faber, over the administration of the Canton school and the allocation of missionary tasks, resulted in a contentious situation within RMG. This disagreement escalated into an interrogation of Fabri, who expressed his annoyance at the perceived insubordination and disrespect exhibited by the RMG missionaries, with Faber being accused of instigating the entire conflict. Fabri rebuked them for insubordination and a lack of respect towards Hubrig’s foundational contributions to the Canton school (A. Wu Reference Wu2014, p. 18). He explicitly claimed that Faber had ambitions to assume leadership of the school (3.087, p. 265), albeit whether intentionally or not. Furthermore, Fabri had long been aware of the strained personal disagreements between Faber and Hubrig (3.087, p. 261). Hence, Fabri accused Faber as the primary hindrance to Hubrig’s efforts. Fabri lamented that the requests to reject Hubrig lacked ‘any imprint of common civil morality, justice, or fairness’ (3.087, p. 257). These scathing words, for the RMG missionaries, were a source of pain (3.087, p. 256). Conversely, Faber maintained that his intentions were solely to assist Dilthey with his Hakka expertise while focusing on his own work in the Punti mission. Additionally, Faber shouldered significant responsibilities in managing two missionary stations, Fumen and Tangkun, involving tasks such as administration, travel, literacy work and lectures. (3.087, p. 266). Consequently, he believed he lacked the capacity to assume leadership of the school. Despite Faber’s arguments, Fabri remained steadfast in his support of Hubrig, lavishing praise upon him (3.087, pp. 266–267) and diminishing the efforts of the RMG missionaries. Fabri asserted that the missionary stations in Fumen and Tangkun had experienced significant decline and loss of influence in the Punti mission, rendering them ineffective. He did not hold Dilthey’s Hakka work in high regard, although Dilthey had offered his assistance due to Hubrig’s visible and well-grounded illness (Kempgen Reference Kempgen1984, pp. 60–61). In this complex situation, Faber contended that Fabri’s motivations were not primarily concerned with the issue of the school but rather driven by animosity towards the RMG brethren (3.087, p. 269). The tensions between the parties involved persisted, and the conflict extended beyond the question of leadership at the Canton school, revealing underlying divisions within the RMG missionary community.

Prior to the emergence of the conflict, there existed a close and trusting relationship between Faber and Fabri, characterized by a mentor-student dynamic. Faber, possessing exceptional linguistic abilities, had received training and guidance from Fabri, making him a favorite pupil of Fabri. However, this bond of trust and mutual admiration began to erode and was replaced by suspicion and mistrust following Faber’s first visit back to Barmen in 1876/77 (Bade Reference Bade1975, 337; Kranz Reference Kranz1901, p. 131). During this furlough, after a candid conversation between Faber and Fabri regarding the latter’s ‘private affairs’, their previously amicable relationship became tense (Kranz Reference Kranz1904). Faber learned from a pastor friend about Fabri’s remarks concerning him, described as a ‘heavy, bitter, and saddest experience’. This revelation left Faber perplexed, as he had known Fabri for more than two decades, and he couldn’t comprehend the sudden opposition he faced from someone he held in high regard. Fabri’s firm support for Hubrig in the charges against the Canton School (3.087, pp. 267–268), despite Hubrig’s own dissatisfaction with his work (3.087, p. 257), further added to Faber’s confusion and disillusionment. The shift in their relationship from one akin to father and son to one fraught with suspicion and disagreement remains a perplexing aspect of the conflict between Faber and Fabri. The reasons behind Fabri’s change in attitude towards Faber, after years of close association, continue to be a subject of debate and speculation.

Initially, Hubrig and Faber enjoyed an amicable relationship, as Hubrig recognized Faber’s diligent acquisition of knowledge and harbored no personal or professional animosity towards him. However, their collaboration took a turn in 1879 when their differing perspectives on missionary work became a source of disagreement (3.087, p. 259). The conflict primarily revolved around the confessional differences in faith between Hubrig’s Lutheranism and Faber’s liberalism. Hubrig began expressing his dissatisfaction and even antipathy towards Faber, accusing him of consistently acting as a rival in various missionary positions. Hubrig went as far as labelling Faber as ‘selfish, ambitious, and unforgiving’ (3.087, p. 259), attributing these negative traits to his colleague. Correspondence between Hubrig and Faber reveals the profound impact of these accusations on Faber’s emotions, deeply hurting him (3.087, p. 258). The divergence between Hubrig and Faber extended to the practical aspects of missionary work, specifically the different dialects they focused on. Hubrig sought to avoid further conflict by establishing a separation in their managerial responsibilities (3.087, p. 262). However, this avoidance strategy also meant that Hubrig refrained from advocating for Faber as a fellow missionary (3.087, p. 271). Moreover, Hubrig declined Faber’s friendly invitations to Sunday evening meetings and monthly communion feasts, indicating his unwillingness to address the issues face-to-face (3.087, pp. 260–261). Hubrig attributed the conflict to the unregulated working style of the RMG, which he believed intentionally targeted Faber alongside other RMG missionaries (3.087, p. 261). Hubrig ascribed the conflict to what he perceived as the unregulated working style of the RMG, contending that it intentionally targeted not only Faber but also other RMG missionaries (3.087, p. 261). Despite attempts at reconciliation, such as a letter sent by Dilthey and Eichler to Hubrig, the latter never responded (3.087, p. 260), exacerbating the accumulating misunderstandings. This ultimately culminated in the expulsion of a missionary group from the RMG, as the tensions between Hubrig and Faber persisted unresolved.

In December 1880, Faber, accompanied by Dilthey, Eichler and Blankenagel, vehemently protested against Fabri’s perceived injustice in front of the Barmen Mission. They expressed their concerns through an appealing letter (Appellationsschrift), which aimed to challenge Fabri’s animosity towards RMG missionaries and his evident favoritism towards Hubrig (3.087, p. 269).

However, the RMG Committee, upon receiving the letter in April 1881, deemed it ‘irreverent and arrogant’. Consequently, they concluded that it would be morally impossible to continue collaborating with the four missionaries (General-Versammlung 1881, p. 101). This decision had severe repercussions for the work of the RMG in China, as the exclusion or resignation of these individuals nearly paralyzed their operations (Bonn Reference Bonn1928).

As a result, the BMG assumed responsibility for a portion of the work in Canton, while the RMG was compelled to relinquish control over a smaller district situated to the east (Latourette Reference Latourette1929, p. 374). This marked a significant shift in the distribution of missionary efforts between the two societies, as the BMG took on a more prominent role while the RMG faced a setback in their endeavors.

Background complexities

The 19th century, also known as the ‘Missionsjahrhundert (Century of Missions)’ (Warneck Reference Warneck1880), witnessed the rapid development of Western missionary work in China. Following the First Opium War, this expansion was accompanied by the signing of the ‘unequal treaty’ system, the French treaties of 1858 and 1860, subsequent agreements and the imposition of the French religious protectorate in the 1860s (Tiedemann Reference Tiedemann2010, pp. 119–120), which significantly enhanced the discursive power of Western missionaries in their interactions with Chinese society. Meanwhile, the landscape of mission work underwent a transformation, marked by a shift in responsibility from individual Protestant churches to missionary societies. These societies, which arose as a result of the pietistic movement, served as a platform for small community members within the church to actively participate in missionary works (Bosch Reference Bosch2012). Notably, these missionary societies faced financial constraints, as they did not receive support from the official church or the state. However, they managed to secure funding from lower middle-class groups, demonstrating their ability to mobilize resources independently (Gensichen Reference Gensichen, Torben/Hutchison and William1982). Although there was no formal administrative connection between the Protestant churches and the missionary societies, attempts were made to foster ecumenical harmony and cooperation. However, in practice, conflicts and competition often emerged, with denominational disputes from their respective home countries being imported into the mission field (Sievernich Reference Sievernich2009). This intricate dynamic created tensions between the missionary societies and the church, as the latter regarded the former with suspicion and as potential rivals. The missionary societies’ independence and divergent denominational affiliations further contributed to this complex relationship, highlighting the challenges in achieving a unified approach to mission work (Sievernich Reference Sievernich2009).

Moreover, the missionary societies became entangled in the colonial history of the time and faced challenges from local actors. In China, Protestant missionaries encountered violent resistance from local communities, greatly impeding their missionary efforts (Jörgensen Reference Jörgensen, Leutner and Mühlhahn2001b, p. 186). The German government also displayed skepticism towards missionary work, particularly in non-German colonies, raising concerns about the efficiency of missionaries sent by these societies (Jörgensen Reference Jörgensen, Leutner and Mühlhahn2001b, p. 189). This skepticism prompted a deliberate separation between missions and politics, with the government adopting a pragmatic approach aimed at fostering positive relations with China and mitigating tensions between missionaries and the local populace (Jörgensen Reference Jörgensen, Leutner and Mühlhahn2001b, p. 187). However, the missionary societies grappled with the complexities of clearly demarcating their mission work from the larger colonial enterprise, particularly in non-German colonies (Goßweiler Reference Goßweiler1994, p. 45).

The intricate relationship between the missionary societies, the Protestant churches and the colonial powers created a challenging and complex environment for mission work in the 19th century. The missionary societies, driven by their pietistic ideals and supported by grassroots funding, embarked on their missions, often finding themselves at odds with the church, the state and the target country. Despite these formidable challenges, missionary societies persevered, diligently striving to carry out their mission work while deftly navigating the complexities of religious, political and social landscapes in the 19th century.

The failure of institutional power distribution and managerial leadership

The Dual Concern Model of Conflict Behavior by D. Dunaetz identifies two dimensions determines four conflict types: avoidance, accommodation, competition and cooperation (Dunaetz and Greenham Reference Dunaetz and Greenham2018, pp. 70–71). When examining the case of cooperation between the RMG and BMG in relation to the construction of the Canton school, both parties initially displayed a high concern for their own interests as well as the interests of the other, reflecting their shared objectives: 1) increase the number of Chinese Christians and educate competent Chinese missionaries and 2) to compensate for their respective shortcomings by adopting the Hakka and Punti missionary approaches. However, BMG had a greater advantage from its long-term experience and its mushrooming missionary work of China (Kempgen Reference Kempgen1984, p. 58). Additionally, with a missionary force of 400 individuals, the BMG was better equipped to address the understaffing issue faced by the RMG, which had a mere 150 missionaries (Kempgen Reference Kempgen1984, p. 59). While a greater number of missionaries supporting one another can be beneficial for the development of missionary work, it also introduces the potential risk of an unclear division of labour and responsibilities.

The distribution of institutional power in an unbalanced manner created an unjust and counterproductive assignment of tasks. While the RMG held a position of advantage, it also bore a greater burden of damage. The leadership in Barmen expressed concerns regarding the future collaboration between the RMG and BMG, fearing that a suitable shared area for pooling their respective expertise might not be found (Kempgen Reference Kempgen1984, p. 59). In the event of a conflict arising, the BMG was more likely to adopt a ‘competition’ approach, characterized by high self-interest and low consideration for the interests of others. Despite some level of collaboration between missionaries from both sides, the power dynamics continued to generate tensions. In the context of the Canton missionary school, the complexity arising from the use of two missionary languages, Punti and Hakka, posed challenges to the working process. While the school was jointly managed, each society pursued its own interests and relied on its respective strengths, leading to a situation of ambivalence regarding the overarching goals and unified identity of the institution. The leadership of the Barmen missionary society overlooked the potential quality and feasibility of establishing the missionary school collaboratively, thereby contradicting Faber’s strategic emphasis on prioritizing the quality of missionary work over quantity (Faber Reference Faber1871).

During Hubrig’s absence in China, Fabri assumed responsibility for the missionary work assignment within the RMG. However, it appeared that Fabri did not have the intention to establish clear managerial boundaries for the school in advance. Instead, he seemed inclined to leave Dilthey alone to handle all the school-related matters. This approach raised doubts among RMG missionaries, who were concerned about the potential risk of the school falling under Hubrig’s sole control in the midst of the dispute (3.087, p. 267). Additionally, Fabri did not explicitly clarify his preference for Hubrig as Dilthey’s successor, leading to a rather opaque decision-making process. Such behavior on Fabri’s part was not conducive to effective missionary leadership (Dunaetz Reference Dunaetz2019, p. 4). Faber expressed his discontentment with Fabri’s engagement in institutional politics (3.087, p. 266).

The cooperative contract between BMG and RMG presented Hubrig with a dilemma, as he held authority over another two missionary stations – Kwuischen (葵涌kui yong) and Fayun (花县 hua xian). In terms of schoolwork, RMG missionaries assisted him and followed his guidance, but in matters pertaining to general mission issues, they were considered equals in terms of management. This dynamic led to RMG missionaries expressing their discontentment with being consistently subordinate to Hubrig’s decisions (3.087, p. 261). However, Hubrig mistakenly believed that he could single-handedly manage all aspects of the missionary work in Canton, resulting in instability and divergent opinions (3.087, p. 261).

Within the hierarchical structure of the RMG, Fabri’s leadership exhibited significant shortcomings. Despite Hubrig’s excessive use of authority, Fabri failed to advocate for the marginalized RMG missionaries. Instead, he steadfastly believed that the school’s administrative control should unconditionally return to its founder, Hubrig. This inability to delegate effectively isn’t a desirable quality in a missionary leader (Dunaetz Reference Dunaetz2019, p. 6). Hubrig, on the other hand, was burdened with dual responsibilities, overseeing the school in Canton and supervising the assistants at various outstations (Nürnberg Missionsblatt 1882, pp. 158–159). Geographically, Hubrig found himself in the strategically advantageous missionary station of Kwuischen (3.087, p. 257). In addition to his missionary responsibilities, he undertook the management of the school. However, the substantial distance separating Kwuischen from Canton posed inconvinience for Hubrig in effectively fulfilling his managerial duties. Despite the evident strain on Hubrig due to the demanding workload, Fabri did not judiciously distribute tasks among other missionaries. This lack of reasonable task allocation compounded Hubrig’s challenges. It also reflects a potential oversight in managerial decision-making led by Fabri.

Furthermore, Fabri’s leadership revealed a significant shortcoming in the mediation of relationships by failing to uphold principles of fairness and impartiality. When Hubrig put forth his justifications for enforcing order and rectifying issues within the RMG, Fabri failed to provide an equitable platform for the RMG missionaries to express their perspectives, instead prioritizing Hubrig’s arguments (3.087, p. 257). Such a biased approach created a perception of preferential treatment and a disregard for alternative viewpoints, leading to a deficiency in procedural justice within the missionary community (Dunaetz Reference Dunaetz, Baker and Hayward2010b). Fabri’s partiality in decision-making not only shaped the internal power dynamics within the RMG but also reflected broader transnational influences on missionary governance. Influenced by European colonial administrative models, the RMG prioritized hierarchical control over participatory engagement. This approach not only undermined the credibility of individual missionaries but also cast doubt on the integrity and effectiveness of the entire RMG system. To ensure a harmonious missionary environment, it was imperative for Fabri to strike a balance and consider the perspectives of all parties involved, acknowledging the broader consequences for the missionary enterprise.

The decision-making process within the RMG committees played a pivotal role in shaping the future assignments of potential missionaries, leaving limited space for the expression of individual preferences and desires (Altena Reference Altena, van der Heyden and Stoecker2005). As a result, the tension between obligatory obedience and personal conviction remained a persistent issue within the RMG. Its hierarchical decision-making process mirrored structures found in both colonial administrations and other missionary societies operating across Africa and Asia. These parallels indicate that missionary governance was not an isolated phenomenon but part of a broader global pattern of centralized control over religious and cultural dissemination. The shortcomings in Fabri’s leadership were not solely due to his personal failings (3.087, p. 267) but were also rooted in the inherent imbalances of the hierarchical power structure, which placed missionaries in a disadvantaged position. These factors point to the need for a fair and inclusive decision-making process that respects the agency and goals of individual missionaries within the broader organization.

Theological confession conflict: dogmatic Lutheranism and Liberalism

The conflict that erupted between Faber, Hubrig and Fabri can be attributed primarily to the confessional division between Lutheran dogmatism and liberalism, which was the prevailing cause (Kranz Reference Kranz1901, p. 131). The missionary landscape was heavily influenced by the Lutheran-pietistic tradition, which was shared by the majority of missionaries, including Faber and Hubrig. Although RMG identified itself as an interdenominational and international society (A. Wu Reference Wu2014, p. 6), the denominational differences among the missionaries became increasingly pronounced in the mission field. Faber and his three colleagues raised objections against Hubrig’s strict Lutheran confessionalism in the education of Chinese national assistants in Canton and their training along those same lines (Kranz Reference Kranz1904, preface vii). In contrast, the four missionaries exhibited a more flexible and practical approach (Wu Reference Wu2022, pp. 33–34). Fabri, who firmly aligned himself with Hubrig, paradoxically held an ‘odd mixture of neo-Protestantism and liberalism’ stance. What he initially agreed on was ‘confessional neutrality’ in building future churches in mission area, but behind the non-denominational position is not primarily the pietistic community ideal (Schmidt Reference Schmidt1965, p. 140). This ambivalence caused him to oscillate between adherence to the Lutheran-pietistic tradition and occasional aspirations for an ideal ecumenical model. However, in practice, he failed to successfully establish ecumenical churches within the RMG framework in Indonesia and South India (Schmidt Reference Schmidt1965, p. 141). Eventually, the dismission of four missionaries showed the persistence in Lutheran dogmatism over new liberal trend. In the initial years of his missionary work in China, Faber focused on promoting the original spirit of German Pietism. He placed a strong emphasis on the central role of the Bible in his mission, particularly valuing oral preaching and undertaking the translation and exposition of the Gospel of Mark.Footnote ⁸ This aligns closely with his unwavering stance of Pietists who steadfastly upheld the primacy of biblical authority (A. Wu Reference Wu2014, p. 12). As Faber deepened his understanding of Chinese society, he became aware of the Chinese emphasis on practicality and observed that their religious thoughts were significantly influenced by traditional Chinese philosophical ideas (Faber Reference Faber1869, pp. 98–105). Taking into account these distinctive Chinese characteristics, Faber consciously made a decision to break free from the constraints of Lutheran pietism. This significant departure reflects his acute awareness of the necessity for adaptation and contextualization (A. Wu Reference Wu2014, p. 17). In 1885, Faber embraced a new trajectory by affiliating himself with the General Evangelical Protestant Missionary Society (AEPMV) characterized by its theological liberality and dedicated focus on literary composition and dissemination (Latourette Reference Latourette1929, p. 398). The present conflict, with its intricate nuances and underlying dynamics, serves as a subtle yet tangible testament to Faber’s evolving commitment to theological progressivism, signifying a momentous turning point in his confessional journey.

The confrontation between Faber and Hubrig provides an opportunity to delve into a comparative analysis of diverse religious traditions and their respective practices concerning preaching locations, baptism ceremonies and the observance of church festivals. Regarding where to preach, Hubrig stated in Church Regulations for BMG in China that as the number of Christians grows, they should gather in spacious chapels or churches […] These places are considered holy, houses of the Lord, which also differ in form and style from other houses. The interior furnishings include an altar with crucifix and candlestick, pulpit, baptismal font, organ, bell, baptismal and communion utensils (Hubrig Reference Hubrig1889, p. 10). In 1866, Hubrig embarked on his school mission with a strong disdain for Chinese temples, perceiving them as venues for idolatrous worship ceremonies and superstitious practices aimed at seeking good luck. He expressed a fervent desire for a more suitable and dignified space in which to teach and preach, free from the noise and ostentation associated with idol worship. Hubrig passionately exclaimed, ‘If only I lived to see the time when I could teach in a classroom I found and preach in a chapel!’ (Hubrig Reference Hubrig1873a, p. 341).

Contrarily, Faber held a contrasting viewpoint, asserting that there was no necessity to confine preaching exclusively to Christian churches or chapels. He advocated for the utilization of random houses, including temples or marketplaces, which could be adapted to local customs and practices (Faber Reference Faber1892b, pp. 134–135). According to Faber, rigid adherence to dogmatic rules was unnecessary, drawing attention to the fact that even the renowned missionary PaulFootnote ⁹ did not adhere strictly to such regulations.

Regarding the practice of baptism, Hubrig held the authority to grant permission for Blankenagel and Eichler to perform baptisms, even though he had initially agreed to allow them to work independently for a year (3.087, p. 261). During this period, Hubrig displayed a lack of trust in the younger missionaries, considering himself an experienced veteran missionary. He remarked, ‘The younger missionaries, however, have no other missionary principles than those they were taught in the mission house in Barmen’ (3.087, p. 261). In contrast, Hubrig believed that his Lutheran-dogmatic foundation qualified him to assess whether someone should be baptized. The dispute over baptism practices exemplifies the intersection of Lutheran dogmatic principles with the practical needs of missionary work in a foreign context. While Hubrig’s authority stemmed from his adherence to a fixed confessional framework, Faber’s approach was part of a broader missionary tradition that prioritized local context, adaptability and the evolving practice of faith in colonial settings. Faber doubted on Hubrig’s confessional position and didn’t put himself as an authoritarian examiner. He didn’t place excessive importance on determining someone’s Christian status immediately after baptism. Instead, Faber believed even though being baptized and considered a Christian after a one-year assessment period, one could still potentially revert to being non-Christian. Thus, he emphasized the ongoing importance of maintaining piety towards God (Faber Reference Faber1871). As a result, he asked for an after-baptized examination to maintain Chinese Christian pious faith (Faber Reference Faber1873).

In terms of church festivals, Hubrig adhered strictly to established practices such as regular Sunday worship, Christmas, Easter and Pentecost. However, he recognized the need for flexibility in observing smaller festivals such as the Apostle and Mary Days, taking into consideration the specific needs of the local communities (Hubrig Reference Hubrig1889, p. 8). Conversely, Faber placed less emphasis on these additional festivals, considering them of lesser significance in the Chinese context. He contended that obligatory participation was unnecessary, as the daily labour required for sustenance left little room for such engagements (Faber Reference Faber1884). Faber’s perspective centered on the notion that individual piety towards God held greater importance than rigid adherence to specific church services.

Hubrig’s church order in China followed the structured framework of German Protestantism, emphasizing order and uniformity. His rigid adherence to European Protestant norms reflected the broader colonial context, where missionaries often acted as extensions of the state, enforcing a specific religious and social structure. In contrast, Faber took a more flexible, interdenominational approach, aligning with a transnational missionary movement that valued local agency and intercultural engagement over strict doctrinal adherence. However, Hubrig’s approach appeared to lack adaptation to the practical realities of the Chinese context, as evidenced by his defensive stance regarding Feng Shui geomancy in relation to the burial practices behind the church yard (Hubrig Reference Hubrig1889, p. 12). In contrast, Faber’s preaching guidelines advocated for flexibility and contextual adaptation. He acknowledged the limited understanding of Christianity among the Chinese population and, therefore, advocated for simple sermons that could be easily comprehended (Faber Reference Faber1874).Footnote ¹⁰ Furthermore, Faber opposed the detrimental effects of denominational competition within missionary societies (Faber Reference Faber1892c). Through his flexible approach, Faber demonstrated compassion towards the Chinese people and avoided adopting a contemptuous attitude. His scholarly exploration of Chinese religions in order to elucidate their ethical and moral values alongside the introduction of Christianity positioned him as an interdenominational and interreligious figure. In this regard, Faber can be seen as an atypical liberal missionary (Glüher Reference Glüher and Hahn1984).

Knowledge sources and perception gap

Within the conflict, Fabri emerged as the dominant figure, wielding significant power and influence. However, his actions were perceived as oppressive and lacking justification by the less powerful missionaries. This perception stemmed from Fabri’s self-serving biases, which were associated with incomplete or ambiguous information. The conflict itself arose from a combination of differences and opposition, which can be attributed to factors such as incomplete information, misperceptions, or the fear of failing to achieve one’s goals (Dunaetz and Greenham Reference Dunaetz and Greenham2018, p. 69). Notably, Fabri’s understanding of Chinese missionary work was limited to second-hand information derived from reports and letters provided by other missionaries. In contrast, Faber possessed direct experiential knowledge of the field. This disparity in information sources led to contrasting opinions and decisions among the missionaries involved in the conflict. The reliance on different information channels played a crucial role in shaping their perspectives and contributing to the divergence in their positions.

Two distinct modes of missionary communication exist: written correspondence, such as letters or formal deputations, and face-to-face interactions. The latter method is often regarded as superior due to the immediate expression and exchange of both verbal and non-verbal information (Dunaetz Reference Dunaetz2010a, p. 286). However, the vacation in Barmen proved to be an occasion of heated confrontation rather than a pleasant conversation between Faber and Fabri (Bade Reference Bade1975, 377). Fabri displayed a lack of interest in discussing the intricacies of missionary work in China (3.087, p. 267), while Faber resorted to drawing comparisons with other inspectors to highlight Fabri’s dismissive attitude towards the matter (3.087, p. 267).

Significantly, Fabri’s decision to prioritize the Hakka language over the Punti language in Canton was fundamentally flawed, considering that the majority of the local population spoke Punti (Kempgen Reference Kempgen1984, p. 67). This misguided approach resulted in a decline in the number of Punti missionaries and subsequent setbacks for the RMG (Kempgen Reference Kempgen1984, p. 66). It is possible that Fabri’s limited understanding of the complex situation in China contributed to his disregard for Faber’s advice. Instead, he relied heavily on Hubrig, whose knowledge of China was primarily based on teaching at missionary schools, thereby lacking a comprehensive understanding of the country. Hubrig’s limited study of Chinese classics is evident, with only a single lecture delivered on the topics of Fengshui and Chinese Geography (Hubrig Reference Hubrig and Virchow1879). Hubrig’s limited engagement with Chinese classics and reliance on school-based knowledge reflect the colonial constraints of many missionaries at the time. In contrast, Faber, involved in Chinese classical studies since 1865. By the outbreak of the conflict in 1879/81, he had published a remarkable 11 books (3 in Chinese, 8 in German) on China. This enables him to challenge dominant European missionary strategies. His approach marked a shift towards cross-cultural engagement that acknowledged local traditions and beliefs, as a response to colonial context.

Another noteworthy aspect highlighted in Hubrig’s report on the missionary school is the issue of local assimilation and antagonism. Hubrig advocated for the strengthening of faith in God, stating, ‘Notwithstanding the cautious and quiet manner in which we endeavor to propagate Christianity, we sometimes meet with hostility, but even that may encourage us. We know that Christianity is founded on a Rock, and will conquer the world, and we feel that Christianity in China has the same foundation, and the powers of hell will not prevail against it’ (Hubrig Reference Hubrig1876, p. 7). This mindset was an admirable quality for missionaries operating abroad, but it also exposes the limitations of relying solely on trust in God. Hubrig’s strict adherence to Lutheran doctrine and eagerness to convert more Chinese Christians made him impatient in understanding Chinese culture. His reliance on faith and rigid beliefs reflected a broader missionary mindset that often overlooked local traditions in favor of a standardized European religious model. This approach sometimes blinded missionaries to the complexities of Chinese society, where spiritual and social structures required a more flexible and understanding attitude. While faith was central to their mission, it often came at the cost of meaningful cultural engagement.

In contrast, Faber appeared to possess a more impartial perspective. He acknowledged the tendency to prioritize one’s own worth, church and society, stating, ‘If we only look at our worth, our church, our society. What we do and how we do it is, in our view, the only correct method of missionary work, what others do is hardly a consideration. This is at the root of all the difficulties that arise between mission workers in China and other countries; and it can’t get any better until we’re ready to put others above ourselves’ (Faber Reference Faber1893a). Faber demonstrated an understanding of the needs and expectations of the Chinese people, going beyond his own interests and prioritizing their well-being. In this regard, Faber can be regarded as a trailblazer in making Christianity more accessible and acceptable to the Chinese population.

Visions on missionary methods and strategies in context of colonialism

The association between Fabri and colonialism can be traced back to 1857, when he assumed the position of director at RMG (Goßweiler Reference Goßweiler1994, p. 43). Despite never personally visiting a German colony, Fabri demonstrated a discernible preoccupation with colonial-political interests, as evident in his publication Bedarf Deutschland der Colonien? (Does Germany need Colonies?) in early 1879. Economically, Fabri emphasized the need for a robust colonial policy, taking into account Germany’s economic situation (Fabri Reference Fabri1879, pp. 2–3). In the 1870s, Germany, having recently emerged victorious from the Franco-Prussian War, witnessed economic prosperity on one hand. On the other hand, the country faced a series of social challenges, including the intensification of poverty due to rapid population growth, soaring food prices, surplus labour and declining wages. Fabri believed that the only viable solution lay overseas, in the development of colonial enterprises (Menzel Reference Menzel1978, p. 78). In an era marked by Germany’s struggle to maintain its economic strength after the Franco-Prussian War, Fabri’s strategic vision was driven by the need to secure new territories and markets. His support for colonial ventures Asia was rooted in a belief that these territories could provide economic relief by fostering trade and exploiting local resources. In the cultural realm, Fabri emphasized the significance of dispatching German missionaries as bearers of cultural missions to ensure national prosperity and enduring influence (Fabri Reference Fabri1879, pp. 110–111). While Fabri introduced the term ‘colonial mission’, revealing an interweaving of missionary policy and colonialism (Bade Reference Bade1975, p. 33), in reality, as Menzel aptly pointed out, Fabri’s dedication to colonial endeavours sometimes surpassed his attention to missionary work:

It brings attention to a potential tension between Fabri’s roles as a colonial politician and inspector of the RMG. This analysis demonstrates Fabri’s dual roles, indicating potential conflicts of priority within the Rhenish Mission. Speciifically, Fabri’s interests in colonialism were primarily situated in Southwest Africa (1842–1863) and Borneo and Sumatra (1851–1867), while showing limited engagement with China, where only a few coastal cities were accessible for potential missionary work. The missionary conditions in China initially presented challenges, characterized by a lack of properly employed missionaries (3.087, p. 271). Fabri shared the view that missionary activity in China wasn’t as lucrative as it was in Sumatra or Africa, possibly contributing to conflicts between RMG and BMG during their collaborative efforts at the Canton school. China did not occupy a prominent position in Fabri’s missionary agenda. As for the ‘disappearance’ of missionary stations Fumun and Tungkun, as a consequence of RMG’s abandonment, resulting in a complete loss of RMG influence over a 30-year period (3.087, p. 256). Fabri’s missionary strategy prioritized geographic distribution, with an aim to expand RMG’s sphere of influence. Furthermore, Fabri’s assessment of missionary outcomes in China diverged from an investigation into the underlying causes of the failure of missionary stations. He focused instead on evaluating the economic benefits of colonialism in Borneo compared to China, underscoring the decisive importance of extending missionary work to Sumatra-Sias in addressing the existing deficit (Fabri Reference Fabri1869, p. 6). As of 1869, China received relatively less attention in terms of missionary distribution, with the majority of missionaries being assigned to South Africa, Sumatra-Rias and Borneo (Fabri Reference Fabri1869, p. 7). Consequently, the demand for missionaries in China remained low.

By 1879/81, RMG’s missionary progress in China significantly lagged behind other mission areas, particularly Africa, rendering it challenging to garner financial support for missionary endeavors in China from mission associations (Jörgensen Reference Jörgensen, Leutner and Mühlhahn2001a, pp. 229–230). The deputation leveled accusations of ‘contentiousness’ against the mission for its lack of success (Jörgensen Reference Jörgensen, Leutner and Mühlhahn2001a, p. 229). Fabri’s indifferent attitude towards and diminished value attributed to missionary work in China foreshadowed his and the Barmen Committee’s neglect of the mission’s implementation stability in China. Additionally, Faber and other RMG missionaries expressed reservations about Fabri’s leadership competence and the feasibility of missionary methods and strategies (Kempgen Reference Kempgen1984, pp. 53–70). These divergent perspectives stemmed from contrasting views on colonialism and economic considerations, exerting a potential influence on Chinese mission policy.

Parameters such as the number of baptized and converted Christians, the establishment of missionary stations and schools and the growth of Christian communities served as evaluative criteria for assessing missionary effectiveness. Faber criticized substantially the modern approach to measuring missionary success. As early as 1870, in a report sent to the RMG, Faber vehemently opposed the actions of certain missionaries who, in order to gain a good reputation, pursued the quantity of baptisms without regard for the true nature of conversion (Faber, Reference Faber1870, p. 238). During the period of the General Evangelical-Protestant Missionary Association, Faber even took Paul as his example to follow, saying he only had one female converted Christian in Greece (Faber Reference Faber1892a, p. 13). For Paulus, it didn’t matter the result of conversion, but the influence reached. He questioned the validity of predicting and predefining successes, viewing such practices as unreliable and far from divine providence (Faber Reference Faber1892a, p. 17). In line with this perspective, Faber consistently maintained that success should be measured by quality rather than quantity. Moreover, Faber expressed concern about the hasty establishment of Christian churches and communities in China without proper attention to their quality. He emphasized the need for the organic development of Christian life, closely monitored and managed, before the establishment of local churches in accordance with the specific conditions prevailing in China (Faber Reference Faber1892c). Faber also stressed the significance of studying Chinese classics to gain a deeper understanding of the Chinese people’s mindset, promoting mutual understanding between missionaries and the local population (Faber Reference Faber1869, p. 99). However, this did not imply that Faber compromised his identity as a missionary. When facing opposition from Chinese literati, Faber recognized the value of quoting passages that pointed to higher truths, which then facilitated a transition to the revealed religion. He further asserted that success would manifest as a personal affirmation or disapproval of the Gospel (Faber Reference Faber1893b). Faber’s approach emphasized patient and diligent study of Chinese classics and the nurturing of Chinese Christians as seeds for long-term success.

This approach stood in contrast to RMG’s short-term profit-oriented objectives, Fabri’s ideas regarding colonial missions and Hubrig’s emphasis on the establishment of Christian communities and the training of Chinese missionaries as a unified approach. Ultimately, Faber chose to follow a path as an independent missionary, guided by his unique convictions and perspectives.

Arguments on schoolwork

Faber and Hubrig employed divergent approaches in their missionary endeavors. Firstly, Hubrig’s primary focus revolved around the establishment and operation of a comprehensive missionary school in Canton, wherein he diligently prepared students to assume the pivotal role of future preachers (Kempgen Reference Kempgen1984, p. 58). Firmly convinced that the absence of such an educational institution would impede substantial progress in the mission field, Hubrig staunchly advocated for the indispensability of a missionary school (Hubrig Reference Hubrig1873a, p. 339). In addition to his pedagogical responsibilities, Hubrig occasionally undertook evangelistic activities, such as delivering sermons, conducting baptismal rites and administering the Sacrament, across diverse geographical locations (Hubrig Reference Hubrig1873b, p. 3). On the other hand, Faber refrained from explicitly asserting the calamitous nature of missions devoid of educational establishments. Instead, his engagement with the RMG and BMG encompassed multifarious tasks, including providing support in teaching Chinese classics to older students and serving as a seminarian for Punti-speaking students (3.087, p. 266). Moreover, Faber assumed the role of an editor within a committee dedicated to the development of school textbooks, actively fostering close associations with English and American missionaries engaged in this field (Glüher Reference Glüher and Hahn1984). While both missionaries possessed distinct strengths and merits, their disparate approaches ultimately engendered a discernible misalignment between two contrasting methods of missionary work.

Second, Hubrig’s approach to nurturing prospective Chinese missionaries exhibited inherent incompatibilities with the established Chinese educational system. Within a comprehensive report on the Canton school, Hubrig candidly acknowledged, ‘In general, their (the students) progress has been satisfactory. But they are better in memorization and mechanical skills than in reasoning and drawing logical conclusions. Some of them could not break away from the Chinese school system and were therefore almost unable to adapt to our way of education and school rules. Towards the end of the year, the conflicts between them became apparent and this led to their dismissal’ (Hubrig Reference Hubrig1868, p. 34). Hubrig viewed educational institutions as key vehicles for introducing Christianity and Western civilization into Chinese culture (Hubrig Reference Hubrig1876, p. 1), a perspective that carried a condescending tone. His dispute with Faber over educational strategies reflected a broader tension between colonial control and cultural exchange. Hubrig’s insistence on a Western-style curriculum created friction with students who struggled to adapt, whereas Faber prioritized scholarly engagement, aiming to cultivate missionaries who were both culturally attuned and academically rigorous. This divide illustrates the broader challenge of balancing educational imperialism with the realities of missionary work in China, where local contexts demanded greater flexibility and sensitivity. Moreover, Hubrig openly disparaged fellow missionaries who sought to evangelize Chinese scholars (Hubrig Reference Hubrig1873a, p. 339), including Faber, whose literacy efforts were central to his missionary approach. Moreover, Hubrig and Faber diverged in their fundamental perspectives on the objectives of the school. While Hubrig’s pedagogical focus primarily centered on cultivating future Chinese missionaries and pastors (Hubrig Reference Hubrig1872), Faber contended that mere cultivation of pastoral and missionary competence proved inadequate, advocating instead for the imperative inclusion of individuals proficient in conducting rigorous research (Faber Reference Faber1879, p. 116).

While Faber did not outright oppose Hubrig’s approach to running the missionary school, he believed that the responsibilities of missionaries should be divided (Faber Reference Faber1902). Nevertheless, he recognized that the success of the school’s operations hinged upon attentiveness to the local population and the unique circumstances in China. While Faber’s central goal was the dissemination of the Gospel, his actions effectively promoted a certain level of cultural proximity.