# Letter >Foochow Dec. 11th 1905 > >My dear Mr. Baring Gould, > >You will soon be in receipt of our Conference resolutions and needless to say, the question above all others which occupied the attention and interest of Conference was the Staff Missionary question. I say I as one of the majority who passed the resolutions with reference to that question, give you personal reasons which led me to vote as I did. At the outset let me emphasize what you will see for yourself in our minutes--that the almost universal feeling of Conference was regret that the P.C. had felt it its duty to raise such a question, at least as regards Fuh Kien. The comparatively small area of our part of Fuh Kien with a large and representative Conference which meets practically twice a year (Finance and General) assures all the supervision and control of individuals which we have ever felt to be necessary. To introduce new machinery and of the special character which is outlined in the P.C.'s proposals seemed in the general opinion (expressed in the preamble to which I think you will find there were only 3 opposers) of Conference to be a distinct step backward, and a course which would gain only hypothetical good but a certain and definite evil. > >For myself I can only say I should view the introduction of any such system into Fuh Kien with the deepest apprehension and sorrow. There has never been a more brotherly spirit manifest in our Mission than at present and this is largely due, 1) to the visit of Mr. Holden, 2) to the wave of revival we read of as in the West, and 3) to the earnest and manifestly-owned labours of our dear Chinese brother Mr. Diong In Seng who is becoming "Keswick missioner" to both Chinese and English. That spirit has already received a check by even the initial ventilation of the PC's proposals both in public and private. One or two senior missionaries (both men and women) have evinced or are thought to have evinced, some satisfaction at the prospect of soon being in the position to exercise "a certain amount of pressure" over junior missionaries who have shown (rightly or wrongly) more independence of character than was approved. That, of course, has been resented not only by the juniors concerned, or supposed to be concerned, but by their compeers in status who regret to see any of their number covetous and envious over their fellow-missionaries. A feeling like that once engendered takes time to disperse, but disperse it will if left alone. What, however, would be the effect of actually putting machinery into work which would perpetuate that feeling? I cannot think of except with genuine and heart-felt pain, for it could <u>wreck for ever</u> (I am by no means given to rash writing or speaking) all chance of that harmony and brotherly love which as I say, seems now more than ever before a realised blessing in Fuhkien. And further, for I will tell you now while the door is yet open, I should never thereafter be able to encourage any one to enter the ranks of the C.M.S. --I might even discourage them--; and never should any child of mine have its thoughts turned to the C.M.S. fields as an honour to be won. Do you know what that would mean to one who loves the C.M.S. more, who deeply respects it, whose life were it multiplied ten fold should, as things stand now, be given to its work, whose earnest prayer and longing is that his children may follow their parents' steps and join its forces. There are quite enough things already in the mission-field to shatter a young missionary's ideals, to rob him of the purse joy and enthusiasm which he had been led to expect and to substitute a spirit of cold criticism and distrust in its stead. What there is already, I say, has made many a man and woman think, if not openly, "Had I only known all this I would never have come out here!" To add a system, which, however you might safeguard it, would make a young missionary feel that he was definitely watched by a person known to him <u>& invested by the C.M.S.</u> with that definite duty, would be the very way to stereotype and perpetuate an evil which now is but an uncertain quantity and which it si not impossible to eradicate. And to enter such a mission-field, I , knowing the mission-field for the past ten years, I would not utter a syllable of encouragement to any human soul. > >The Staff Missionary I will now leave. I cannot imagine in Fuhkien (where we are all so close together) one single good reason why he should be introduced i.e., as an individual invested with these new powers, the reasons against are many and obvious, and cannot be better stated than in the P.C.'s own words which our minutes quote. > >Let me finish then by stating why I think the "local authority" empowered to report on an individual should be no smaller a body than the whole Conference. >1. A small body, having the Bishop, Archdeacon and the Sec. of the Mission (as it must have) as members would be dominated, consciously or unconsciously, by those three men. > >There is no fear of this whole Conference in the whole Conference, and so justice would be more likely of attainment, or at least the 'defendant' would feel much more satisfied with the verdict. > >2. The deliberations of all bodies out here--large or small--become known. In fact in the mission-field more than most places "there is nothing done n secret that is not proclaimed on the house-tops." It is soon known that "Mr. So and So proposed this and Mr. So and So opposed it." Imagine then a committee of seven deciding a question (of a fellow-missionary) that was to everybody a <u>personal</u> one, and it became known that four men, Mr. A, Mr. B, Mr. C, and Mr. D were the means of recall of this fellow-missionary, the mission for years would be divided into camps "for" and "against" these four men. And that is to say nothing of the feelings of the missionary himself toward them! > >In Full Conference that evil would be so mitigated as to be at the lowest point, for there everything is heard, everything is above-board, no rumours are set floating afterwards, no mischievous half-truths and misleading hearsays are possible. No one can have the feeling "Well if I had been there such a thing could not have happened for I could have told the Committee so and so." > >3. Even at present and in the ordinary matters of mission-work, our largest non-Conference body does not command the confidence and respect of Conference. I refer to the Foochow standing Sub-Committee. Over and over again during the year, and at every Conference without exception, its acts are sharply criticised and frequently set aside. The late Conference was no exception. If therefore that Committee, on which every one has a seat who happens to be in Foochow, fails to command confidence on relatively small matters, what hope would there be of peace in the Mission if the weightiest matters were decided by a smaller and quite select body of men? > >Now in writing Nos. 1 and 2 especially (and the whole letter generally) I have three cases in mind; the only three cases which have happened during my ten years out here which bear on the matter in hand. The first was the case of Mr. White when he came down from Kienning and declared his inability to work longer there. His case came on at our Conference and I remember that one member of Conf. took the part of Mr. White's supposed opponent so strongly that he wrote out a resolution asking the P.C. to transfer Mr. White to another Mission or to recall him. In a small Committee where that man would be a member (for he was a man of much influence both here and at Salisbury Sq.) Mr. White would have stood very little chance. In full Conference, however, it was talked over and at last the feeling was to give him a further trial at Lo Nguong. And it was publicly stated at our Conference <u>this</u> year, and met with a chorus of approval, that no one is today more respected on our Conference than Mr. White. > >The second case is one that occupied us this Conference, and again it is a man who feels he cannot remain Kienning. I refer to Mr. Butler. His case was discussed in full Conference, and as a result everybody is perfectly satisfied that full justice has been done to his case. This feeling would be impossible had his case been dealt with by a small committee. Now everyone knows everything, and in the most open, honest, way imaginable. As I said above no one has any reserve n his mind of "Oh, if only so and so were known" or "Oh, if only I had been there" etc. > >The last case is one on the other side and to which I will only devote a few lines. I mean the case of Miss Crumpe and Miss Bell. It was not mentioned at Conference for fear of raking up old fires, but it was present in the minds of most. That business caused a 'split' in our Mission which will never be entirely healed in this generation of Fuhkien missionaries. That may sound deplorable and it is deplorable, but it is true. I am not going to claim this or that section as right, for both sections claimed to do what they did conscientiously and with the glory of God alone in view. It was not what that section <u>did</u> (which turned these ladies out of the Mission) which caused the split <u>but how they did it. </u> And how was that? It was done by a small group of men & women, who resisted every attempt to have the matter brought <u>de novo</u> & unprejudiced even to the Ladies Conf., & the Men's Conference was not allowed to examine into the case at all. It was <u>because of that and that only</u> the great 'split' took place, and today there still labours--in an obscure Chinese house with not a single European fellow-labourer, a lady whose life-tragedy lies in these words "Condemned unheard." Can you wonder that with these thougths in mind I say that for the sake of your missionaries, for the sake of a united front before the heathen and as an example to the native Christians, and for the sake of the work and the glory of God, I ask you to use your influence with the P.C. to leave us in peace with our present Conference which all respect, and not to throw--unconsciously I am sure it could only be--this Apple of Discord among us. > >I Am Ever yours sincerely F. E. Bland > >The inordinate length of this letter is not my wist. I write so simply because you more than once expressed to me at Salisbury Sq. your wish that people would write to you and the Committee <u>fully</u> in these matters. So I have done it!