Controversy over public funding to the Baptist institutions in colonial Hong Kong and the United States from the 1950s to the 1970s.

Baptists in Hong Kong in the first hundred years of their history carried out an educational ministry by their own efforts, because the schools were then operated by individual Baptist churches. (1)

In order to respond to the social needs in the 1950s, the United Hong Kong Christian Baptist Churches Association (hereafter cited as the Baptist association) was involved in the construction of the Brotherly Love Village, a resettlement area for the homeless victims of the disastrous fire at the Old Walled City in January 1950. (2) Baptist First Primary School, the first Baptist primary school run by the Baptist association, was founded in the village in 1951. Due to the demolition of the village in 1970, the residents were resettled in Tzs Wan Shan Resettlement Estate. After years of negotiations between the government and the Baptist association, the First Primary School was invited to become a government-subsidized primary school. The issue triggered a severe debate on the axiom of church-state separation between the Baptist laity and pastors. (3)

Additional arguments and information were presented in a statement of proposition, submitted to the executive board of the Baptist association on June 8, 1971, and the important points were: (4) First, the decision whether to accept the governmental offer was a life-and-death issue to the Baptist educational ministry. Second, because the government was about to implement compulsory primary education, (5) those private schools without a governmental subsidy could not survive. Third, the school authorities were to be allowed to retain absolute autonomy in personnel management and at liberty to carry out religious activities after accepting a governmental subsidy. The schools run by the Anglican Church, the Church of Christ of China, and other denominations were examples. Fourth, the population in Tsz Wan Shan district was more than 168,000 and was still growing, and according to the principle of practicing evangelism in education, school premises could be used after school hours to do evangelism in the district. (6)

This article examines four issues: the stance of Hong Kong-Macao Baptist Mission on the controversy; the government aid to the Baptist institutions in America; the implications of the controversies over governmental aid; and the question of whether Hong Kong Baptists should practice church-state separation.

Stance of the Hong Kong-Macao Baptist Mission on the Controversy

The Hong Kong-Macao Baptist Mission (the Mission) (7) and organized a committee on April 6, 1961 to "investigate the relationship of Hong Kong Baptist churches and church schools to the government concerning receiving of government subsidy." (8) The issues of acquiring land, interest-free loans, and the subsidies for construction expenses from the government for Pui Ching Middle School and Pooi To Girls' Middle School, two schools established by Baptists in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, became a part of the middle school board's agenda on September 9, 1963. (9) A series of meetings were held until Pui Ching Middle School accepted the government's offer to become a subsidized school in 1975.

The Mission reacted to the issue of government subsidies for the Baptist institutions in four ways: First, it adopted a resolution on June 16, 1961, that the Southern Baptist Convention's (SBC) Foreign Mission Board (FMB) funds would not be available for those Baptist schools accepting government subsidies, and a letter was written to the Baptist association informing it of the action:

   To recommend that all Baptist Association and church-operated
   schools only seek and accept funds made available by private
   non-government agencies or individuals for their capital or
   operating expenses and that the Mission go on record as not
   being willing to request Foreign Mission Board funds for
   schools which receive government subsidies and that the
   Association be informed by letter regarding this action of
   the Mission. (10)

Second, the Mission took a follow-up action on June 15, 1962, including a request for confirmation from the Baptist institutions and churches that they were government-ubsidy-free, and the Mission reiterated its policies on the issue:

   That we request confirmation from each Institution, church or
   chapel to which we give capital or operating funds that they
   do not intend to receive Government subsidy....

      To re-iterate the previous actions of the Mission and
   statements made by Dr. Crawley concerning our policies with
   regard to our Baptist schools receiving government subsidy and
   that these be presented in writing by our delegates to the
   study committee (on Government subsidies). (11)

Third, Winston Crawley, secretary of the Orient for the FMB, commented on the issue during a Mission meeting, stressing the importance of complying with the principle of church-state separation and emphasizing that no funds would be given to any institution violating the principle. He wrote, "The Convention abides by the traditional Baptist principle of the separation of church and state. The Board (FMB) would not expect to allocate funds to an institution receiving government subsidy." (12)

Finally, Crawley's reply to the Mission on this particular issue in Hong Kong, dated June 28, 1962, can be regarded as the FMB's official stance regarding the controversy. In the letter, he reiterated the SBC's commitment to the principle of church-state separation and then added his personal opinions as to whether or not the issue of land acquisition and government subsidies to Baptist schools represented a compromise of the principle. Because Crawley admitted there might be room for interpretation in different contexts, he noted that it would be important for the FMB to understand the context and meanings of the issues in question. Personally, he would not consider land grants a problem. However, he could not judge whether the government subsidies should be considered a compromise. (13)

A meeting of the special committee to study government subsidy for Baptist schools in Hong Kong was held on July 19, 1962, at Pui Ching Middle School. The committee was composed of some who had been elected by the Mission and others who had been elected by the Baptist association, including the principals of the schools run by the association, the chairpersons of the various educational boards, and others engaged in education in the institutions. The focus of the meeting was to address the request made by the Primary Education Board to receive a school with sixteen classrooms on the ground floor of a resettlement block that was intended for use by the Baptist First Primary School and that this school be allowed to operate a regular government-subsidized primary school. The Primary Education Board had approved the plan but realized that the request raised questions about a principle relating to the funding of all Baptist educational institutions. When the issue was brought to the association, this special committee was set up to study the matter. Ronald Fuller, one of the representatives of the Mission, submitted a report to this committee meeting to the Mission. (14)

According to Fuller's observation, the local Baptists favored accepting government assistance and subsidies. They considered it to be the only way for the Baptist schools to survive and argued that it was a common practice of other Christian denominations in the territory:

   [T]he Association members were quite in favor of accepting whatever
   funds and other help the government was prepared to give Baptists in
   the operation of schools.... Many expressed the opinion that Baptist
   schools, if not subsidized, would be so expensive that ordinary
   Baptist church members would be forced by economic pressure to send
   their children to subsidized schools operated by other
   denominations. The argument was
   also raised that since the Anglican, Presbyterian, Catholic,
   Christian Missionary Alliance, Lutheran, and practically all
   other major churches were receiving government subsidy, there
   was really no good argument why Baptists should not follow
   the leadership of the sister churches. (15)

In addition to the practical concerns, the local Baptists also were convinced that the practice would not jeopardize the principle of church-state separation: "Most of them were of the opinion that our churches should certainly be separated from government, but education and its financial problems can logically be separated from the church--thus to receive subsidy for schools is not a violation of the church and state principle since the school is not a church." (16)

Contrarily, the missionaries expressed reservations about their local colleagues' perception of the issue. Fuller summarized the viewpoints of the missionaries:

   Each of our mission representatives also had opportunity to speak
   his opinion. My feeling was that the missionaries opposed
   receiving government subsidy on the grounds that it was using
   Caesar's money to promote [G]od's spiritual kingdom and thus was
   a violation of New Testament teachings. It was also mentioned that
   to justify receipt of money because Baptists had already received
   free land for educational institutions was a mistake because there
   have been cases such as in Tampa, Florida and Waco, Texas where
   Baptist institutions refused to accept land from government below
   the fair market price and insisted on paying respective city
   governments for the land made available for these Baptist colleges,
   so that there really was a question whether or not we ought to
   receive land while the receipt of money forced from people was in
   the form of taxes by the threat of punishment and jail term, was
   certainly a violation of the principle of separation of church and
   state. (17)

Clearly, the missionaries agreed on the issue of public funding with many Baptists in America, including George W. Truett, E. Y. Mullins, and Herschel H. Hobbs. Truer pointed out that the church should not acquire any form of government aid for the sake of evangelism or ministry development. (18) Mullins and later Hobbs raised a parallel argument that the church should not use public money to achieve spiritual work, as God has prepared his own resources, "tithes and offerings," but not tax funds from government. (19) The missionaries seemed to consider that land grants by the Hong Kong government should be deemed to be a form of government subsidies.

The Mission sent a letter to Crawley in 1964, informing him of recent developments regarding the issue. (20) In 1969, the executive committee of the Mission adopted a resolution, which restated the policy of the FMB, SBC, on church-state separation:

1. Historically we approve of the principle of separation of Church and State.

2. We recognize the right of National Church Bodies to make their own decision in these matters without regard to the Historical American position.

3. The present policy of the Foreign Mission Board is that direct financial aid will not be provided for any institution; such as hospital, school, etc., when such institution is receiving Government subsidy.

a. This will not affect Foreign Mission Board aid to other institutions not receiving Government subsidy.

b. This principle does not apply to missionary personnel assisting in the institution. (21)

A letter with the full details of the resolution was sent to Lam Chifung, chairperson of the Baptist association. The letter was presented as the Mission's official position paper on the issue of governmental subsidy to Baptist schools. (22)

Governmental Aid to the Southern Baptist Institutions in America

A development in the American South paralleled the unusual pattern in church-state relationships among the Southern Baptist missionaries in Hong Kong. (23) Thus, a review of the church-state relations regarding public funding to Baptist educational institutions in America provides some insight into the stance of the Baptist Mission in Hong Kong.

In the twentieth century, the role of the federal government in the United States began expanding, and programs offering federal financial support also increased. Thus, clear-cut boundaries between the church and state became fuzzier. From 1930 to 1980, the most important church-state issues in the United States were "the transfer of governmental monies to denominationally affiliated institutions" and "the propriety of funneling relief money through church-affiliated institutions." (24) Among Southern Baptists during those years, the consensus was that the use of public funds by religious institutions was one of the most persistent issues with regard to church-state separation. (25)

E. Glenn Hinson noted that "much of the debate regarding church-state separation has focused on religion and public education" (26) and "the most disputed question relating to the educational sphere has to do with state aid to parochial schools." (27) Hinson's assertion was supported by the verdicts of the well-known court cases that direct aid to parochial schools was adjudged to be a violation of the First Amendment. The McCollum versus Board of Education (1948) and the Zorach versus Clauson (1951) cases were among the most famous. According to Hinson, the ruling on the former case stated that "the use of public school property for religious education violated the First Amendment"; (28) and the ruling on the latter held that the "government may not finance religious groups." (29) In a document prepared for the Third Baptist Jubilee Celebration in 1964 by the Baptist Jubilee Committee, one of the four questions raised as a "starting point" for discussion in local Baptist churches on the topic of separation of church and state was "How much and what kind of state financial aid can be offered to and received by church related schools?" (30) This document is a good example of the intensity of the controversy among Baptists in America.

Baptists opposed the attempts to provide governmental subsidies to parochial schools during the Roosevelt administration. They rejected the direct transfer of monies and indirect transfers, including the provision of transportation and textbooks by the various states, the use of relief workers to improve the buildings and grounds of churches, and the provision for religious worship in towns built and administered by the governmental departments. From their beginning in America, Baptists opposed federal aid to denominational schools, both direct aid and hidden aid that would be given through various voucher plans. They considered governmental subsidies to religiously affiliated institutions as equivalent to forming an established church. This kind of financial support by public funds could be deemed as an endorsement of valid forms of religious life by the state. (31) Baptists strongly opposed the Hill-Burton Act in 1949, which provided grants of federal monies to private hospitals for use in expansion, research, and construction. They felt that such funding offered to denominational institutions was "a direct violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment" and an obvious breach of the Baptist tradition. (32)

Reaction against the acceptance of public funding among Baptists had grown robustly and intensively since the 1950s, and by 1963, at least ten state conventions had made thorough investigations of institutional practices. (33) Baptist opposition to aid denominational institutions was by no means easy and insignificant from a financial perspective. If Baptists persisted in refusing governmental aid, their institutions, such as colleges and hospitals, simply could not survive while competitors accepted government's grants or low-interest loans. (34) However, Baptists were prepared to put their beliefs on the line even at the cost of losing large amounts of money, which was crucial for their survival.

The National Defense Education Act of 1958 provided for the allocation of federal monies to colleges and universities. The funding included grants to schools and individual students. Baptist educators expressed their opinion in 1959 that "loans to individual students were the only portion of the bill acceptable to them and to their institutions." The educators boldly rejected the subsidy that would have made their jobs easier. (35) The only compromises on the issue that Baptists were willing to make included: (1) grants and loans to their institutions were offered at commercial interest rates; (2) government property could be purchased only at a fair market value; and (3) research grants were contracted in return for services render. (36)

During the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, Baptists maintained a firm stance on refusing public funding for higher education. In 1963, Kennedy submitted an education bill to the Congress calling for aid to public primary and secondary schools, as well as private and public institutions of higher education. The SBC executive committee passed a resolution strongly opposing the clauses of the bill regarding direct aid to "church colleges and universities for the construction of academic facilities" before its submission to the House of Representatives. (37)

Because acceptance of government monies was a life-and-death matter for the Baptist higher education business, rigorous debates on the issue broke out in every single state convention where denominational colleges and universities were located during the 1960s. John Lee Eighmy suggested that the "denial of federal aid to convention-controlled schools was not decided without a fight, for never in their history have Southern Baptists disagreed so strongly on the meaning of church-state separation." (38) The fight was actually between Baptist educators and the vast majority of the pastors, editors, and state convention executives. The main concern of the educators was the practical matter of competition, for they had to find the resources to maintain existing programs. Their worries about government's control and the loss of religious freedom were quite remote. On the other hand, pastors, editors, and executives were loyal to the Baptist principle of church-state separation, no matter what the financial sacrifice would be and how other Christian denominations would gladly accept the funds. Nevertheless, Eighmy suggested that, based on a careful reading of the debate, this latter group was more concerned about the loss of denominational control of the institutions than government's control. (39)

A typical case illustrating the controversial nature of the issue was the debate in the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina regarding the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963. The heart of the debate involved the rationale for having denominational colleges. What was the purpose of these colleges? Were they expected to impart Baptist tradition alongside their offerings of higher education, or were they simply to provide the public service of education? In other words, was the Baptist higher education business a practice of the denominational mission or a public service?

The general board of the North Carolina convention recommended the proposals of "opening the boards of trustees of the state's Baptist colleges to non-Baptists" and "allowing the schools to accept [government] money for the construction of academic buildings." A justification for a religious institution to accept government's subsidy was that of "fee for services rendered." Thus, the denominational colleges receiving reimbursement for public services rendered seemed to be perfectly acceptable under the Higher Education Facilities Act. However, the rationalization of the general board was rejected widely. The most resistance derived from Baptists who upheld the principle of church-state separation and who noted that the offer of government's funds to support denominational work and of "services rendered" should be turned down. (40)

Actually, the rejection of the new law by the North Carolina convention was not a single case. Other state conventions also took the similar action opposing the acceptance of federal aid, including Mississippi, Texas, and Alabama. Because it was difficult for the school's administrators and trustees to reject such large sum of money when they were facing day-to-day financial challenges, the board of trustees of some Baptist colleges decided to become independent from the state conventions so that they could accept the subsidy. Mercer University in Macon, Georgia requested federal matching funds in the early 1960s, and after a long debate by the Georgia Baptist State Convention, an amicable resolution was offered, and "Mercer was removed from denominational control and allowed to seek its own solution to the problems of the period." (41) While other issues contributed to the final break between the convention and the university, in November 2005, the Georgia Baptist Convention voted to end the 172-year affiliation between Mercer and the convention. Thus, Baptists, including leaders at Mercer University, have been seriously engaged in the discussion of use of federal funds for nearly fifty years.

Implications of the Controversies over Governmental Aid

In scrutinizing the controversies about public funding for Baptist educational institutions in the United States and Hong Kong, the debates occurred in similar manner almost simultaneously thousands of miles apart. Certain similarities and implications can be discerned from the comparison.

First, the controversies taking place in both Baptist communities were a choice between survival of the denominational institutions and persistence of certain principles. The Baptist educational institutions in the United States and Hong Kong were facing tremendous financial pressure. Unquestionably, governmental aid was an irresistible temptation. However, the compositions of the pros and cons of the two communities differed. In Hong Kong, the debates were between the laity (the pros) and pastors (the cons) among Baptists. In the United States, the pros side was formed mainly by the Baptist educators, and the cons side consisted of pastors, editors of conventional journals and magazines, and state convention executives. (42) The Baptist congregations in Hong Kong were basically ignorant of the issue, but the Southern Baptist congregations in the United States were surprisingly united in support of the cons against the acceptance of federal aid. (43)

Second, the issue of governmental subsidy also triggered the debates about ethical considerations of Christian education among Baptists in the United States and Hong Kong. Baptists in the United States reconsidered the purpose and reasoning behind their colleges. Some argued that Baptists should get out of the business of higher education, and some suggested that Baptists should remove the schools from denominational control so that they could be allowed to accept federal subsidy. (44) Baptists in Hong Kong also reevaluated the rationale for running Baptist schools. The main argument of the pros, presented by lay leaders, was that it was church's responsibility to share the burden of public education; therefore, governmental subsidies were acceptable. Moreover, governmental aid was financially crucial to the survival of church's schools, which were strongholds of evangelism. The major refutation of the cons, presented by pastors, was that helping government to run public education should not be the top priority of the church and that the financial burden of running competitive educational institutions was totally beyond the capability of the denomination. Baptists in the United States and in Hong Kong seemingly could not agree on the rationale and role of Christian education. Then, what is the Baptist philosophy of Christian education, or should the denomination run Christian schools?

Truett claimed that the Baptist denomination is "a teaching denomination." Baptists, he asserted, should try their best to vitalize and to strengthen the ministry of Christian education, because the values taught in the schools conducted by the state were incomplete and the wisdom and inspiration offered by Christian schools offered what was missing in public schools. Thus, churches were responsible to support education by establishing Christian schools, and the objective of Christian education was to train both church leaders and in civil and business sectors. Truett concluded, "civilization without Christianity is doomed." Christian education functioned as the hope for the individual, society, and civilization; therefore, Baptists had a divine calling to strengthen and magnify their Christian schools. (45)

Truett, as well as the Baptist community in America, seemingly strongly upheld the necessity of Christian education. Lain Chi-fung, the Chinese Baptist leader in Hong Kong, had a philosophy of Christian education much like that of Truett's. Truett, however, did not address the issue of accepting public funding. A possible explanation is that governmental subsidy to church institutions had not emerged as a serious problem during his tenure. Nevertheless, he argued that the task of evangelism was the top priority over all Christian programs in his 1920 sermon on the steps of the United States capitol. In the section after the discourse on Christian education, he stated, "Our churches, our schools, our religious papers, our hospitals, every organization and agency of the churches should be kept aflame with the passion of New Testament evangelism." (46) In other words, all other ministries, such as education and medical service, were channels of evangelism. Judging from the consistency of his discourse on church-state separation in the same sermon, if Truett strongly opposed the idea of using public fund for expanding Christ's kingdom, it is justifiable to infer that he would reject the acceptance of governmental aid for Baptist institutions.

The role and importance of Christian education were reaffirmed by a statement prepared for the 1964 celebration of the 150th anniversary of the organization of the first Baptist national organization in America: "Our Christian schools have a responsibility to train and inspire men and women for effective lay and vocational leadership in our churches and in the world. The churches, in turn, have a responsibility to support adequately all their educational institutions." (47) Thus, Edward L. Queen II rightly asserted that "Baptists have never opposed the existence of religious schools, only the use of public monies for their maintenance and support." (48)

Third, religious liberty and church-state separation are indisputably the core axioms of Baptists. Unsurprisingly, Southern Baptists had maintained an unceasing interest in the issues throughout the world, both in the denomination and through their participation in the Baptist World Alliance. (49) A joint statement on religious liberty, "American Baptist Bill of Rights," was approved by the SBC, the Northern Baptist Convention, and the National Baptist Convention, which were the three founding conventions of the Joint Conference Committee on Public Affairs, in 1939. The closing statement of the document stated:

   Believing religious liberty to be not only an inalienable human
   right, but indispensable to human welfare, a Baptist must
   exercise himself in the maintenance of absolute religious
   liberty for his Jewish neighbor, his Catholic neighbor, his
   Protestant neighbor, and for everybody else. Profoundly convinced
   that any deprivation of this right is wrong to be challenged,
   Baptists condemn every form of compulsion in religion or restraint
   of the free consideration of the claims of religion. We stand for
   civil state, "with full liberty in religious concernments"
   (emphasis by author). (50)

Should Hong Kong Baptists Practice Church-State Separation?

Because church-state separation is the corollary of religious liberty, both are regarded as the inalienable human rights that are indispensable to human welfare; namely, they are the universal values for humankind and the axioms for every Baptist all over the world. Simply speaking, human rights should have no contextual considerations. As Walter B. Shurden argued, religious liberty is "not simply self-serving expediency"; it is a "principle" and "a principle applied to all people." (51) Thus, Southern Baptist missionaries were supposed to apply for and to impart the same principles to Baptists in Hong Kong, with no geographical and racial concerns. If acceptance of public monies for education was not allowed by Baptists in the United States, it should have not been allowed in Hong Kong either. In other words, the Southern Baptists missionaries in Hong Kong should have opposed the idea of accepting governmental aid for Baptist education institutions in Hong Kong if they faithfully practiced the principles of religious liberty and church-state separation and fulfilled their role of teachers of the local Baptists.

In order to evaluate the responsibility of the Southern Baptist missionaries for shaping the practice of church-state separation among Hong Kong Baptists, reconstructing a chronology of the interaction between the frontline Southern Baptist missionaries in Hong Kong and administrative personnel of the FMB of the SBC on this issue is helpful.

Crawley's position in his letter dated June 28, 1962, probably was treated as a normative interpretation of the issues of governmental subsidy for the Baptist Mission. Nonetheless, his statement was somewhat unclear, as it only responded to the issue by laying out certain principles. Crawley plainly admitted that he was "not sure just what is meant by 'classroom subsidies'" and "not sure what type of grants may be involved in funds originating from the United States Government." Thus, the issue of land grant was not addressed in the statement, and there was no clear definition of a government subsidy, although Crawley acknowledged that such "sort of subsidy would involve a compromise of the principle of separation of church and state." Understandably, Crawley's opinions on the issue would have had an intense influence on Baptist missionaries in Hong Kong. His views strongly affected the Mission's position. His statement that land grant was an acceptable action taken by the Baptist institutions in Hong Kong might have had the long-term effect of guaranteeing that all the Baptist institutions, such as Baptist colleges, hospitals, and schools, would continue to be eligible to receive financial aid from the FMB. Regrettably, Crawley never elaborated his argument.

Some forty years later, Crawley tried to explain some general statements of principles related to the issue in his correspondence. First, grant of land in Hong Kong "would likely cause no problem," as land was basically controlled by the government. Second, the government's loans "would be no problem, but an interest-free loan would be a borderline issue." Third, not all other Baptist conventions around the world shared "the strict Southern Baptist convictions about separation of church and state." For instance, British Baptists had a long tradition of receiving government monies for their schools in British and colonial areas. Thus, Baptist institutions owned and operated by other Baptist conventions "would not be bound by Southern Baptist views or FMB policies." Finally, the issue of accepting government funding for ongoing operating expenses for Baptist schools would be for Hong Kong Baptists to decide. (52) On the whole, Crawley's argument was a restatement of his letter of 1962.

One month later, Fuller's report on a meeting of the special committee to study government subsidy for Baptist schools in Hong Kong in July 1962 clearly depicted the viewpoints of the Southern Baptist missionaries on the issue. They opposed receiving government subsidy. Fuller pointed out that the local Baptists were eager for the government aid. (53) Intriguingly, the tones of Crawley's letter and Fuller's report sounded different. Nevertheless, the Mission's stance on land grants and government subsidies was formalized in 1969. A statement issued by the Mission emphasized the principle of church-state separation, but it also specified that it was the right of local church bodies "to make their decision in these matters without regard to the [h]istorical American position." (54) Apparently, this statement was incongruent with Crawley's standpoint that "would have represented essentially the Board's policy." (55)

The following observations can be drawn. First, the Mission's official stance evidently appeared to be contradictory to the Southern Baptist missionaries in Hong Kong, for it clashed with the notion of religious liberty as "an inalienable human right" and as "indispensable to human welfare." If religious liberty was a human right and was for everybody, why did the Mission not insist on the practice of church-state separation in Hong Kong? Crawley does not provide any explanation.

Second, Crawley's rationale could be seen as valid if land in Hong Kong were only available to the public as a grant and could not be purchased. Under such circumstance, land grants might be the only available means of acquiring land for church ministry. However, the three largest Baptist churches in Hong Kong, namely, Hong Kong Baptist Church, Tsim Sha Tsui Baptist Church, and Kowloon City Baptist Church, had purchased land for their church development. Thus, since churches could purchase the needed land for their ministries from the government or private owners, land in Hong Kong was basically accessible to the public. Securing land was then only a matter of cost, not availability. Thus, why did Crawley and the Mission accept the idea of land grant?

Third, the official stance of the Mission on land grants might be a reflection of a discrepancy of understanding of the issue between the frontline personnel and administrative personnel of the FMB of the SBC. Was it caused by their miscommunication or misunderstanding?

Fourth, an unceasing effort on the part of the two educational boards composed mainly of lay persons affected Baptist subsidized schools, (56) and this suggests that Baptist lay leaders had been caught up with the notion of governmental subsidy in the 1950s. Fifth, the ambiguous statement by which the Primary School Board rejected the government's proposal of a subsidized primary school in 1955 was a significant case, in which intriguing and meaningful interaction seemed to go on behind the scenes in meetings between local Baptists and Southern Baptist missionaries in Hong Kong. (57) Finally, the statement of the Hong Kong-Macao Baptist Mission on state-church separation seemed to be a positive signal to the laity that the Mission would keep its hands off the debate and controversy.

Conclusion

The Baptist communities in Hong Kong and America both experienced a similar controversy over governmental subsidy to the Baptist institutions in the post-World-War-II era. The basic core of the controversy in both communities was practicality against theological axiom. Without such public funding, the Baptist educational institutions in America and Hong Kong were unable to survive in the midst of a competitive environment. Most of the Southern Baptist missionaries in Hong Kong were aware of the potential problem of Baptists' acceptance of governmental subsidy to the Baptist primary school and the similar controversy in America, which was considered a breach of church-state separation. The missionaries disagreed with the local Baptist laity, who strongly favored accepting governmental subsidy. Because religious liberty was considered "an inalienable human right" and "indispensable to human welfare" for everyone in every society, and because church-state separation was the corollary of religious liberty, why did not the FMB insist on the practice of church-state separation in colonial Hong Kong?

(1.) This article is based on Chapter Two, "From Periphery to Cooperation," of the author's Ph.D. dissertation, titled "From Periphery to Partnership: A Critical Analysis of the Relationship of Baptists in Hong Kong with the Colonial Government in the Post-World War II Era."

(2.) The Hong Kong Baptist Association was organized on March 27, 1938, with a total membership of 1,778 from the three churches and two chapels in the territory. The association was renamed the Hong Kong Christian Baptist Association in 1939 in order to be registered with the government as a corporation. Because of the chaos of World War II, the registration was not be completed until 1951, and the name assigned was the United Hong Kong Christian Baptist Churches Association. In 1973, the association was again renamed The Baptist Convention of Hong Kong. For a narrative of the denominational history of Hong Kong Baptists, see "From Periphery to Partnership: A Critical Analysis of the Relationship of Baptists in Hong Kong with the Colonial Government in the Post-World War II Era," 144-56.

(3.) The debate focused on whether the Baptist convention should accept governmental subsidy to the Baptist school, and the following points were part of the conclusion in the board of trustees meeting of the Primary School Board of the Baptist association on May 18, 1971, which reflected the major concerns among Baptists:

First, the issue, "Is acceptance of governmental subsidy a breach of the principle of church-state separation?" was still a controversial subject among Baptists all over the world. The board was trying to tackle the problems that Baptists in Hong Kong were facing, not trying to have a theological debate and to draw any conclusion. Second, according to the government, this would be the last case in which a private school would be invited to convert to a subsidized school. If the proposal was not accepted, the First Primary School would close down. Then the ministry of the primary school board would come to a halt. Third, no constraints on religious activities and administrative autonomy existed, generally speaking, for subsidized schools, except the constraints on finances. The premises of the First Primary School could be used as a venue for evangelism after classes. Fourth, after accepting the governmental subsidy, the financial problem of the operative expenses of the First Primary School would be solved. See "Cu Deng Jiaoyu Bu Changwu Dongshi Huiyi Jilu" ["Minutes of the Board of Trustees, the Primary School Board"], May 18, 1971, The United Hong Kong Christian Baptist Churches Association, (in Chinese), 89-90.

(4.) Eleven points of argument were summed up in the statement. See "Tian: Wei Jinlianhui diyi Xiaoxue Zhi Xingfei Wenti, Jinju Yijianshu, Tiqing Gongjue Tianren: Chu Deng Jiaoyu Bu Zhuxi: Du Zhao Xing Ji Quanti Buyuan" ["Motion: A Statement of Proposition on the Future of the Baptist First Primary School and a Request of Vote--Proposer: To Chiu-sing, Chairperson of the Primary School Board, and the Whole Body of the Board]," in "Cu Deng Jiaoyu Bu Changwu Dongshi Huiyi Jilu" ["Minute of the Board of Trustees, the Primary School Board"], May 18, 1971, The United Hong Kong Christian Baptist Churches Association (in Chinese) (Hong Kong), 91-92.

(5.) David Trench, Hong Kong 1970, Address by His Excellency the Governor, 1970. In 1970, Sir David Trench, governor of Hong Kong, announced that the compulsory primary education would be implemented in 1971 and that the parents would be penalized for failing to send their children to primary schools. Cheng Kai-ming, "Jiao Yu De Hui Gu--Xia Pen" ["Retrospection of Education (II)"] in Hong Kong History: New Perspectives, Vol. 2 (in Chinese), ed. Wang Gun-wu (Hong Kong: Joint Publishing, Hong Kong, Company Ltd.), 1997, 469.

(6.) "Cu Deng Jiaoyu Bu Changwu Dongshi Huiyi Jilu" ["Minute of the Board of Trustees, the Primary School Board"], May 18, 1971, (in Chinese) 90.

(7.) Carter Morgan, interview by author, tape recording, South Carolina, May 6, 2002, and November 11, 2002. Morgan, a retired Southern Baptist missionary, confirmed that the church-state question apparently was a "hot" issue among the missionaries in Hong Kong in the late 1950s and 1960s.

(8.) "Minutes of the Executive Committee Meeting, April 6, 1961," Minutes of Hong Kong-Macao Baptist Mission of the American Southern Baptist Convention 1961 (Hong Kong, Hong Kong-Macao Mission, SBC, 1962), 44.

(9.) Zhong Deng Jiao Yu Bu Quanti Dongshi Di Sanshiqi Ci Huiyi (Jilu)," ["Minutes of 37th Meeting of the Board of Trustees, the Middle School Board"], September 19, 1963, The United Hong Kong Christian Baptist Churches Association (in Chinese) (Hong Kong).

Both Pooi To Girls' Middle School and Pui Ching Middle School were established by Baptists in Mainland China in the nineteenth century. In 1888, the Woman's Missionary Union of Missouri donated funds for a girls' school in China. On March 3, 1888, Pooi To Girls' Middle School was organized in Guangzhou with only six pupils, and Miss Young, a Southern Baptist missionary, was assigned to be the principal. The school became a complete high school in 1918 and developed rapidly and was soon recognized as one of the best girls' schools in China. After World War II, the board of the school realized the need for a branch school in Hong Kong, and a small school was begun that included a kindergarten and a primary school. In 1945, the school invited Lain Chi-fung as the supervisor of the school. See Kwong Siu-lin, "A Historical Sketch of Pooi To Middle School 1888-1978," in Peidao ZhongxUe Jiushi Zhounian Jinian Te Kan 1888-1978 [The Ninetieth Anniversary of Pool To Middle School 1888-1978] (Hong Kong: Hong Kong Pool To Middle School), 1978, 1-2.

In the autumn of 1889, five Chinese Baptists envisioned the need for a school for boys. They donated $60 as a launching fund for the enterprise. The Pui Ching Baptist Academy was established the next spring in a house in Guangzhou. The response from Baptists all over South China was overwhelming, and a substantial offering was received. In 1906, The Leung Kwong Baptist Association decided to sell the existing campus of Pui Ching and to purchase a piece of land at Tong Shan for the new campus. The new school was completed in June 1908, and its control was transferred to the association. A serious financial crisis developed in 1915, but local Baptists and overseas Chinese contributed funds, and the school developed rapidly and became a complete high school in 1916. The school was one of the best boys' schools in South China, and the enrollment was more than 5,000 students when the communists took over Mainland China.

In the early 1930s, Hong Kong Baptist Church secured a lot at Ho Man Tin, a destitute area near Yau Ma Tel, from the government for the development of a new chapel for the congregation at Yau Ma Tei. The church, however, found this area was not an ideal location, and the project was suspended. To comply with regulations, a building needed to be erected before the deadline, and thus, the Baptists decided to build a branch school, the Hong Kong Branch School of Pui Ching Middle School, on this land in 1933. It was a junior high school in 1938 and became a complete high school in 1940. See "Peizheng Zhongxue Jianshi" ["A Brief History of Pui Ching Middle School"] in Peizheng Zhongxue Chuang Xiao Qi Shi Wu Zhounian Jinian Te Kan 1889-1964 [Special Memorial Issue for the Seventy-Fifth Anniversary of Pui Ching Middle School 1889-1964] (in Chinese) (Hong Kong: Hong Kong Pui Ching Middle School), 1964, 3-6.

(10.) "Subject: Regarding Government Subsidies For Baptist Institutions," in "1960-61 Miscellaneous Reports, Meetings, etc.," collected in Hong Kong Baptist Mission, The International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention.

(11.) Ibid.

(12.) Ibid.

(13.) Ibid. The following quotation of Crawley's letter, though lengthy, is noteworthy, as it clarifies the issue in the Hong Kong context:

"Of course you and the other missionaries are aware of our basic approach in matters of this sort. We do not attempt to tell Baptist churches and associations or conventions what decisions they should make. We do feel it is only right they should understand in advance our own position and the convictions of Southern Baptists since there are strong convictions on separation of church and state which we would not want to compromise. A policy of acceptance of direct government subsidies on the part of schools operated by the Baptists of Hong Kong would make it difficult for the Foreign Mission Board to continue financial aid to the Baptist schools there.

As for the specific questions raised by the mission, there are possible variations of interpretations or opinions as to the extent to which the principle of church-state separation would be compromised.

With basic laws and policies in Hong Kong regarding land ownership being what they are, we have felt that land grants would not be considered prohibitive. The problem of church-state separation is not necessarily raised by supplements to teachers or scholarships for pupils. These are grants for the profit of individuals and do not involve direct interrelating of the functions of church and state.

I am not sure just what is meant by "classroom subsidies," but it would seem to be a direct subsidy from government to schools which meet certain standards. That sort of subsidy would involve a compromise of the principle of separation of church and state.

I am not sure what type of grants may be involved in funds originating from the United States Government. In principle we would look to the question whether there is in fact a direct payment of subsidy from a government agency to a church related school."

(14.) Ronald W. Fuller, "Report of Special Committee to Study Government Subsidy for Baptist Schools in Hong Kong," in "1962 Miscellaneous Reports, Meetings, etc.," collected in Hong Kong Baptist Mission, The International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention.

(15.) Ibid.

(16.) Ibid, xvi.

(17.) Ibid.

(18.) George W. Truett, former president of the Southern Baptist Convention, in his famous sermon on religious liberty at the U.S. Capitol, on Sunday, May 16, 1920, defined church-state separation in lay terms when he said, "In behalf of our Baptist people I am compelled to say that forgetfulness of the principles ... explains many of the religious ills that now afflict the world. All went well with the early churches in their earlier days. They were incomparably triumphant days for the Christian faith. Those early disciples of Jesus, without prestige and worldly power, yet aflame with the love of God and the passion of Christ, went out and shook the pagan Roman Empire from center to circumference, even in one brief generation. Christ's religion needs no prop of any kind from any worldly source, and to the degree that it is thus supported is a millstone hanged about its neck." See George W. Truett, "Baptists and Religious Liberty," in Proclaiming the Baptist Vision: Religious Liberty, ed. Walter B. Shurden (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 1997), 70.

In other words, Truett's sermon spelled out concretely the essence of church-state separation, claiming that when "the followers of Christ depended on nothing more than the power of God to expand Christ's kingdom all went well.' See "Separation of Church and State," Life with Liberty Series (Washington DC: Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, 1986).

(19.) Mullins and later Hobbs both argued that, regarding the meaning of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, the "citizenry will not be taxed for the purpose of supporting any religious faith.... Even though there may be but one system of faith in the nation, it may not be established and supported by tax money--federal, state, or local." (131-32) They further elaborated that "The state has no right to tax the churches; neither do the churches have the right to use tax funds to further their spiritual ministry.... God has provided that citizens should pay taxes to support government (Rom. 13:6-7). He has ordained tithes and offerings for the support of his spiritual works (Mal. 3:8-10). The state has no right to invade the latter for its support; the church has no right to accept or demand the former for its work." (136-37) (italics inserted by author)

Mullins clearly pointed out that the church should not use public money to achieve the spiritual work, as God's has prepared his own resources, "tithes and offerings," but not tax funds from government. Thus, his point of view (and later that of Hobbs) was in agreement with Truett's. Herschel H. Hobbs and E. Y. Mullins, The Axioms of Religion, rev. ed. (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1978).

(20.) "Minutes of the Executive Committee Meeting, December 18, 1964," Minutes of Hong Kong-Macao Baptist Mission of the American Southern Baptist Convention 1964 (Hong Kong, Hong Kong-Macao Mission, SBC, 1965), 62.

(21.) "Minutes of the Executive Committee Meeting, November 19, 1969," Minutes of Hong Kong-Macao Baptist Mission of the American Southern Baptist Convention 1969 (Hong Kong, Hong Kong-Macao Mission, SBC, 1970), 46.

(22.) Richard Lusk, Chairman of the Executive Committee, Hong Kong-Macao Mission Office, PMB, SBC, to Chi-Fung Lam, Chairman of the Baptist Association, November 24, 1969, in the File of the Minutes of Primary School Board, The Baptist Convention of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. James Hollis said one of the focal institutions of the resolution should be Hong Kong Baptist College, as the Baptist association was seeking "aid from the Hong Kong government in the form of student scholarships." See James Hollis, e-mail to author, December 13, 2002.

(23.) E. Glenn Hinson, e-mail to author, February 18, 2002.

(24.) Edward L. Queen II, In the South the Baptists are the Center of Gravity: Southern Baptists and Social Change, 1930-1980, preface by Martin E. Marry (Brooklyn, NY: Carlson Publishing Inc., 1991), 100-01.

(25.) The work of defending church-state separation has been carded out by the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty (which had earlier been named the Committee on Public Relations, the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs). This organization was founded in 1936 by the Southern and Northern Baptist Conventions and the two largest Black Baptist denominational organizations with the intention of defending the wall of separation without compromise. For details, see John Lee Eighmy, Churches in Cultural Captivity: A History of the Social Attitudes of Southern Baptists, with an introduction and epilogue by Samuel S. Hill, Jr. (Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1972), 158-78; also see Brent Walker, "Religious Liberty: A Continuing Struggle," in Proclaiming the Baptist Vision: Religious Liberty, ed. Walter B. Shurden (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing Inc., 1997), 101-08.

(26.) E. Glenn Hinson, Religious Liberty: The Christian Roots of Our Fundamental Freedoms, rev. ed. (Louisville, KY: Glad River Publications, 1991), 117.

(27.) Ibid., 118.

(28.) Ibid., 119. For details of the case, see Robert S. Alley, The Supreme Court on Church and State (New York and Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1988), 173-83.

(29.) Ibid., 119. For details of the case, see Alley, The Supreme Court on Church and State, 183-94.

(30.) R. F. Aldwinckle, Robert G. Torbet, C. M. Smith and others, "Baptist Distinctives and Diversities and Disagreements and Differences of Emphasis among Baptists," collected in Walter B. Shurden, The Baptist Identity: Four Fragile Freedoms (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, Inc., 1993), appendix II, 67-68, 76.

According to Shurden, the importance of the statement was twofold: First, "it represents not one but six different Baptist bodies within the United States." Second, "the document is unique in describing 'disagreements and differences' among Baptists, as well as identifying the common convictions of Baptists. This two-fold approach aids in sharpening the commonly accepted Baptist identity and precludes theological emphases that deviate from this broader norm" (67).

(31.) Queen II, In the South the Baptists are the Center of Gravity, 102-04

(32.) Ibid., 104; Wayne Flynt, Alabama Baptists: Southern Baptists in the Heart of iN.tie (Tuscaloosa, AL, and London, UK: The University of Alabama Press, 1998), 423.

(33.) Eighmy, Churches in Cultural Captivity, 166, footnote 22. The examinations were carried on by the conventions in Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington, D.C.

(34.) Queen II, In the South the Baptists are the Center of Gravity, 104; Eighmy, Churches in Cultural Captivity, 167; Flynt, Alabama Baptists, 421-22, 486.

(35.) Queen II, In the South the Baptists are the Center of Gravity, 104-05.

(36.) Ibid., 104; Eighmy, Churches in Cultural Captivity, 166.

(37.) Queen II, In the South the Baptists are the Center of Gravity, 105-06. See also Southern Baptist Convention Annual, 1963, 253-54.

(38.) Eighmy, Churches in Cultural Captivity, 167-68.

(39.) Ibid., 168-69; Flynt, Alabama Baptists, 487.

(40.) Queen II, In the South the Baptists are the Center of Gravity, 106-07.

(41.) Ibid., 108. Queen noted that the fights over federal matching grants "intended only for the construction of academic and dormitory buildings, an apparently innocuous involvement of the state with religion" (108).

(42.) Eighmy, Churches in Cultural Captivity, 165-70.

(43.) Queen II, In the South the Baptists are the Center of Gravity, 97-118; Flynt, Alabama Baptist, 421.

(44.) Queen II, In the South the Baptists are the Center of Gravity, 106.

(45.) George W. Truett, "Baptists and Religious Liberty," in Proclaiming the Baptist Vision: Religious Liberty, ed. Walter B. Shurden (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 1997), 81.

(46.) Ibid., 81-82.

(47.) Ralph A. Herring and others, "Baptists Ideals," in Walter B. Shurden, The Baptist Identity: Four Fragile Freedoms (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, Inc., 1993), appendix VII, 114. According to Shurden, the statement, prepared by a committee chaired by Ralph A. Herring, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and eighteen Southern Baptist leaders and scholars, "describes the Baptist concepts of religious authority, the individual, the Christian life, and the church." The discussion of "christian Education" is arranged in the final section entitled "Our Continuing Task" (103).

(48.) Queen II, In the South the Baptists are the Center of Gravity, 103.

(49.) Ibid., 101. The Baptist World Alliance (BWA) is the official global fellowship of Baptists uniting 211 Baptist conventions/unions. The BWA was founded in London, England, in 1905, "to empower and enable national Baptist leaders to effectively witness and minister in the name of Jesus Christ and to represent and support Baptists throughout the world in defense of human rights and religious freedom." The goals of BWA are to unite Baptists worldwide, to respond to people in need, and to defend human rights. For details, see "About Us," in Baptist World Alliance; English, available from http://www.bwanet.org/AboutUs/index.html; accessed April 11, 2005.

(50.) Stan L. Hastey, "The History and Contributions of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs," Baptist History and Heritage, 20, no. 3 (July 1985), 36; cited in Queen II, In the South the Baptists are the Center of Gravity, 102.

(51.) Walter B. Shurden, The Baptist Identity: Four Fragile Freedoms (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, Inc., 1993), 53.

(52.) Winston Crawley, e-mail to author, December 12, 2002.

(53.) Hollis mentioned that Southern Baptist missionaries in Hong Kong acknowledged the controversy about government monies to the Baptist colleges in the United States in the 1960s. Hollis, e-mail to author. Richard Lusk, e-mail to author, December 17, 2002.

(54.) Crawley's letter to the Mission dated June 28, 1962, and Fuller's report are the only documents on the issue of governmental subsidy collected in the files of the office of Hong Kong-Macao Baptist Mission in Hong Kong.

(55.) Winston Crawley, e-mail to author, December 12, 2002.

(56.) Excluding a series of meetings of acquiring land, interest-free loans, and subsidy of construction expenses from the government for Pui Ching Middle School and Pool To Girls' Middle School since September 9, 1963, as they were not discussing the issue of subsidized school, the total number of attendance of the abovementioned meetings were sixty-nine, with fifth-nine lay people and ten pastors or missionaries or seminary graduates, i.e. more than 85 percent were thethe laity.

(57.) The viewpoints of the church-state relationship of the Hong Kong-Macao Baptist Mission might be a possible factor that led the Primary School Board to decline the government offer. However, further study is needed.

Chun-pang Vincent Lau is assistant professor of practical theology at the Hong Kong Baptist Theological Seminary, Hong Kong.