The document below gives the historical background to the emergence of theological colleges in Southeast Asia, and in particular, Trinity Theological College, Singapore, in the years following the change of government in China after 1949. - MP
The Board of Founders of the Nanking Theological Seminary, for whom this Report was prepared, is the American organization which has been maintaining the Nanking Theological Seminary in Nanking , China . Although the Board was organized in 1937, the Seminary itself had been going on since 1911 when it was established by the joint action of four missionary boards; the Presbyterian, U.S.A. , the Presbyterian, U.S. , The Disciples of Christ, and the Methodist Episcopal. Later, the Southern Methodist Board and the Northern Baptist Board entered into the Union .
In 1932, the Nanking Theological Seminary was the recipient of a legacy from the Wendel Estate. The Board of Founders was established chiefly to administer the income of this legacy, the principal of which had been left to the Methodist Board of Foreign Missions for the Nanking Theological Seminary. The Nanking Theological Seminary has used its income to maintain the institution in Nanking and also to aid other theological schools or projects carrying on work in China similar to that of the Nanking Theological Seminary.
In 1950, it became impossible for the Board of Founders to continue its support of the Seminary in Nanking . The Board did not want simply to allow its income to accumulate in the United States but desired to use it so far as possible to carry out the purpose of the donor. The Board, therefore, decided, at its annual meeting in 1951, to make a survey of theological education in Southeast Asia where there were Chinese churches and large Chinese populations, to see whether, within the legal limits of its income, it could help in the training of ministers and church workers in that area. Two members were appointed on a Survey Commission to study the situation in Southeast Asia , especially as it related to the training of Chinese for the Christian ministry or for service in the ecumenical Church in Southeast Asia . Dr. C. Stanley Smith, formerly Vice-President of the Nanking Theological Seminary, and Dr. S. R. Anderson, formerly Methodist representative on the Board of Managers of the Nanking Theological Seminary, were chosen as the members of the Survey Commission. It was originally planned that the Study should begin early in the fall of 1951 but there was a delay of three months and Dr. Smith, who was to make a preliminary study of certain institutions and projects in India related to theological education in Southeast Asia, was not able to leave New York until December 17, 1951, when he flew to London for a Conference with British missionary leaders who were especially interested in the work in Southeast Asia. Dr. Anderson, who was acting as a representative of the Methodist Board of Missions and Church Extension in Hongkong, joined Dr. Smith in Calcutta on January 10, and accompanied him on the trip through Burma , Thailand , Singapore , Indonesia , the Philippines , and Hongkong. Dr. Anderson was unable to go with Dr. Smith to Formosa and Japan so that the Supplementary Report on these countries is made by Dr. Smith alone.
Because of difficulties in location it was decided that Dr. Anderson should make a report on the trip itself while Dr. Smith should deal with the theological seminaries and matters related thereto.
The Report tries to make clear the situation of the Christian Churches in Southeast Asia as it is related to the Training of Ministers and Church Workers, especially Chinese, in that area. Since the time given to the Study was limited to approximately four months, three-weeks of which were devoted to the Study in India , it was possible to allow only about two weeks to each of the five countries in Southeast Asia which were visited. Two weeks is not sufficient to get a full understanding of theological education and its many ramifications in the whole life of the Christian Churches in any of these countries. While an attempt has been made to report accurately on impressions received and facts gathered yet there is full recognition that there may be errors in judgment and mistakes in fact regarding which the Survey Commission will be glad to receive information.
While little of the material for a Report such as this can be original, we wish to give special acknowledgment to Mr. Victor Purcell from whose exhaustive and authoritative study of "The Chinese in Southeast Asia" we have drawn rather heavily, especially in sections on the history and demography of the Chinese in Southeast Asia; to Dr. Winburn T. Thomas, Presbyterian missionary, assigned to the Council of Churches in Indonesia, for invaluable material on the life and organization of the churches in Indonesia; and to Rev. and Mrs. James Dickson, of the Canadian Presbyterian Mission, in Taipeh, Formosa for most interesting reports on the conversion of the Head-hunters of Formosa.
It is impossible to acknowledge individually all those who have helped to make this Study so pleasant and interesting. The thanks of the Survey Commission is extended to all those whose hospitality it enjoyed and whose assistance it received. Especially is it grateful to the Board of Founders for the opportunity of surveying this fascinating and crucial area of the world.
S. R. Anderson, C. Stanley Smith, August 4,1952
While we head this section " Malaya ," we actually visited only Singapore on our study. Singapore is an area all by itself in life, world position and religious importance for the ecumenical church. Yet it has one interest in common with all Malaya for our study — it has a large number of Chinese. For the whole Malayan peninsula, including Singapore , it is estimated that fifty per cent. at least and probably a little more, are Chinese. The city of Singapore has a Chinese population which Purcell* gives as 730,000 in a total population of 941,000 or 77.5%. This is based on the first census since V-J Day, in 1947. Since then there has been a steady growth in the population of the colony of Singapore , especially of the Chinese population, so that the percentage of Chinese is now placed at around 80%. Due to steady increase in the ratio of Chinese women in the Chinese population since 1937, there has been a rapid increase in the proportion of locally-born Chinese in the total Chinese population—an increase of from one-third to two-thirds between 1931 and 1947. This increase of locally-born Chinese as against immigrant Chinese has significance for our study. It is probable that the proportion of locally-born Chinese Christians is somewhat the same as the general proportion. The locally-born Chinese do not place as much emphasis on speaking the dialects of their parents as do the immigrant Chinese. In Chinese Schools they learn the "Kuo Yü" or national language. In the public or government schools as well as the mission-sponsored schools they do their work in English, which is the most generally spoken language in the colony.
Because of this, it is possible for the one outstanding Protestant Theological College in the city — Trinity College — to carry on the teaching and Class-room work almost entirely in English. Some of the part-time Chinese pastors, however, who are invited to teach certain classes may do so in Chinese. This also means that the library, which though far from being adequate for a first class theological college is still one of the best in Southeast Asia, has most of its books in English—some 2000 out of its 2500 or so volumes. There are a few hundred books in Chinese but the number, as in most of the theological schools in Southeast Asia , is not conspicuous. It should be stated, however, that since a Chinese Department has been added, efforts are being made to increase the number of Chinese books. The main difficulty now is that there are so few religious and theological books in Chinese available for purchase.
The addition of the Chinese Department to Trinity College is an evidence that although there has been such an increase in locally-born Chinese, and that there is such general demand for, and use of, the English language, there is still a great demand on the part of the Chinese Christians for preaching in the Chinese language—even for preaching in the various dialects. We learned that on any Sunday religious broadcasts are given in at least eight different Chinese dialects. On our first Sunday in Singapore , Bishop Archer conducted us on a tour of some of the Methodist churches of the city. Of the seven or eight churches visited, all but one were Chinese—that one was Indian and the language, Tamil — and practically all the church services were using a different dialect. In some cases the sermons were being interpreted from one dialect into another or from Kuo Yü or English into a dialect. It is evident, therefore, that, as in Thailand, there will be a demand for many years on the part of the Chinese churches of Singapore for preachers who can speak the local dialects of China. It is also entirely possible that while English may become even the first language of this area (it is now plainly the second at least), Chinese, in its Mandarin form, will continue indefinitely as either a first or second language. The foresight, therefore, of Trinity College in opening a Department in Chinese and in the plans to add more Chinese-speaking teachers, both missionaries and Chinese, to the staff is justified by its wisdom.
Our first impression of Trinity College , and of Singapore as a center for theological education, both as to the present reality and the possibilities for the future, were on the whole maintained by more careful study of the situation. The emphasis, as our understanding of the situation increased, however, as between present reality and future possibility, was placed more heavily on the possibility than on the actual accomplishment. Since Singapore as a theological center is so closely related to Trinity College , our emphasis also tended to swing from the present reality to the .future possibility so far as Singapore itself was concerned. The net result of our eleven day visit was that while we had such confidence both in the actual and the unrealized value of Trinity College that we were unanimous in making a recommendation to the Board of Founders for a substantial grant for capital investment, as well as other grants for the current program; yet we did not feel that it was wise, at least for the present, to advise the Board to concentrate its aid in Trinity College to the exclusion of assisting other institutions elsewhere. We felt that it was wiser to continue our original plan of distributing our assistance, both in finance and personnel, among the various theological schools in Southeast Asia in response to the needs which were revealed by our studies. In other words, we agreed with the counsel of a very wise and experienced old Chinese Christian friend whom we met in Singapore that it is better not to put all our financial eggs in the one basket of Trinity College or of Singapore as a center of theological education for Southeast Asia . The lure of Singapore was very great and is still with us. We believe that it holds great possibilities as a center of the ecumenical church in Southeast Asia and that some of these possibilities should soon become actualities; e.g., the location of the office of the secretary for Southeast Asia of the International Missionary Council and the World Council of Churches, and perhaps even the opening of a center in Singapore from which a Director of Extension, or some similar person, might carry on the extension program of the Nanking Theological Seminary Board of Founders in Southeast Asia . Such a center could also become a distributing point for the exchange of information among the various theological
schools in South and Southeast Asia , as recommended so heartily by the Conference of Theological Teachers from Southeast Asia which was held at Stony Point , New York , last November. It might also help to coordinate the work of theological education in this whole area; especially in such matters as the production of theological literature, the standardization of curricula, the interchange of teachers, etc. Such a center could help in the preparation for a Conference on Theological Education in Southeast Asia to be held during 1953 as proposed by the Indonesian .Conference on Theological Education which convened in Bandoeng last January? a proposal which has been heartily endorsed by Dr. Rajah Manikam and promoted by him as he has travelled about Southeast Asia the early part of this year. It is of course expected that the Board of Founders will make a substantial grant toward the expenses of such a conference—an expectation which we fully endorse.
We have spoken of Trinity College in a general way. Now let us become more detailed and concrete.
Trinity College is the successor to the Malaya Methodist Theological College which was organized in 1940 and closed in 1942 by World War II. The present College was conceived in a Japanese internment camp when members of the English Presbyterian, Church of England and Methodist churches, forced to live together there, decided to try to carry cooperative living into their religious work after they emerged from their confinement. After much discussion, it was decided that the most fruitful field for cooperative action was in theological education. Early in 1948, representatives of these three denominations met in Singapore under the chairmanship of Dr. H. B. Amstutz of the Methodist Church . It was decided to establish a union Theological College to be called " Trinity College ." This College was to have a three-year course based upon secondary school graduation and was to be both "a Theological College and a training school." The College began its work on October 4, 1948, with seven students. Its present student body numbers twenty-seven, of whom twenty-one are Chinese and about half are women.
Although the college authorities recognized the need for theological training in Chinese to meet the demand of the numerous Chinese-speaking congregations among their constituencies, the urgency of getting the College started and the shortage of Chinese-speaking teachers made it necessary to begin the work in English. The demand for theological education in Chinese, however, was insistent and there was a constant threat that if Trinity College did not offer such work, then other low-grade theological schools and Bible schools would do so, and would draw off many of the future pastors of the Chinese churches. In spite of the lack of Chinese, or Chinese-speaking staff, the College, therefore, decided to open a Chinese Department in the fall of 1951. Fortunately for this new department, the increasingly critical situation in China made China missionaries available for transfer to other fields. The Methodist Board and the English Presbyterian Board, the latter cooperating with the London Missionary Society with whom they had worked in theological education in China as part of the Church of Christ in China , were able to transfer China missionaries to Singapore . While most of these missionaries were assigned to evangelistic work, some had had a good theological Education and could teach at least part time in a Chinese Department of the College. The L. M. S. agreed to make available to the college. Rev. Frank Balchin, who had taught in the South Fukien Theological Seminary at Chuangchow , China , for several years. The English Presbyterian Mission also undertook to provide a Chinese teacher in the person of Rev. John Lü, M.Th., who studied at Princeton Theological Seminary last year. We understand that Mr. Lü has since arrived in Singapore and has been assigned to the Chinese department of the College for part-time teaching. The College, therefore, is on the way to correcting one of its most serious defects — the lack of full-time, trained teaching staff, but it still has considerable distance to go. An analysis of the courses offered in 1951-52 in both the English and the Chinese Departments shows that of the nine teachers offering courses in the English Department, two, the Principal, Rev. Theodore Runyan, and the Dean of Women, Miss Helen Loomis, were the only full-time teachers. In the Chinese Department during the first term in 1952 only one of the seven teachers was a full-time member of the faculty, Rev. Andrew K. T. Chen. This lack of full-time staff is also undoubtedly responsible for another weakness revealed by the 1951-52 curriculum. It is evident that in making up the courses to be taught the guiding factor had to be the teachers available rather than the needs of the students for a comprehensive and orderly curriculum. One noticeable lack in the curriculum was a single course in Christian Theology. The coming of Mr. Balchin will remove this lack but a theological college that takes its work as seriously as Trinity College does should not have to work under such a handicap.
There are other elements in the organization and program of the College that lead one to agree with the judgment expressed at a conference of some of the secretaries of British Missionary Societies last December at Edinburgh House in London, that Trinity College while having great possibilities is still in a very elementary stage of its development, or in the words of a Methodist Board Secretary, "Trinity College is not yet a well established theological school." Let us review briefly what was said in an earlier report on Trinity College written while Dr. Smith was in Hongkong. As those of you who have read this report may recall, three points of weakness in the College were listed. The first, the lack of full-time teachers, has just been discussed above. The second was the comparatively few hours devoted to a theological curriculum and to preparation for classes as against the large amount of time—from four to five hours a day—spent by the students in teaching in Christian or government middle schools. There is little evidence that anything serious is being done to correct this condition. In a discussion of this matter with a group of Trinity College students invited by Mr. Runyan to meet Dr. Smith in his house, several of the students said that it was necessary for them to do so much outside work in order to pay their expenses. This is a legitimate reason, and where it is sincerely given it should be remedied by cither scholarship aid or increased support from sponsoring churches. The Board of Founders can help to meet this situation by making a grant for scholarships for Chinese students. There is another element in this situation that is not so easily met. Some of the students did not seem to be clear as to their purpose to enter the ministry. They seemed to feel that teaching in a middle school, Christian or governmental, might offer as great a field for Christian service as did the ministry. In some cases this may be true but it is not the purpose for which we usually conduct a theological seminary. The opportunity afforded by the present custom of teaching in middle schools during the theological course is a great temptation for students to enroll as theological students but at the same time be very uncertain as to their call to the ministry. This condition could be greatly helped, we think, by scholarship aid; and where such aid is unavailable or insufficient so that the student has to seek outside work, his hours of class work should be lessened and the time required to complete the course increased from three to four years. It might also be said in this connection that the present length of the course, three years, after high school graduation, does not give adequate time for preparation for the type of ministry demanded today in Southeast Asia .
A study of the curriculum of the college shows that the number of hours of classroom work per week is rather less than that required in most other Oriental theological schools—the hours range from 15 to 17 with 15 hours more usual than 17 hours. With the heavy schedule of outside teaching undertaken by a large proportion of the students, there can be little time or energy given by the student to class-room preparation. Since what the student receives, therefore, must be mostly from the teacher's lectures, 15 to 17 hours of class-room work is inadequate to give a satisfactory education for the ministry. In fact, we were told quite frankly by a person close to the College that the course at Trinity was so elementary that it took no effort to get through it.
Another element that enters into the picture is the comparatively small number of men who are actually enrolled in the regular theological courses. Trinity College is not only a theological college but also by title, a "Training School." Besides its regular theological course, it offers special work in Music and in Kindergarten teaching. During the second term of the English course in 1951-52, there were only six students, whether all men or some women was not stated, registered in the regular course in Theology. There were nine special students in the regular course in Theology and the remainder of the students in the English course, probably all women, numbered six. If we suppose that among the "Special" students were many who were really preparing to be teachers or who were not yet fully committed to the work of the ministry, then the students in the English course preparing for the ministry seems to be pitiably few — probably not over a dozen. When we look at the enrollment in the newly opened Chinese Department, the picture is even less satisfactory. There were, during the first term in 1952, only two regular students and two special students in this department taking the course in Theology, and two students, probably young women, taking a regular course in Music.
Of course it should be recognized that Trinity College has only been open for less than four school years, and that the Chinese Department is only in its first year. The increase of students in 1951-52 (27) over the enrollment in 1950-51 (21) is probably accounted for mainly by the addition of the Chinese Department. While we cannot entirely blame Trinity College for the small number of students enrolled in the regular theological courses—the fault, it any, lies with the churches and their recruiting programs for the ministry—yet the fact that there is such a crying need tor trained leadership throughout Southeast Asia, especially in the Chinese churches, and that the divisive sects are preparing by means of Bible Schools of lower or higher grades to answer this need, evidently with greater resources both in personnel and finances than are now being employed by the more ecumenically-minded church bodies, should lead us to see the real seriousness of the situation and do everything we can to improve it.
The third element of weakness that was mentioned in the earlier report was the preponderance of American Methodist influence in the school. This is said without any idea of criticism of the Methodist Church and with full recognition of the great contribution of property, personnel and finances which that church is making to Trinity College; it is only to record the fact of this overwhelming preponderance of denominational influence which seems to us to be an unhealthy situation for any union theological school to be in. One of the factors for the remarkable success in union theological education in China was the fact that in these union theological seminaries there were two or more large denominations working together and making somewhat commensurate contributions in finance, personnel and representation on governing Boards. With the possible exception of representation on the Governing Boards, this condition is not true in Trinity College . The faculty, since the beginning of the school, has been voluntary or honorary "with the exception of three Methodist appointees." These "appointees" have been Dr. H. B. Amstutz, Principal, (now Rev. T. Runyan), Miss Lila Corbett, Dean, (now Miss Helen Loomis), and the Rev. Andrew K. T. Chen. With the exception of the three Methodist teachers appointed by the Methodist Church to full-time work in the College, all the other teachers have been part-time and voluntary. This condition has been somewhat improved by the appointment of Rev. Frank Balchin, on invitation from the Governing Board, to the chair of Theology. Mr. Balchin, who comes from the L.M.S.., does not belong to a Mission which is a constituent member of the College but he does represent a Chinese Church which is a constituent member—the Church of Christ in Malaya —formerly Church of Christ in China , largely of Presbyterian or Reformed background. It is not clear whether Rev. John Lü, who comes under English Presbyterian auspices, is supported by that Mission or by the funds of the College. If the latter, then he too is supported from Methodist funds since practically the whole budget of the College comes from the Methodist Board. It is our understanding that apart from some possible share in Mr. Balchin's salary and the support of Dr. H. K. Johnson who gives part-time to teaching in the College, the English Presbyterian Board makes no financial contribution to the budget of the College. The Anglicans, so far as we could learn, make little or no regular contribution to the budget and have no one supported by them on the faculty though one or more of their missionary personnel and Chinese clergy offer courses in the school. What is true of finances is also true of property. So far as we could learn, all the present buildings have been contributed by the Methodist Mission. The new residence-dormitory which is being built is a venture of faith—faith largely that the Board of Founders of the Nanking Theological Seminary would make a generous contribution to its cost. Originally, it was estimated that a grant of U. S. $5,000. would clear off the indebtedness but now it is estimated at nearer U.S. $15,000.
The main reason for the small financial contribution of the English Presbyterians to the College is undoubtedly the fact that, like most other British Churches, they do not have funds available. Whether the Anglicans are in a similar condition, we cannot say. We had the impression, however, that their lack of financial support of the College was at least partially due to the fact that they were not fully committed to it as a training school for their clergy, especially the more able candidates. Both Bishop Baines and Archdeacon Woods gave vigorous support to the College during meetings we had with the Governing Board. It is to be hoped that the Anglicans will back the College with financial support, by making available a full-time member of the faculty, and by sending their students to the College. In last year's student body there was only one Presbyterian and one Anglican. The rest, eighteen, were Methodists.
It is evident, therefore, that from the standpoint of faculty members, support of the budget, property and students the Methodists have an overwhelming preeminence. For this the College is grateful, for without the Methodists there would be no College. Yet with full recognition of this fact, it is still an unhealthy situation for a theological school to be in, and it is hoped that the other constituent members will soon be able to assume more of the load.
Before we close this section on our study in Singapore , let us emphasize that in trying to give so clear, detailed and frank a presentation of the situation in Trinity College , we are both whole-heartedly in favor of giving generous aid to the College. We do not make our recommendations in spite of present conditions in the College, but rather because of these conditions. We believe in the future possibilities of the College so fully that we would like to do all we can to strengthen her where she is weak. We only feel that we should give our support with full recognition of the weak spots in the College and with a desire to remove them so far and as soon as possible.
We would call attention to the very fine "memorandum" which has been drawn up by the Principal of Trinity College, Rev. Theodore Runyan, for presentation to the Board of Founders. In this Mr. Runyan sets forth many of the factors in the situation which we have discussed above. He also suggests the possibility of an affiliated relationship between his College and the Board of Founders and, on behalf of the Trinity College Board of Governors, requests the Board of Founders "to consider and study the possibilities of such a relationship being established between the two institutions involved." This relationship would be that of an affiliation, for an initial period of three years, with "the strong and established Board of Founders of the Nanking Theological Seminary." This he thinks would "assure the future of the Trinity College ."
The suggestion of an affiliated relationship of Trinity College with the Board of Founders was one for which we were responsible. It was made at a meeting of the Board of Governors of the College which was considering how the Board of Founders could best help Trinity College to get firmly on its feet so that it could realize the possibilities of its strategic situation in Southeast Asia . It seemed to us at the time, that without changing our policy of aiding the main theological schools in all the countries of Southeast Asia with comparatively small grants of limited duration, we might also enter into a special relationship with Trinity College whereby we could give this school special consideration both in finances and personnel. In thinking of how this might be done we thought of the possibility of the Board of Founders becoming for a limited, or at least initial, period of three years, a constituent member of the Board of Governors of Trinity College. In this way we would have the right to representation on the Board of Governors, would make an annual grant to the budget of the College and a possible capital investment for new buildings, and assign Nanking Theological Seminary personnel to the faculty on the request of the Board of Governors. If we had such a relationship with Trinity College, it might also be possible to get permission from the Board of Regents of the State of New York to grant some, at least, of our degrees to the graduates of the College, especially to Chinese students graduating from the Chinese Department of the College. It might also be possible for Trinity College with our assistance to raise the standard of its work by lengthening its course one or two years so that its graduates could qualify for the B.Th. degree under the Board of Regents. The opening of a B.D. degree course for college or university graduates would also be a possibility.
In the course of our study, we became impressed with the need for a theological course of advanced standing, offering a graduate course in Theology based upon a Bachelor of Arts degree somewhere in Southeast Asia . It should be located in a place that would be accessible to Chinese from other countries. It should aim not only to supply ministers for the larger churches of Southeast Asia but especially to train qualified men and women for teaching positions in the theological schools of this area. We found only one seminary offering a B.D. degree course. This was the Union Theological Seminary in Manila , but to anticipate our later report on this school, it is practically impossible for Chinese living outside of the Philippines to secure permission to enter that country. Manila , therefore, would not seem to be the place where such a high grade school should be developed for all of Southeast Asia . The Higher Theological School at Jakarta , Java, is a school of very good academic standing. Here the Dutch Missions, as in so much of their work in Indonesia, have set a very high standard in theological education, so high in fact that we understand Union Theological Seminary, in New York, will accept graduates from this school and, after one year of graduate study, confer on them the degree of M.Th. Yet these students are not college or university graduates and the Higher Theological School does not grant them the degree of Bachelor of Divinity, nor any graduate theological degree. But even if this school were giving a theological education worthy of a B.D. degree, as it may well be, there still remains the difficulty of securing admission into Indonesia for Chinese students. Even transit visas for American visitors are expensive and not easy to secure.
It would seem, therefore, that Manila and Jakarta can be ruled out as centers for higher theological education for Southeast Asia . If such a school must be located within Southeast Asia itself, then the only feasible location would seem to be Singapore . Singapore at present does not have any school of this grade and is not able in its own strength to operate one. It would have to be maintained largely by some outside organization that recognized the need for such a school and that had the financial ability to establish and maintain it. This undoubtedly means the Board of Founders of the Nanking Theological Seminary.
But of course, it may not be either necessary or wise to have such a school within the bounds of Southeast Asia . It is probable that Chinese students of a grade capable of entering such a school would have sufficient knowledge of English to be able to enter one of the more advanced theological colleges of India ; e.g., Serampore; which we have discussed earlier in this report. In this case only scholarship aid would be involved though we might wish to assist Chinese students by making it possible for a Chinese-speaking missionary or a Chinese teacher himself to be placed on the faculty. But should India be ruled out as impracticable or undesirable then the only other places within the sphere of Asia would be Hongkong or Tokyo . As we shall see when we come to consider these places each has its advantages and its disadvantages. Hongkong does not have such a school at present. The highest grade school is the Lutheran Theological Seminary, formerly located at Shekow, Hupeh, and now at Tao Fong Shan, Shatin, the Free Territories , Hongkong. It might be possible to carry on negotiations with the Lutherans conducting this school which would result in an agreement to cooperate in a B.D. Department in connection with their seminary. From what little experience we had in approaching such negotiations while Dr. Smith was in Hongkong, however, we would judge that the desired issue would be very difficult to obtain. There is also the fact that Shatin is situated not very far from the border of Communist China and students from outside Hongkong might be reluctant to take the risks involved. There is a further difficulty prevalent in all Southeast Asia , of getting permission for Chinese from outside to enter Hongkong territory.
The new Union Theological Seminary located in the suburbs of Tokyo would offer attractive possibilities for advanced theological education were there not so many difficulties involved. Academically, it is of high grade. Since, according to the new educational laws of Japan , all professional schools must have an arts college connected with them, this new Theological Seminary has a theological preparatory college connected with it. This would make it possible for students from outside Japan , who had not been able to finish at least two years of arts work, to make up this deficiency before entering upon the tour years' theological course which is now prescribed for graduation. Graduates of this school take one more year's work than is required in the Nanking Theological Seminary for the B.Th. degree, and one year less than required for the B.D. degree. On the other hand, they receive B.A. and M.A. degree from the Japanese Government and a Licentiate in Theology (L.Th.) degree from the United Church of Japan (The Kyodan). The main difficulty for Chinese taking theological work here would be the language. A knowledge of Japanese, and probably a reading knowledge of English, would be required. Living is not cheap but this difficulty could be met by scholarship aid. Feelings engendered by the late war might prove a difficulty, though we think not a serious one.
The remaining possibility for an advanced theological school for Chinese outside of China would seem to be in Honolulu and we shall consider this later in the Supplementary Report.