LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW - Concordia Lutheran Seminary

More documents

Recommendations

Info

78 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII Christmas coming up, the members of the SPCK were anxiously waiting for them in London. 74 They finally arrived in London on 20 December. Two days later, Ziegenhagen introduced them to the SPCK. There Pressier gave a message in Latin and a member of the SPCK responded in like manner. 75 On New Year’s Day, Bosse preached in the Court Chapel and boosted the offering for the mission which had normally been 24 pounds to 93 pounds sterling. In addition, the king gave a donation of 30 pounds sterling. The missionaries became corresponding members of the SPCK. 76 They met with the Archbishop of Canterbury, who promised his support for the mission for the rest of his life. They also met with the future King George II, as well as other members of the royal household. On 19 January, they said farewell to the SPCK and departed. Because their books had not arrived, Ziegenhagen gave them the most necessary ones from his own library. 77 After they arrived in India, the new missionaries sent back a report with “fresh eyes” to Copenhagen on the conflicted situation in Tranquebar. Since their report did not put Schultze in a very good light, he no longer felt comfortable serving in Tranquebar under the Danish Mission College. A conflict erupted between Schultze and the new missionaries and Schultze decided to start his own new work in Madras which was located in Englishheld territory. He got permission from the English governor at Fort St George to begin a mission in Madras, and in 1726 he left Tranquebar. When the Mission College first heard of the new conflict between Schultze and the other missionaries, it admonished all of the missionaries to maintain unity and informed them that no one was allowed to leave the service of the mission without prior permission from the Mission College. 78 By leaving Tranquebar and beginning mission work in Madras, Schultze had disobeyed this directive, so the Mission College decided to recall him, ordering him to return to Europe. But Schultze refused and sent a nasty letter to the Danish body. The routing of letters from the missionaries in India to Europe does not seem to have followed a consistent pattern. Apparently, some of the letters went directly to the appropriate mission leadership in either Copenhagen or Halle. Copies of the Halle-bound letters were subsequently sent to Copenhagen. By the late 1720s, the original journals were all sent to Halle. 79 Letters intended for the SPCK went through Ziegenhagen in London who either had them translated into English or shared summaries of their contents 74 Letter of Ziegenhagen to A. H. Francke, London, 18 December 1724. 75 Letter of Ziegenhagen to A. H. Francke, London, 22 December 1724. 76 Letter of Ziegenhagen to A. H. Francke, London, 1 January 1725. 77 Letter of Ziegenhagen to A. H. Francke, London, 19 January 1725. 78 Norgaard 130. 79 Norgaard 116.
THREINEN: FRIEDRICH MICHAEL ZIEGENHAGEN 79 with the members of the SPCK. Their contents and the action taken by the SPCK were also communicated to the Francke father and son. Although Schultze’s letter was intended for the Mission College in Copenhagen, it first came to Ziegenhagen. Feeling that the cause of missions in India would be harmed if the letter was sent in its original form to Copenhagen, Ziegenhagen “managed” the situation so that the letter which the Mission College received was shorter and less violent than the one which Schultze had written. 80 Since Madras was on British territory, Ziegenhagen then asked the SPCK to take Schultze on as their missionary. The SPCK had, in fact, been wanting to begin mission work in a British territory in India for a decade and a half. This had been supported already by Boehm who did not, however, favour Gruendler moving to Madras because of the pressure which would be there for him to be ordained an Anglican. “Because of the influence of High Church clergy in England, he felt there would be no way to carry on the Lutheran Pietist nature of the mission if it should come under English control.” 81 The efforts of the Society had been thwarted by their inability to find an Englishman willing to go to India. Gruendler’s death in 1720 ruled out his transfer to Madras. Schultze’s request in 1726 was, therefore, welcomed by the members of the SPCK. Before accepting Schultze, however, the Society sought and receive permission from the English East Indian Company, which had local jurisdiction in the Indian territories under British control. 82 Although Schultze had already begun work in September 1726, it took until the end of 1727 for the SPCK to arrive at its decision to accept Schultze as its missionary in Madras. When their directive to Schultze early in 1728 to begin Protestant work in Madras was sent, it meant more than anything that the SPCK was committed to supporting him in this work. 83 In the meanwhile, a couple of difficulties had threatened to derail the intentions of the SPCK. A former English chaplain at Madras began raising questions about the missionary methods of the Halle-Pietists. He found their theological exercises “excessively tedious”, their catechetical instructions “obscure and unedifying”, and their explanation of the conversion process confusing. 84 Ziegenhagen, who had assumed the position of protector of the India mission in England, asked to see the former chaplain’s letter and 80 Brunner, 114, suggests that Ziegenhagen had the letter rewritten. I find it difficult to understand how this could have been done since letters were hand-written and the Mission College would certainly have recognized it if a letter was not the original. 81 Brunner 116. 82 Brunner 116. 83 One early biographer of Schultze erroneously indicates that Schultze’s support came from the SPG. Reinhold Bornbaum, Benjamin Schultze, evangelischer Missionar in Tranquebar und Madras (Duesseldorf: Verlag der Schwaub’schen Buchhandlung, 1850) 22. 84 Stevenson to Newman, Colwall, 7 February 1727, cited in Brunner 117.
Page 1:
LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW publish
Page 4 and 5:
4 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII S
Page 6 and 7:
LTR XII (Academic Year 1999-2000):
Page 8 and 9:
8 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII W
Page 10 and 11:
10 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
LTR XII (Academic Year 1999-2000):
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29: 28 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII
Page 44 and 45: LTR XII (Academic Year 1999-2000):
Page 110: 110 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII
show all

LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW - Concordia Lutheran Seminary

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?