What do you think?
Rate this book
The Gospel of Gentility: American Women Missionaries in Turn-of-the-Century China
At the turn of the century, women represented over half of the American foreign mission force and had settled in "heathen" China to preach the lessons of Christian domesticity. In this engrossing narrative, Jane Hunter uses diaries, reminiscences, and letters to recreate the backgrounds of the missionaries and the problems and satisfactions they found in China. Her book offers insights not only into the experiences of these women but also into the ways they mirrored the female culture of Victorian America. "A subtle and finely written book... [on] an aspect of the mission world in China that has never before received such probing, affectionate, detailed treatment."-Jonathan Spence, New York Review of Books "An important and often entertaining work....New angles on imperialism and gentility alike."-Martin E. Marty, Reviews in American History "A triumph of sophisticated subtle intelligence. Though quite cognizant of the dark side of the confluence of American nationalism and the missionary enterprise, Hunter's interest is in moving beyond that understanding to explore how the meeting of two cultures affected, and was shaped by, a female angle of vision."-Regina Morantz-Sanchez, Signs "Jane Hunter writes better than most novelists, and she has a topic more demanding and rewarding than the subjects many novelists deal with. Her story of the valiant and ofttimes guilt-ridden women who ventured to China, singly or with spouses, to win the country for Christ creates a world and beckons readers into it."-Christian Century
318 pages, Hardcover
First published July 1, 1984
1 person is currently reading
30 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
January 20, 2025
Read this for my thesis-type paper last year, so so good
August 14, 2013
I got interested in 19th century missionaries to China and found this book on Amazon. I think missionaries have gotten a bad rap and I'm interested in learning more about these people who were brave enough to leave home, trying to make the world a better place -- or so they thought, inspired by their faith and beliefs or just their sense that they had something to offer. Are they not precursors to the Peace Corps?
Hunter read the letters and papers of several particular women for her dissertation, reading their lives, words, and thoughts through the lenses of postcolonialism and feminism. It was hard to tell them all apart sometimes, and I wish she'd included a page of "characters" to help track them - Luella Miner, Elsie Clark, Sarah Goodrich, Anna Hartwell, and many others. I thought her insights into their strengths and weaknesses were fascinating - it's almost too much to go into, the nuances of their lives and perspectives that she captures. Race, gender identity, gender relations, domesticity, imperialism, importance of emotions and intimacy, singleness vs. marriage, fashion, the social danger of being seen as an "odd" spinster or "queer" missionary lady, ambition, American vs. British vs. Chinese manners, Midwest vs. New England, women's colleges vs. coed colleges, Chinese cities vs. rural areas. She also recalls the writings of three Chinese women, alumna of mission schools, and their perspective on their experiences.
The most interesting, I thought, was her explanation that single missionary ladies were able to become a sort of "third sex" in China - not women and not men. They had independence, freedom to move and make relationships as they chose, ability to become leaders and really use their gifts and talents. Married women missionaries were stuck at home, and not much different from married women back in the States.
Still, I sometimes found Hunter patronizing of these women. Yes, they were almost all racists and hopelessly Victorian - but was that really so odd for their time? I'd rather she be matter-of-fact about these things than make little comments or assume all their motivations were racial and imperialist. They were people, not Imperial Missionary Automatons. I longed for more sophistication at times, or the perspective of someone with a little more savvy about American religious and church history.
As an Episcopal priest, I carry some bias, here. I'm religious (although I hope I'm not imperialist and self-righteous). So, I have some sympathy with the deep religious feeling of these women and don't see it as entirely pathetic, controlling, or misguided. Sure, there was PLENTY about these women that made me cringe, wince, and feel sick to my stomach, but I felt Hunter was sometimes unfair to them, painting them as women with agendas of domination and moral superiority, rather than women who, yes, had those agendas, but also felt great compassion, anger for the way women were treated, and cared about the people, men and women, in their missions and communities.
I was glad to have first read a book about a single woman missionary, Thea Ronning, and her life in China, written by a Lutheran scholar, Grace Grindal. I learned a lot more from Hunter's book, but Grindal's book showed me a woman - still a bit over-the-top with her piety - with more depth: who worried about cruelty to Chinese women, who busted her butt studying the language, who got sick a million times but wouldn't go home. But Hunter says, "missionary attacks on the confinement of Chinese women was primarily tactical," as if the missionaries only spoke up for women's rights so they could get them out of their houses and get their paws on them. But Thea wrote passionately about women's lack of freedom, their treatment as animals, foot binding, and female infanticide, and it seemed to me she really cared about these things and wanted to help make life for Chinese women better. And their life really sucked! It wasn't just cultural misunderstanding, here. Thea didn't see these practices merely as barriers to her ability to proselytize to them! I didn't see: "When they opposed footbinding or arranged marriages, they were attacking the way the tyranny of heathen practices circumscribed missionary possibilities" (175).
In conclusion, yes they were imperialist, self-righteous, racist, patronizing, and embody much of the worst of tedious Victorian values, but were they so different from other Americans of their time? And isn't there more to be learned about ourselves if we look at others with grace rather than patronizing judgement? Lord have mercy, because one day the women of the next century will look back on us in the same way, perhaps seeing only our weaknesses without trying to understand the world we lived in or the values we held dear.
Still, this book taught me many, nuanced, and interesting details about missionary life in China among American women at the turn-of-the-last-century. I'm grateful for that.
Hunter read the letters and papers of several particular women for her dissertation, reading their lives, words, and thoughts through the lenses of postcolonialism and feminism. It was hard to tell them all apart sometimes, and I wish she'd included a page of "characters" to help track them - Luella Miner, Elsie Clark, Sarah Goodrich, Anna Hartwell, and many others. I thought her insights into their strengths and weaknesses were fascinating - it's almost too much to go into, the nuances of their lives and perspectives that she captures. Race, gender identity, gender relations, domesticity, imperialism, importance of emotions and intimacy, singleness vs. marriage, fashion, the social danger of being seen as an "odd" spinster or "queer" missionary lady, ambition, American vs. British vs. Chinese manners, Midwest vs. New England, women's colleges vs. coed colleges, Chinese cities vs. rural areas. She also recalls the writings of three Chinese women, alumna of mission schools, and their perspective on their experiences.
The most interesting, I thought, was her explanation that single missionary ladies were able to become a sort of "third sex" in China - not women and not men. They had independence, freedom to move and make relationships as they chose, ability to become leaders and really use their gifts and talents. Married women missionaries were stuck at home, and not much different from married women back in the States.
Still, I sometimes found Hunter patronizing of these women. Yes, they were almost all racists and hopelessly Victorian - but was that really so odd for their time? I'd rather she be matter-of-fact about these things than make little comments or assume all their motivations were racial and imperialist. They were people, not Imperial Missionary Automatons. I longed for more sophistication at times, or the perspective of someone with a little more savvy about American religious and church history.
As an Episcopal priest, I carry some bias, here. I'm religious (although I hope I'm not imperialist and self-righteous). So, I have some sympathy with the deep religious feeling of these women and don't see it as entirely pathetic, controlling, or misguided. Sure, there was PLENTY about these women that made me cringe, wince, and feel sick to my stomach, but I felt Hunter was sometimes unfair to them, painting them as women with agendas of domination and moral superiority, rather than women who, yes, had those agendas, but also felt great compassion, anger for the way women were treated, and cared about the people, men and women, in their missions and communities.
I was glad to have first read a book about a single woman missionary, Thea Ronning, and her life in China, written by a Lutheran scholar, Grace Grindal. I learned a lot more from Hunter's book, but Grindal's book showed me a woman - still a bit over-the-top with her piety - with more depth: who worried about cruelty to Chinese women, who busted her butt studying the language, who got sick a million times but wouldn't go home. But Hunter says, "missionary attacks on the confinement of Chinese women was primarily tactical," as if the missionaries only spoke up for women's rights so they could get them out of their houses and get their paws on them. But Thea wrote passionately about women's lack of freedom, their treatment as animals, foot binding, and female infanticide, and it seemed to me she really cared about these things and wanted to help make life for Chinese women better. And their life really sucked! It wasn't just cultural misunderstanding, here. Thea didn't see these practices merely as barriers to her ability to proselytize to them! I didn't see: "When they opposed footbinding or arranged marriages, they were attacking the way the tyranny of heathen practices circumscribed missionary possibilities" (175).
In conclusion, yes they were imperialist, self-righteous, racist, patronizing, and embody much of the worst of tedious Victorian values, but were they so different from other Americans of their time? And isn't there more to be learned about ourselves if we look at others with grace rather than patronizing judgement? Lord have mercy, because one day the women of the next century will look back on us in the same way, perhaps seeing only our weaknesses without trying to understand the world we lived in or the values we held dear.
Still, this book taught me many, nuanced, and interesting details about missionary life in China among American women at the turn-of-the-last-century. I'm grateful for that.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews