The Leipzig and Liebenzell Missions: The Service of Hildegard Prozell and Lilija Otīlija Grīviņa

Kristīna Ēce

Doctoral student at the Faculty of Theology, University of Latvia Mg. missiol., Mg. theol.

Introduction

Mission and the history of mission have been studied less than other fields of theology. What has been studied is for the most part written by men and from a male point of view. This is often bound up with a male-dominated institutional church that carried deep within itself ideas about power, authority and office, and within such a scheme there was often simply no place for women. Right up until the 19th century, women were not really regarded as fit for mission work, yet as the Leipzig Mission Society (LMS) carried out its mission work in India, an understanding emerged that, in order to reach the women of India with the Gospel, women had to be involved in the mission work. Other mission societies located in Germany and sending missionaries to various corners of the world — for example to China, Indonesia and various African countries — arrived at a similar understanding. Thus the story of women in this process is an integral part of 19th-century mission history. Women’s roles were usually defined, restricted and insufficiently acknowledged, yet women’s contribution to mission work was very significant. Even though resistance to women’s mission was frequently met with from church structures, it was precisely this field of the church that was the most open to women.

Women from Latvia encountered similar prejudices. While the first male missionaries from the territory of Latvia were sent as early as the 17th century, and in the 19th century there were several, the first women set out on mission only at the very end of the 19th century. In the period up to 1926, 14 male missionaries and 7 female missionaries were sent from Courland and Livonia (33% of all the missionaries sent from the territory of Latvia). This study will examine and compare the mission service of only two women. Hildegard Prozell (Hildegard Prozell), a Baltic German from Jaunmārupe, was sent through the Leipzig Mission Society to serve in India. Lilija Otīlija Grīviņa from Riga was sent to serve in China through the Liebenzell Mission Society (LbMS). Accordingly, these mission societies will be compared — how they prepared, sent and financed their female missionaries, and what opportunities for service they offered — by assessing the work of the two women mentioned, as well as what resonance it brought to the Latvian- and German-reading society of the time in Riga and its surroundings. 

The study primarily draws on Prozell’s letters and other documents available in the LMS archive in Halle. This archive is quite extensive and provides insight into her service and daily life. Concerning Grīviņa, materials are mainly available in the foreign-mission materials of the Roberts Feldmanis Library (RFLFM), as well as in the LbM archives. However, in both archives the information is very scarce. According to LbM archivist Udo Schmitt (Udo Schmitt), Grīviņa’s file in Liebenzell is very small and contains very little material. It holds only a few documents, mostly connected with internal communication with the mission director, and they are confidential. Grīviņa also did not write mission letters, or else they have been completely lost. Likewise, printed publications produced in the territory of Latvia — newspapers and journals — have been studied. There are no other studies of the missionaries mentioned, but the service of German women in China has been studied by Beate Eulenhöfer-Mann (Beate Eulenhöfer-Mann)^[1]. There is more research on the service of British and American women in mission, but it provides a different context. 

Missionary Hildegard Prozell – a short biography before and after her service in India

Hildegard Prozell (Hildegard Prozell) was born on 9 August 1869 in Jaunmārupe (Schwarzeckhof), near Riga, into the family of a landowner (Gutsbesitzers), as the second of four children. In 1879 she moved to Riga to live with her aunt and studied at the higher girls’ school (Höhere Töchterschule I Ordnung), which she completed in 1886 with the right to teach. In 1887 she was confirmed by senior pastor Gaehtgens (Theophil Gaehtgens) at Riga Cathedral congregation. After confirmation she spent two years at home, looking after the children of her father’s poor tenant families, gathering them for daily activities. When her father’s financial situation worsened, her parents had to sell the property, and her mother became the head of the Magdalene Asylum in Riga in 1895.^[2] Consequently, in 1889 Hildegard went to work as a governess in various places in Russia.^[3]

Prozell notes that both her schooling and her confirmation instruction helped to strengthen her in the Christian faith, and that the guiding motive of her life was to strive to live in accordance with the knowledge she had gained about Christianity. She does not mention exactly how her interest in mission work began, only that she has a love for mission work and that she hopes to find her life’s calling in mission service. She had prayed to God about it for all the years while she worked as a teacher in various places. She remarks that “the time of waiting has been very long, often even hard, but it has brought many blessings to my inner being.”^[4]

From the available materials it is not possible to determine precisely what made it possible to join the mission exactly in 1896, but her last place of work was Tver in Russia, and from there she received an excellent reference for her work and her pedagogical abilities.^[5] Prozell applied to the LMS, and pastor Cleemann (Gustav Bernhard Christian Cleemann) wrote a recommendation in February 1896. It is very positive, noting that Hildegard’s Christianity is pure, deep and heartfelt, that “she is a living branch on Christ’s vine, drawing sap and strength from Him, with a rich and deep life of faith, a fervent love for the Lord, and a fervent desire to lead the lost, poor, blind heathen to Him.”^[6] The pastor is nonetheless cautious and notes that the character traits mentioned do not yet prove that Hildegard is truly suited to mission service. It must be admitted that such a recommendation does not fully reveal a person’s true character, but knowing the general resistance to women in service, one may assume that, once the pastor gave an excellent recommendation, he considered Hildegard fit for mission work. She was admitted to the LMS in May 1896, and in September of the same year she was sent to work in the mission in India as a teacher, where she served until 1909. 

Service in India was too great a strain on Prozell’s body; because of Bright’s disease^[7] she had to leave India. She became a professional LMS worker in Russia. In the period from 1909 to 1911 she serves in Sevastopol and Yalta in the German Evangelical congregations.^[8] The outbreak of the First World War affected the German mission societies, including the LMS, very profoundly. Contact was broken both with the mission areas, where some missionaries were deported, and with non-German countries such as Russia. In October 1917 the LMS director Paul (Carl Paul) writes that for more than three years there had been no news from Prozell.^[9] Hildegard had gone home on leave and afterwards was no longer able to continue her service.^[10] Because of all the political uncertainty, Prozell retires on 1 November 1917.^[11]

After the war, when it was finally possible, Prozell came to Leipzig together with her sister, and there the LMS found them a place to live and serve by Lake Constance.^[12] With that her connection with the Baltics also comes to an end, but until the end of her life she continues to work in home mission in Germany. When her strength waned, she supported the mission house and continued to intercede for the work in India. She was able to kindle in others a love for mission work.^[13] Hildegard Prozell departed into Eternity on 8 March 1948 in Spangenberg (Spangenberg), Germany, at the age of 78.^[14]

Missionary Lilija Otīlija Grīviņa – a short biography before and after her service in China

This missionary’s surname is written in German in several ways – Grihwin, Griwing, and also Griewing, which makes searching in various sources cumbersome. Her first name, too, is written both as Lilli Ottilie and as Lily Ottilie, and in Latvian periodicals often only the first letter of the name is used.

Lilija Otīlija Grīviņa was born in Riga on 25 December 1883. Her father Jēkabs (Jacob) was a railway official, her mother Karolīna Marija (Caroline Marie) was a homemaker. Lilija was educated at the Tailova Gymnasium, where the language of instruction was Russian^[15], while she was confirmed on 2 June 1902 at the Jesus Church among the German confirmands.^[16] On finishing the gymnasium, Lilija had the right to teach, but she works in Riga as a clerk and bookkeeper at a small construction firm. Later, however, she works as a governess in the family of the prominent building contractor Pēteris Radziņš.^[17]

The most extensive information about Grīviņa’s activity before the mission, as well as her impulse toward mission, is her own written testimony, published in the LbM journal in 1913, after her ordination for mission work but before setting out there. She had the opportunity to reflect on her previous years and to bring a certain stage of her life to a close.^[18] Although she had been connected with the Lutheran church and had been confirmed, by her own testimony she considered that for twenty-one years she had served herself, and she regarded this as hard work. Grīviņa also notes that she had asked herself the philosophical questions about the meaning of life, but at that time found no answers.

She regarded the turning point in her life as her going to an evangelization service of the Evangelical Temperance Society (Evangelischen Nüchternheits Verein). The first visit was on 20 September 1905, and after that she attended every meeting. There she felt as though someone had removed a veil from her eyes, and her heart opened to the sound of the Word of God. In this way she gained a living faith in Jesus Christ, which before that had been only theoretical knowledge.^[19]The Spirit of God worked in her life, and in the Bible she found answers to many of her questions, including the question of the meaning of life. 

The main impulse toward mission came from reading the Liebenzell mission journal “Chinas Millionen“.^[20] From Grīviņa’s testimony it is possible to infer that this happened in 1905 or 1906. She acquired a desire to become a missionary. “The desire to serve the Lord among the heathen grew stronger in me.”^[21] She received the final confirmation after she had read a book about the Chinese missionary martyrs.^[22]

Setting out for Liebenzell, however, did not happen at once. Grīviņa herself writes that great obstacles stood before her.^[23] More detailed information about the difficulties can be found in a letter by the man who later became her husband. He writes that her parents strongly opposed this decision of Grīviņa’s, and that the pastor of Riga’s Jesus Evangelical Lutheran congregation also supported them in this. The parents considered it a great disgrace if their daughter were to become a missionary.^[24] Grīviņa’s studies in Liebenzell lasted five years (1908–1913), and her mission service in China lasted eleven years (1913–1924). 

In 1925 Grīviņa came to Riga on leave and soon afterwards became engaged to Jūlijs Spalis and left mission service. Jūlijs Spalis was a speaker of the Moravian Brethren congregations and organized meetings in Riga’s seaside district, in Majori, at 66a Robežu Street.^[25] Judging by newspaper publications, as well as by what Spalis wrote, after returning from China Grīviņa from time to time led Bible and mission hours.^[26] Many announcements about the leading of mission and Bible hours in Majori in the Moravian Brethren congregation are to be found in 1932, especially in May around Pentecost.^[27] On New Year’s Eve 1933, Grīviņa — now Mrs. Spalle — organized a mission evening with a showing of “light pictures” (images shown with a projection apparatus) in the hall of the Bauska state gymnasium.^[28] Spalis further mentions that at the end of the 1930s Lilija Otīlija was invited to hold mission meetings in various congregations, and that she also led Bible studies every month in the Tukums Evangelical Lutheran congregation right up to 1941.^[29] In conclusion, Spalis notes that his wife could not find paid work in the Lutheran church, and so she learned typewriting and earned a little with it in several trading companies, and during the German occupation she was an interpreter in a German institution.^[30] In the last year of her life Lilija Otīlija was ill, and she spent her last two months in the 1st Riga City Hospital, where she departed into eternity on Pentecost day, 28 May 1944, at the age of 60.

 

The Leipzig and Liebenzell Missions

No separate book has been written about the Leipzig Mission Society and its history, so the best source is the history of German Lutheran mission written in 1936 by the German theologian Paul Fleisch (Paul Feisch)^[31]. This mission society was originally founded in Dresden in 1836 as the Lutheran mission “Ev. -Luth. Missionsgesellschaft zu Dresden“. This mission society received broad support from various traditional Lutheran lands and aid organizations in Hanover, Hamburg, Bavaria, Braunschweig, as well as in southern Russia, the Baltics, Denmark and Sweden^[32], and thereby it became one of the largest mission societies in Germany. Its first official director was Dr. Karl Graul (Karl Friedrich Leberecht Graul) in the period from 1844 to 1859, who essentially also shaped this mission society into what it later became. Graul believed that education and scholarship were necessary, and for that reason the mission seminary and the society were moved to the university city of Leipzig. Its name was changed to the “Leipzig Evangelical Lutheran Mission Society,” or “Leipzig Mission.”^[33]Emphasis was placed on Lutheran theology, including in thinking about mission work, with a desire to build one worldwide Lutheran church. The LMS was a legally independent organization that cooperated with the territorial (state) churches, but its finances came mainly from donations.^[34]

The LMS’s first mission field was southern India. In the 1840s the LMS took over what was left of the old Danish-Halle mission, thereby expanding the Lutheran witness in India. As mission work was carried out in India, women’s mission service developed. It was the LMS that promoted the involvement of women.^[35] The Swedish missionaries who were part of the LMS especially emphasized women’s service. It was first discussed at the 28th synod in 1889, and everyone unanimously agreed that such service was needed. After this decision, Bible women were hired right there in India (1891). At the same time, the first woman LMS missionary was the Swede Esther Peterson (Esther Peterson), who arrived in India in 1890^[36], and who was Prozell’s colleague when she arrived there. The first German woman missionary arrived in 1891.^[37]

The Liebenzell Mission was founded as the German branch of the China Inland Mission (CIM, China Inland Mission). The CIM was founded in England in 1865 as an international and interdenominational Christian mission organization. Its founder, Hudson Taylor (Hudson Taylor), had previously visited China in 1854 as a representative of the China Evangelization Society (China Evangelization Society).^[38] Whereas the LMS worked with the support of the Lutheran church and organized joint collection of donations in order to send missionaries, the CIM began a new approach, which it called “faith mission.” The CIM was not specifically tied to any particular denomination or church, and its missionaries did not receive a fixed salary; instead, the workers had to trust God for their finances. The mission’s friends had the task of praying to God for the missionaries, that He would release the finances, and it was not permitted to express financial requests. Several mission organizations adopted this model at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, including the Liebenzell Mission.^[39]

There is not very much research on the Liebenzell Mission itself. On the one hand, the most complete overview of the mission’s activity can be obtained from the book published by the organization itself for the mission’s centenary, “Mit Gott von Mensch zu Mensch“. On the other hand, one must be aware that the information described in this source is one-sided, showing only the positive features, the mission’s successes, and pointing only to those difficulties for which a solution has been found. Nevertheless, the basic facts are accurate, as other sources also confirm. 

The founder of the LbM, Heinrich Coerper (Heinrich Coerper), was born into a pastor’s family and in his youth studied theology in Halle, Tübingen, Utrecht, Berlin and Bonn. In Halle he encountered the Pietist tradition and his first thoughts about mission work. In Bonn he studied under Professor Christlieb (Theodor Christlieb). At Christlieb’s invitation, Coerper worked as a lecturer at the evangelists’ school “Johanneum.” Coerper was a pastor in Heidelberg and Essen. In Essen he became acquainted with the organization “Blue Cross” and supported the anti-alcohol movement.^[40] This connection would later prove significant in the life of missionary Grīviņa. Coerper responded to the call to found a German branch of the CIM. Thus, on 13 November 1899 in Hamburg, a mission organization was founded as a branch of the CIM. After some time it turned out that the Hamburg building was no longer being leased, and in April 1902 the mission moved to Liebenzell, which is located in the Black Forest. Accordingly, from 1902 it became the Liebenzell Mission, and from 1906 the mission’s official name was Liebenzeller Mission im Verband der China-Inland-Mission, Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung, Sitz in Liebenzell.^[41]

These theological differences — the LMS as a strictly confessional Lutheran mission and the LbMS as a “faith” mission — fostered different understandings of the preparation, sending and service of women missionaries in the mission field. Next, the differing experiences that both missionaries underwent are examined. 

The preparation and sending of missionaries for service

Both mission societies required of unmarried women a parental permission and a pastor’s recommendation. A very interesting historical fact is that both missionaries had one and the same pastor who provided the recommendation. Nothing is known about the parental permission for Prozell, but there is clear testimony that pastor Cleemann (at that time in the Piņķi congregation) provided an excellent recommendation. Even though Prozell was the first woman missionary from Livonia, Cleemann evidently had no objections to her service, since it took place through the LMS, which was a significant Lutheran mission society in Germany. 

Later Cleemann is pastor at Riga’s Jesus congregation (1906–1919)^[42] and initially he opposed Grīviņa’s wish to go and study in Liebenzell, even though he had supported Prozell several years earlier. The reason for his doubt may have been that the LbMS operated on different theological principles. However, later, when in Germany he gathered information about this mission society — that its head was an ordained pastor, Coerper, and that it cooperated with the Lutheran congregations of southern Germany — he changed his mind.^[43]The pastor’s blessing was received, in the end the parents also agreed, and Lilija was able to go and study in Liebenzell.

Prozell becomes an LMS missionary in May 1896. In Leipzig she is received by the mission director von Schwartz and his wife, with whom a very close and heartfelt relationship developed, about which one can read both in her first letters when she had just set out for the mission field^[44] and later. The months in Leipzig are spent learning the Tamil language, until on 13 September 1896 she receives her letter of appointment (Vocation). The appointment states that Prozell is called to be a teacher in the Tamil mission service in East India. She is expected to be able to master the language within approximately two years, so that she can fully serve in her calling.^[45] Accordingly, from Prozell’s experience one may conclude that the LMS placed great emphasis on learning the local language, but since she had the right to teach, no other training was really carried out. Prozell sets out for the mission after only four months of training. 

The LbMS had a completely different approach. So that missionaries could serve successfully in the mission fields, education was very important. Dr. Eisinger (Thomas Eisinger) has carried out a study of the LbM seminary. He, too, notes that the first sister (“sisters” and “brothers” were the terms used in the mission) entered the seminary as early as January 1900, and at first there were irregular classes in Bible subjects and the learning of English. Officially, classes at the LbM seminary began on 2 October 1900 for three sisters and five brothers. Eisinger notes that much attention was devoted both to study classes and to community-building and practical work. Training at the LbM was usually two years and no longer than three.^[46] As Klaus Fiedler (Klaus Fiedler) notes in his study of faith missions, Coerper, drawing on the CIM tradition, held that both men and women, both ordained pastors and laypeople, were fit for mission work. Accordingly, in Liebenzell brothers and sisters were trained together, in one program. Since this was untraditional, such a form of education sometimes provoked a certain resistance.^[47] Accordingly, one may conclude that, although the early missionary education program is not available, the training lasted 2–3 years, men and women together. Brothers and sisters also had practical work duties, and the brothers had to look after the cleanliness of their own rooms.^[48] This helped to prepare well for the challenges of practical life in China, and as early as 31 December 1899 the theology candidate Heinrich Witt (Heinrich Witt) was sent to the mission, arriving in China in March 1900.^[49]

Both the LbM archive and Grīviņa herself in her testimony note that she began her studies in Liebenzell in November 1908.^[50]So, some two to three years passed from receiving the calling. Her period of training ended in January 1912^[51], which is consistent with the 3-year training period mentioned above. Since she already had a teacher’s education, one may assume that she studied Bible subjects more, as well as languages and an understanding of Chinese culture, as other sources report.^[52] Grīviņa herself values this time as blessed, that during it she came to know both her own heart and to build a closer relationship with her Lord and Teacher.^[53] Of course, it must be understood that this was written marking her installation into office, so that such a text would not reveal information about the difficulties experienced. But since after her training Grīviņa continued for a year of practical training and later set out to serve as a missionary, one may assume that overall her experience in the LbM house was positive.

After completing her theoretical training, Grīviņa served a probationary period, first in Müllheim (Müllheim) in Baden from February to September 1912 and in Niederlausitz (Niedrlausitz) from January to June 1913^[54], as well as serving in Russia.^[55] Then Grīviņa returned to Liebenzell, continued her service in Niederlausitz, and was soon ready to set out for China. On 7 September 1913 her training was completed and Grīviņa was consecrated for missionary service.^[56]

From what has been studied, one may conclude that the two mission societies used different strategies. Prozell’s training period was only four months, but Grīviņa’s almost five years, even though both had the right to teach. The LMS adhered to the strict boundaries of the Lutheran confession and expected this of its missionaries. The LbMS was a faith mission, even though it cooperated with the Lutheran churches in Germany, and it used methods of missionary preparation that were radical for the time. 

Mission work in India

The first period of service 1896–1903. Madura and Coimbatore 

Prozell arrived in India on 16 October 1896 in the port city of Tranquebar (Tranquebar, now Tharangambadi), where she was met by the leaders of the church council (Kirchenrat) and given instructions to go to Madura (Madura, now Madurai), to learn the Tamil language and to become acquainted with the schools already in existence, so that she could later take over the mission boarding school (Kostschule) there.

In her first year of work she is kindly received in Madura into the family of the Swedish missionaries Blomstrand (Blomstrand), who frequently offer friendly advice both in daily life and in service. Her days are mostly spent learning the Tamil language at least four hours a day with a language teacher, or munshi. Prozell has to admit that the language is difficult. The rest of the time she works at the boarding school. She tries to practice the new words she has learned by spending time together with the children.^[57] Nevertheless, she gradually manages to master the language far enough to be able to lead religion lessons with Bible stories.^[58] Likewise, she has the opportunity to become acquainted with other missionaries who serve in similar positions, only at other schools.^[59]

After passing the language examination, a broad field of work opens up for Prozell in Madura. Even before that, on 1 November 1897, Mrs. Blomstrand entrusts Prozell with far more duties at the boarding school.^[60] This meant keeping track of the children’s examinations, preparing Christmas gifts for them, communicating with parents, and carrying out other administrative matters. At that time there are 43 children in her care, as well as three teachers and other school staff. She carries out reforms at the school, dismisses the cook and one teacher, which causes certain problems, since the remaining staff, too, are not satisfied with the new order.^[61] To be a missionary in India at that time meant being not only a teacher, which was Prozell’s main task, but also being a local nurse and treating the children’s simpler illnesses^[62]. Accordingly, both the formal education demanded by the British administration and informal knowledge in various areas of life were needed, in order to be able to help in the broadest possible way. In September 1898 Hildegard also begins work with the Indian Bible women and starts zenana service (the zenana is the part of an Indian house in which the women reside), visiting non-Christian women three times a week, three hours each time.^[63] This service becomes very important in Prozell’s work.

In 1901 the LMS makes changes in its areas of service. This is also explained in more detail to the mission’s supporters in Riga. “Madura is one of those stations that have now been grouped as the ‘Swedish diocese.’ Therefore Miss Esther Peterson (Ester Peterson), as a Swede, was transferred after the New Year from Coimbatore to Madura and exchanged spheres of activity with Miss Prozell.”^[64] The work begun and the relationships established with the Indian women in Madura have to be left behind in order to begin a new service in Coimbatore. But the field of activity does not change — in Coimbatore, too, she leads a school for children and instructs non-Christian women. Fleisch notes that it was precisely Prozell who began the women’s work in Coimbatore.^[65] In Coimbatore 43 non-Christian women were studying in the zenana instruction, and for one Bible woman, who was moreover already 60 years old, it was impossible to instruct them all. Accordingly, she asks the LMS collegium to find funding that would make it possible to train more quickly at least one more Bible woman who would help in the instruction work. She proposes to carry out an educational experiment — to train some women who are willing and who have potential, to give them a slightly higher status in the congregation, and after two years of training to pass an examination before the church council.^[66] The LMS approved this idea, and as early as 1902 special courses for Bible women were planned, which Prozell herself was to lead, but because of her illness this did not come about.^[67]

Prozell’s reports of 1903 do not indicate major health problems, but from time to time she mentions the hot climate of Madura and Coimbatore, which is not very healthy for Europeans. The most popular places for holidays were in the mountains, usually either Yercaud (Yercaud) or Kodaikanal (Kodaikanal), which were somewhat cooler. Prozell wrote: “The heat is a serious obstacle to clear, sharp thinking; and for me twice as much, because I have to overcome its effect not only on me, but also on my Munschi (language teacher), and that is truly exhausting work.”^[68] Nevertheless, in May 1903 Prozell is compelled to request leave in Europe, because she has developed a vein disease, as a doctor confirms.^[69] In her June letter, too, she writes that she needs recuperation.^[70] The request for leave is approved, and in the second half of 1903 Prozell travels home to Europe via Cairo, and she sends her next letter to the LMS already from Zasumuiža (Sassenhof) in the vicinity of Zasulauks on 28 December.^[71] With that her first period of service in India comes to an end.

The second period of service 1905–1908. Mayavaram

While on the ship on the way to India, on 26 September 1905 Prozell, full of hope, writes that all is well with her health and that her physical strength is sufficient.^[72] After her first, fairly successful, period of service in Coimbatore, Prozell was sent to Mayavaram (Mayavaram, now Mayiladuthurai). In this city women’s work began only in 1905, when Prozell started it. This city had ancient Hindu traditions and fanatical adherents of them, yet Prozell was able to establish three girls’ schools with 180 pupils and zenana classes in 12 families.^[73] The first two schools were established already at the end of 1905, but the school in Mayavaram itself was opened in mid-January 1906.^[74]

A great challenge for Prozell was to ensure that all three schools were officially registered and recognized by the British government. In February 1907 the Tiruvilandur and Kornat schools obtained government registration, but the Mayavaram school did not receive registration. However, Prozell did not give up, and was able to demonstrate to the inspection that the Mayavaram school had the largest number of pupils and the best academic achievements, and she went to Madras to the inspectors of the authorities until she received registration.^[75]

In 1908 Prozell notes that all three schools have been able to carry out excellent educational work and in this way have found a path to the parents’ hearts.^[76] The distrust that initially existed in Mayavaram was overcome.^[77] From this overview it is possible to conclude that during three years of service Prozell managed to fulfill the task given by the LMS, to establish schools and in this way to preach the Christian message to Indian girls. 

The work in the zenanas can be assessed similarly. At first the work is very arduous; Prozell has only one Bible woman to help her, and in the first months it was possible to visit only three Brahmin families and three more women of other castes. The geographical conditions also create difficulties for the zenana work — a limited number of roads and water obstacles.^[78]

As already mentioned above, in order to promote the zenana work and to train new Bible women, Prozell tried to prepare a Bible women’s course. Initially, however, the doubt is raised not by her health or by a lack of suitable candidates, but by a lack of teaching materials.^[79] Because of the lack of training, in 1908 Prozell has to admit that the zenana work has not been as successful as the school work. At the same time, she sees that here, too, the initial difficulties have been overcome, and that the zenana work is promising and growing, and already resembles what it was in Madura eight years earlier.^[80]

In Prozell’s second period of service, an essential obstacle and problem is her health. The Riga doctors had already said that the second time she would not be able to endure in India for as long as the first time.^[81] The first health problems, which manifested as “an indescribable lack of energy and fatigue,” appear as early as half a year after her arrival in Mayavaram. A month later still, Prozell is compelled to write that she has to rest more and to hand over part of her work to another missionary.^[82] In the spring of 1908 Prozell begins to realize that her strength will probably run short and that she will have to go back to Europe.^[83] However, by December she already knows that these are her last Christmas in India.^[84]

This second period of service shows that Prozell was able to show initiative and was ready to begin service in a new place. The establishment of three schools testifies to good administrative skills and the ability to operate both within Indian culture and within the British bureaucratic system. The establishment of the zenana work in Mayavaram is also to be regarded as successful, despite the initial resistance from the local inhabitants. This period coincides with a time of unrest and change in the territory of Latvia, which affects both Prozell’s emotional state and the financial support from Riga. Because of her state of health, after 3.5 years she has to leave India and continue her service within the LMS as a mission lecturer in southern Russia.

Mission work in China

To reach China, Grīviņa traveled via Switzerland, where she held well-attended meetings^[85], to Genoa, where she boarded a ship on 2 October 1913.^[86] At first, for one year from May 1914 to May 1915, Grīviņa was in Hengchow, in Hunan province, where an LbM station was located.^[87] Not much is known about this time — only that she studied the Chinese language and took examinations so that she could afterwards work as a teacher.^[88] Eulenhöfer-Mann notes that in order to be able to communicate sufficiently with the local people, the missionaries had to master the Chinese language and, depending on the region, the local dialects. Missionaries who were assigned to a school for the blind also learned Chinese Braille. Women had to pass six examinations, which usually took place over two years. Knowledge of the language was considered an indisputable requirement in the German mission societies, including the LbM.^[89] Grīviņa passed her sixth language examination in March 1917^[90], almost three years after arriving in China. Since Grīviņa worked in a school for the blind, one can assert fairly confidently that she successfully mastered both the Chinese language and Chinese Braille. 

From 1915 right up to 1925, Grīviņa worked in Changsha^[91]. Judging by the letters written by Grīviņa, for the next seven years she worked at the school for blind girls maintained by the LbM. Grīviņa writes on 7 July 1915 that she works at the school for the blind.^[92]

The next news comes two years later, when Grīviņa describes her service in somewhat more detail. She mentions that at that time there are 31 children in the school for the blind, and that there would be very many more blind children who would like to be at the school, but, unfortunately, that is not possible. Further, she writes about the evangelization activities in Changsha in February 1917. The evangelization took place in pairs, with each missionary pair going into a designated area and visiting every house and telling about Jesus. On the whole the attitude was said to have been positive, with a few exceptions. In this way the missionaries managed to reach with the Gospel families that had not been reached before. Likewise, the missionaries organized women’s afternoons, which were well attended. At the end of the letter she expresses joy that she has passed the last Chinese language examination, which will now give her more time for the work at the school and with the women.^[93]  

Judging by the publications, in the autumn of 1922 Grīviņa had moved to work at the Hunan Bible Institute, led by Dr. Frank Keller (Frank A. Keller), who was a CIM missionary doctor. Since he had experienced xenophobia and the expulsion and killing of Western missionaries, it was very important to Keller to train local Chinese evangelists. The first Chinese missionaries were sent out in evangelization in July 1909. This strategy was successful, and over the following years groups of missionaries were sent to various regions of Hunan. In order to train these missionaries better, in 1916 the Hunan Bible School — later institute — was opened, in cooperation with the Bible Institute of Los Angeles (Biola). Keller’s wife, Elizabeth (E. Elizabeth Keller), supervised the training of women missionaries.^[94] Dr. Keller needed helpers, especially in the training of women.

In 1922, 117 students, both men and women, were studying at the Hunan Bible Institute.^[95] In her letter of 27 February 1923 Grīviņa writes that every day she teaches 3 hours of Bible instruction and also music. In February 1923, during the Chinese New Year, the students had a month-long holiday, which was used for evangelization activities.^[96] Keller notes that the students were very glad of their service and that they had seen that people gladly received them into their homes and listened to what they had to tell.

Grīviņa herself also gives testimony about this winter evangelization period, which was the thing that worked well. She had personally visited two of the three mission stations where women served, Tongshan (Tongshan) and Pehchiashan (Pehchiashan).^[97]Since this was the first time that women missionaries were sent into service, and it was successful, such evangelization work continued also during the institute’s summer holiday in 1923.^[98]

Both Grīviņa and Keller conclude that women’s mission work is just as successful as men’s, and sometimes even better. The explanation is quite simple — while women talk with women, Chinese cultural tradition allows men, too, to come and listen. But if a man visits the house, the women have to leave the room.^[99]

To summarize, from the available material one may conclude that Grīviņa had opportunities to serve successfully in China in the period from early 1914 right up to the end of 1924. Eleven productive years of work in the school for blind girls and at the Hunan Bible Institute, training Chinese women missionaries.

On the whole, one may conclude that both missionaries were able to serve successfully in their mission fields, working as teachers. Both showed initiative and were creative in their service. A missionary, both in India and in China, was at once a teacher, an administrator and a household manager, and also a provider of medical aid to children — Prozell writes more about this, but one may assume that Grīviņa served in this way too. On the one hand, one might say that there was no great difference whether a missionary was trained for 4 months or 5 years; both were successful. But it must be noted that in China the political situation was considerably more complicated and unstable, and the lives of missionaries there were endangered much more. Accordingly, one may assume that Grīviņa’s long training gave her the opportunity to rely more on God even in difficult situations. 

Publicity and echoes in the homeland

In her service, Prozell was able to receive support from her homeland. Prozell was a Baltic German; her family was at first well-off. Her pastor Cleemann and also the provost of the Riga district, Gaehtgens, who was interested in foreign mission, supported Prozell and her service. Her mother, too, became very actively involved in her service — both helping to coordinate the sending of donations and helping to obtain documents in place of a lost educational document. 

This interaction with the homeland also fosters the formation of an understanding of mission work in Riga. In order to support Prozell’s service, a women’s mission support society was established, and mission evenings and conferences were organized. In both periods of service the Rigasches Kirchenblatt regularly publishes both Prozell’s letters and overviews compiled by provost Gaehtgens from private letters.^[100] Even though others had set out as missionaries before Prozell, it seems that it was precisely Prozell’s service that received great attention in the printed press, so that a large part of society, which read in German, had the opportunity to learn about mission service in India, and especially women’s service in particular, which was a novelty at that time. Prozell, as the first woman from the territory of Latvia, had great influence and recognition during her service. There are not as many publications in Latvian about Prozell’s work as in German, yet such do exist as well. In 1898,^[101] 1899^[102] and 1903.^[103]

Grīviņa’s story is different. One may say that Grīviņa was not a prominent or widely known person in society whose setting out for mission work would provoke a broad resonance. As far as can be understood from the available sources, Grīviņa’s setting out for the mission was rather a private undertaking, which in the end was supported by her parents and the pastor of the Jesus congregation. One of the reasons would be that she was active in a less traditional mission society. 

Another reason for the lack of publicity is certainly connected with the historical situation. Prozell’s service took place before the First World War. The Russian Empire experienced upheavals in the 1905 revolution, but society had the time and the opportunity to read letters from the mission field and to support this service financially. Grīviņa’s service took place at a time when her native land was undergoing enormous changes. When she set out for Germany for training in 1908 and for the mission in China in 1913, she was a citizen of the Russian Empire from Riga. When she returned to Riga at the beginning of 1925, she arrived in the independent Republic of Latvia. Europe had lived through the First World War, and Latvia, which had declared its independence, had lived through the Bermontian campaign. In such a historical situation, the Latvian Lutherans had little interest in some missionary somewhere far away in China.

Conclusion

The mission societies examined had a different approach to the selection, preparation and sending of missionaries. The aims of mission work, however, were similar, and the methods of work were also similar. Missionaries had to be able to master the local language and to be able to understand the local culture, as well as the political situation. 

In the mission history of Latvia, much has been lost. Prozell’s service is attested by the many archival materials in Halle and by publications in newspapers. Grīviņa’s life and service are attested only by a single photograph and a few publications in a periodical published in Germany. Both of them have been undeservedly forgotten. Prozell, perhaps, because before the independent Latvia was established, she had already set out for Germany and carried out her further service there. Grīviņa, perhaps, because her service took place under very difficult conditions and there is little testimony about it. Yet both Hildegard Prozell and Lilija Otīlija Grīviņa have a significant role in this mission history, because they were able to overcome obstacles and were able to respond to the call of God they had felt. They were among the few who dared. 

---

1. ^[1] Beate Eulenhöfer-Mann, Frauen mit Mission. Deutsche Missionarinnen in China (1891-1914) (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2010).
2. ^[2] Marina Loseviča and Vladimirs Kuzņecovs, “Magdalēnas patversme Rīgā. Riga Magdalene Asylum,” Latvijas Universitātes Raksti 800 (2014): 135–157.
3. ^[3] Hildegard Prozell, “Autobiography”, Frankesche Stiftungen zu Halle. ALMW II/31-1/143, Nr. 301, Apr. 1896. Hereafter, references use only the archive file number, document number and date, where available.
4. ^[4] Prozell, autobiography.
5. ^[5] Marie Haas, “Recommendation”,. ALMW II/31-1/143, Nr. 303, 23 Feb. 1896.
6. ^[6] Gustav Cleemann, “Recommendation”, ALMW II/31-1/143, Nr. 302, 24 Feb. 1896.
7. ^[7] O. Strall, “Doctor’s certificate”, ALMW II/31-1/143, Nr. 126, 18 Aug. 1908.
8. ^[8] ALMW II/31-1/143, Nr. 79-119 and Direktorium der Leipziger Mission. “Leipziger Misison. Aus Der Misison.” Rigasches Kirchenblatt, 2 Jan. 1910: 8–10.
9. ^[9] ALMW II/31-1/143, Nr. 55, 28 Oct. 1917.
10. ^[10] Paul Fleisch, Hundert Jahre lutherischer Mission. (Leipzig: Verlag der Evangelisch-lutherischen Mission, 1936), 311.
11. ^[11] Although Fleisch. Hundert Jahre, 313 gives the year 1918, this is erroneous, since the archive holds a letter from the LMS director Paul to Prozell, in which the payment of salary is indicated, and there he states that Prozell begins to receive a pension from 01.11.1917. ALMW II/31-1/143, Nr. 57, 17 Nov. 1917.
12. ^[12] ALMW II/31-1/143, Nr. 42, 29 Oct. 1919.
13. ^[13] ALMW II/31-1/143, Nr. 2, 27 Apr. 1948.
14. ^[14] ALMW II/31-1/143, Nr. 1, 12 March 1949.
15. ^[15] Roberts Feldmanis, “On Lilija Otīlija Grīviņa”, n.d. Folder No. 11. Foreign-mission materials of the Roberts Feldmanis Library (RFLFM) and Jūlijs Spalis, “Letter to pastor R. Feldmanis”, 26 Apr. 1945. Folder No. 11. RFLFM.
16. ^[16] Feldmanis, op. cit.
17. ^[17] Spalis, op. cit.
18. ^[18] Lily Griwing, “Bericht über die Abordnungsfeier. Abendversammlung,” Chinas Millionen 9, Nov. 1913: 248–249.
19. ^[19] Griwing, “Beriht”, op.cit., 248.
20. ^[20] The LbM founder Coerper had become acquainted with the activity of the Blue Cross in Germany. It seems that this cooperation continued in Riga as well.
21. ^[21] Griwing, “Beriht”, op.cit., 248.
22. ^[22] P. H.Coerper, Chinas Märtyrer. Blätter der Erinnerung an eine große Zeit. Aus der Christen Verfolgung in China in den Jahren 1900/01, 2nd ed. (St. Johannis Druckerei. Zweig Liebenzell: Dinglingen. China Inland Mission, 1902).
23. ^[23] Griwing, “Beriht”, op.cit., 248.
24. ^[24] Spalis, op. cit.
25. ^[25] Gundars Ceipe, Latvijas Brāļu draudzes vēsture 1918-1940 (Rīga: LU Akadēmiskais apgāds, 2010), 220.
26. ^[26] “Kirchlische Nachrichten,” Rigasche Rundschau, 13 Feb. 1925: 8.
27. ^[27] “Dievkalpojumi Rīgā. Svētdien, 8. maijā”, Jaunākās Ziņas, 7 May 1932: 6 and “Dievkalpojumi Vasarsvētkos Rīgā. 1. Vasarsvētkos, 15. maijā”, Jaunākās Ziņas, 14 May 1932: 7.
28. ^[28] “Ziemas svētku svinēšana ar svētdienas skolēniem”, Bauskas Vēstnesis, 22 Dec. 1933: 3 and “Gaismas bildes par Ķīnu”, Bauskas Vēstnesis, 29 Dec. 1933: 3.
29. ^[29] Spalis, op. cit.
30. ^[30] Spalis, op. cit.
31. ^[31] Fleisch, Hundert Jahre.
32. ^[32] Fleisch, Hundert Jahre, 3-7.
33. ^[33] Fleisch, Hundert Jahre, 19-21.
34. ^[34] Fleisch, Hundert Jahre, 21.
35. ^[35] J. Mallika Punniyavathi, “Contribution of Swedish Missionaries for Women’s Development in the Field of Social Recognition in Tamilnadu (India),” Research on Humanities and Social Sciences 5.3 (2015): 65–73.
36. ^[36] Fleisch, Hundert Jahre, 199.
37. ^[37] Fleisch, Hundert Jahre, 199.
38. ^[38] R. G. Tiedemann, Reference Guide to Missionary Societies in China. From the 16th to the 20th Centuries. (Armonk, New York: M. E. Sharpe, Inc., 2009), 137.
39. ^[39] John Wolffe, and Richard V. Pierard, “Europe and North America,” in Global Evangelicalism: Theology, History and Culture in Regional Perspective, eds. Donald M. Lewis and Richard V. Pierard (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 2014), 85–125.
40. ^[40] Karl Kalmbach, Mit Gott von Mensch zu Mensch. Aus der Geschichte der Liebenzeller Mission (Bad Liebenzell: Verl. der Liebenzeller Mission, 1999), 30-46.
41. ^[41] Kalmbach, Mit Gott, 49, 51, 59 and Tiedemann, Reference Guide, 175.
42. ^[42] Cleemann is pastor in Piņķi 1886-1905, “Lokales. Aus der Umgebung Rigas. Pinkenhof, Kirche und Pastorat,” Rigasche Zeitung, 20 Jan. 1914: 7. In 1907 Cleemann gives his inaugural sermon already at the Jesus congregation. “In der Jesuskirche,” Rigasche Rundschau, 5 Jan. 1907: 9.
43. ^[43] Spalis, op. cit.
44. ^[44] ALMW II/31-1/143, Nr. 296-297, 26 Sept. 1896.
45. ^[45] Kollegium der Evangelisch-Lutherischen Mission, “Vocation der Lehrerin Fräulein Hildegard Prozell”, ALMW II/31-1/143, Nr. 290-295, 13 Sept. 1896.
46. ^[46] Thomas Eisinger, Theologische Ausbildung und Persönlichkeitsentwicklung: Eine exemplarische Konzeptentwicklung am Beispiel des Theologischen Seminars der Liebenzeller Mission (Bonn: Verlag für Kultur und Wissenschaft, 2009), 86-87.
47. ^[47] Klaus Fiedler, Ganz auf Vertrauen – Geschichte und Kirchenverständnis der Glaubensmissionen (Giessen: Brunnen-Verlag Gmbh, 1992), 310-311.
48. ^[48] Kalmbach, Mit Gott, 52.
49. ^[49] Kalmbach, Mit Gott, 193 and Tiedemann, Reference Guide, 175.
50. ^[50] LbM archive, L. O. Griwing personal file and Griwing, “Bericht“, 248.
51. ^[51] LbM archive, L. O. Griwing personal file.
52. ^[52] Eisinger, Theologische Ausbildung, 86-87.
53. ^[53] Griwing, “Bericht“, 248-249.
54. ^[54] LbM archive, L. O. Griwing personal file.
55. ^[55] Griwing, “Bericht“, 248-249 and Spalis, op. cit.
56. ^[56] LbM archive, L. O. Griwing personal file.
57. ^[57] ALMW II/31-1/143, Nr. 286-287, 30 Nov. 1896.
58. ^[58] “Von unserer Landmännin, Frl. Hildegard Prozell, Missionslehrerin zu Madura,” Rigasches Kirchenblatt, 18 Dec. 1898: 419.
59. ^[59] ALMW II/31-1/143, Nr. 286-287, 30 Nov. 1896.
60. ^[60] ALMW II/31-1/143, Nr. 255-256, 27 Nov. 1897.
61. ^[61] ALMW II/31-1/143, Nr. 251-254, Dec. 1897.
62. ^[62] ALMW II/31-1/143, Nr. 240-246, 13 Mar. 1898.
63. ^[63] ALMW II/31-1/143, Nr. 220-223, 1898.
64. ^[64] “Aus dem 6. Bericht für die Frauen-Hilfs-Vereine der Ev.-Luth. Mission zu Leipzig,” Rigasches Kirchenblatt 30 Nov. 1901: 411–12.
65. ^[65] Fleisch, Hundert Jahre, 201.
66. ^[66] ALMW II/31-1/143, Nr. 207-208, 24 Jan. 1901.
67. ^[67] Fleisch, Hundert Jahre, 202.
68. ^[68] “Von unserer Landmännin“, 419.
69. ^[69] ALMW II/31-1/143, Nr. 202-203, 27 May 1903.
70. ^[70] ALMW II/31-1/143, Nr. 197-201, 28 June 1903.
71. ^[71] ALMW II/31-1/143, Nr. 189-192, 28 Dec. 1903.
72. ^[72] ALMW II/31-1/143, Nr. 159-160, 26 Sept. 1905.
73. ^[73] Fleisch, Hundert Jahre, 201.
74. ^[74] ALMW II/31-1/143, Nr. 154-157, 9 Jan. 1906.
75. ^[75] ALMW II/31-1/143, Nr. 137-140, 4 Feb. 1907.
76. ^[76] ALMW II/31-1/143, Nr. 127-130, 27 Apr. 1908.
77. ^[77] ALMW II/31-1/143, Nr. 120-121, 20 Dec. 1908.
78. ^[78] ALMW II/31-1/143, Nr. 154-157, 9 Jan. 1906.
79. ^[79] ALMW II/31-1/143, Nr. 147-148, 1 May 1906.
80. ^[80] ALMW II/31-1/143, Nr. 127-130, 27 Apr. 1908.
81. ^[81] ALMW II/31-1/143, Nr. 147-148, 1 May 1906.
82. ^[82] ALMW II/31-1/143, Nr. 145-146, 17 June 1906.
83. ^[83] ALMW II/31-1/143, Nr. 127,-130, 27 Apr. 1908.
84. ^[84] ALMW II/31-1/143, Nr. 123-125, 3 Nov. 1908.
85. ^[85] Spalis, op. cit.
86. ^[86] LbM archive, L. O. Griwing personal file.
87. ^[87] LbM archive, L. O. Griwing personal file.
88. ^[88] Spalis, op. cit.
89. ^[89] Beate Eulenhoefer-Mann, “Missionary Work of Single German Women in China from 1886-1914: A Comparison between Missiological Theory and Praxis on the Mission Field” (PhD dissertation, Fuller Theological Seminary, 2003, 218.
90. ^[90] Lily Griwing, “Nachrichten aus dem Missionsfelde. Netzauswerfen in Changscha,” Chinas Millionen 10, Oct. 1917: 125–126.
91. ^[91] LbM archive, L. O. Griwing personal file.
92. ^[92] Lily Griwing, “Eine stille Tauffeier,” Chinas Millionen 11, Nov. 1915: 215.
93. ^[93] Griwing, “Nachrichten“, 125-126.
94. ^[94] Kevin Xiyi Yao, “The Legacy of Frank Arthur Keller,” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 39.1 (Jan. 2015): 34–38.
95. ^[95] Yao, “The Legacy”, 36.
96. ^[96] Lily Griwing, “Evangelisationen,” Chinas Millionen 9 (Sept. 1923): 129–30.
97. ^[97] Griwing, “Evangelisationen”, 129.
98. ^[98] Griwing, “Evangelisationen”, 129.
99. ^[99] Keller, “Summer Vacation Evangelism”, 23.
100. ^[100] For example, in 1897 her travel account and first moments of service are published in four installments (Nos. 47–49 and 52). In 1898 there are four publications (Nos. 11, 27, 51 and 52). There are even more publications in 1901 and 1902. In 1903 Prozell’s letters are published in seven installments (Nos. 45–50 and 52). There is also quite considerable publicity during the second period of service.
101. ^[101] Heinrich Johann Zēzemanis (Seeseman), “Ziņas par evaņģēlisko pagānu misioni 1895. gadā,” Baznīca un Skola, 20 Nov. 1896: 93–94.
102. ^[102] Editorial board of “Tēvijas Kalendārs”, “Kāds vārds par paganu misioni” // Tēvijas Kalendārs 1899. gadam (Rīga: Z. Veinbergs, 1899), 5–23.
103. ^[103] “Sieviešu misione Indijā,” Baznīca un Skola, “Latviešu Avīžu” pielikums 9, 25 Apr. 1903: 68–72.

---