There are certain items listed in your outline which we believe should characterize our work of supporting missionaries. It is my conviction that regular and complete reports should be received from those who are being supported. Brother Estevez made a fine talk along that line here last Sunday afternoon. Brother Gregory gave us a splendid report of his work this morning. I believe that one reason the Chapel Avenue church has continued to be so vitally interested in the work at Kingsport is that one of our elders is on the job there and keeps the congregation here acquainted with what is being done.
Furthermore, the workers to be used in these fields should be selected very carefully. You ought to be just as careful about selecting some man to preach for you in North Carolina as you are about selecting some one to preach for you here. It seems to me that the two cases are exactly parallel in that respect. We ought to be just as much concerned about who preaches for us over there as we are about who preaches for us here. If such a policy were followed by all the churches it would bring about a distinct improvement and prevent considerable embarrassment.
In addition, the man selected should be well supported. It’s worth just as much to preach in Kingsport or North Carolina or Louisiana or some other place as it is to preach in Nashville, and when the men have equal responsibility and equal qualifications, it seems to me that they ought to be equally well supported. Certainly the man in the field ought to be supported well enough that he will not be cramped in his work or distracted by concern about how he will meet the next month’s grocery bill.
Remember that it is our work when we send a man out to a field like that, and it would be inconsistency and folly on our part to send one without supplying him with the resources necessary for the success of his work. Something in addition to his bare living ought to be provided. He should have funds with which to operate. Think about how much it costs to carry on a program of work here, by way of advertising, maintaining a meeting place and supporting a radio program and all that sort of thing. In some ways it is more expensive in those fields than it is here. For instance, we have fifty other congregations in Nashville to help us advertise the cause of Christ in this city. In those fields the little mission church has to take all this responsibility by itself. It has to bear all the cost of supporting a radio program, publishing articles in the daily paper, and of carrying on all of these varied activities that are listed under our local program of evangelism.
No business concern would send a man to some field to represent it and work for it without furnishing him with the support necessary for success in his work. I am convinced that it would be wiser and better in the long run to have a few men in the field fully supported than to have several that are but half supported, and therefore handicapped and unable to accomplish what should be accomplished.
It is also my conviction that the church which furnishes the money is also obligated to supervise the use of that money. I do not suggest that we dictate to churches at other places, for there is no one who believes more firmly in congregational autonomy than do I. Every congregation must be entirely independent. But, surely, if you have a man preaching for you in the state of North Carolina, or some other place, it is your duty to know what he is doing, what he is accomplishing, and whether it would be well for him to continue there or to move to some other community.
I know of one man who was supposed to be preaching in a missionary field, not supported by Chapel Avenue incidentally, concerning whom I have received a report that the only thing he did was to teach a Bible class on Wednesday night. Over a period of several months he received a good income from churches throughout the country who were gullible enough to answer a call without knowing the condition of the field and the kind of work that was being done by the one who made the call; while being paid to preach he was working at a secular job, receiving a living wage therefor, and putting the money he received from the churches in the bank in his own name. This illustrates what I mean by saying that it is necessary that we keep a line on those who are being supported. Those who are worthy will welcome investigation and those who are not worthy certainly ought to be investigated.
I believe that I am, at least to some extent, qualified to speak here for I have worked at both ends of the line. As you know, I spent five years at Richmond, Virginia, in the missionary field, receiving support from you and others back home. I’ve also worked at this end of the line, and I think I know a little about how such work ought to be done. Surely regular and complete reports ought to be received, and careful supervision should be exercised by those who furnish the money. It is my conviction that, when God places resources in the hands of an individual or a congregation, they are responsible for seeing that those resources are properly used.
That’s the reason I am reluctant to tell a rich man how to give away his money. If he had sense enough to make it, he probably has more sense about how to spend it than someone who could never make any. Of course one should teach the principles that are revealed in the Bible concerning the use of money, but I believe that the responsibility of spending one’s money rests primarily upon the one to whom God has entrusted the money, and that will apply to a congregation as well as to individuals.