God Hath Spoken

by Harris J. Dark

Now arranging a program of missionary work is a three-cornered affair. There is first of all the missionary field in which the work is to be done, and next, there is the preacher who is to do the preaching and third the church to do the financing. By some means or other these three must be brought to an agreement upon a plan of procedure. That means that somebody must take the initiative in getting the work started.

Sometimes a few members who live in the missionary field take the initiative, and undertake to find a preacher and someone to support him. They contact a preacher and ask him to come and work for them. They contact some church or churches and ask them to support the man while he works for them. Whenever there is enough leadership in the mission field to take such initiative, that’s all right. But that is presupposing a goodly degree of leadership in a mission field! There are many mission fields which do not possess such leadership. Sometimes the few members who live in these mission fields are relatively indifferent. They are not always so. Sometimes they are the finest people on the earth, but often they are not. And maybe the reason it’s still a mission field in many instances is because they are not as wide awake and zealous as they should be. So if a great many fields are ever reached, some of them not having any members at all, someone else must take the initiative.

In other instances, the preacher takes the initiative. He selects a field to which he would like to go and then he gets some churches to support him while he does so. That’s the plan I used in going to Richmond. It sometimes works all right and sometimes it doesn’t. For very often a preacher who undertakes to do such work is comparatively inexperienced, and is not nearly as well qualified to plan the program of work as some congregation that helps support him would be. When I went to Richmond, twelve years ago, one had to do it that way, because at that time, so far as I know, no one congregation considered itself able to assume full responsibility for the support of a missionary. But I do not believe that this is the most satisfactory method.

In the third place, the congregation itself very often takes the initiative, selects a field, selects a preacher, and sends him there to work. Bro. Gregory gave us an example of that this morning. He told of a congregation which made thorough investigation of the places needing a preacher in East Tennessee and finally concluded that Kingsport would be the most advisable place for them to help. They’ve been following that plan for many years. Bro. Charles King has been on their payroll for quite a long time. Several years ago they sent a committee to East Tennessee, at an expense of $150, to select the best place for him to preach. At that time they decided in favor of Harriman, where there is now, I understand, a strong congregation.

In this case, you see, the church took the initiative; the church selected the field after proper investigation; the church selected a preacher and paid him a salary and supported him while he represented them in that field. Where this can be done, it seems to me to be a very fine plan. Hence, one way for an established congregation to contribute to the success of evangelizing the world is to take the initiative not only in planning, but also in supervising the work. With such an arrangement the work will be promoted according to the judgment of a seasoned and experienced group of elders rather than according to the judgment of some young, inexperienced fellow who gets the idea that he wants to be a missionary.

A few objections to this plan have come from preachers on the field. It has been said, “I’d rather have twenty churches supporting me than to have just one. For that one might get discouraged at my pessimistic report and cut me off.” The answer to that is that there should be a more definite agreement on the part of the preacher and the church as to how long he is to be supported. The man on the missionary field should not expect a guarantee of a lifetime job. And, furthermore, if his reports were too pessimistic, it may be that his support should be discontinued. Or perhaps he ought to be advised to discontinue his activities in that field and to move to some other. It would not have been well for Paul to have remained indefinitely in the city of Athens. According to the inspiration guiding him, it was better for him to move on.

I would have welcomed counsel and advice from those supporting me when I was working in Richmond. There were about twenty different churches supporting me—too many for me to confer with each of them to get advice on questions that arose; and consequently in most instances I relied only on my own judgment, which meant that the work was being directed by the judgment of one young preacher rather than by the combined judgment of some experienced group of elders. And nothing would have given me greater encouragement than for a committee of elders of some church that was supporting me to have spent a few days in Richmond studying the situation and advising me on the problems which arose. There were times when I wondered if the results being accomplished justified the money being spent.

Of course, the money was well spent. For growing out of that work which I entered twelve years ago there are now two self-supporting congregations. One of them has a building completely paid for and supports a full-time preacher. The other has a part-time preacher. Coming from one of these congregations, a young man graduated from David Lipscomb last spring and has gone back to Virginia to preach the gospel in his native state. Another young man from one of these congregations is now at Lipscomb preparing himself to preach the riches of Christ. On the side, some work and encouragement were given at Norfolk, Virginia, where there is now a growing and prosperous congregation. These developments have come about in only twelve years. But I couldn’t see it then. Oftentimes I became discouraged. If some one congregation had been supplying all the necessary support and supervising the work, it would have been very helpful to me.

But after all, friends, when you contribute only five or ten dollars per month to a place, you are not likely to have a vital interest in the work. To give you a concrete example, an elder and treasurer of a church in Middle Tennessee which sent ten dollars each month to Richmond, year after year, spent several days in Richmond on a social visit and didn’t even come around to see what was being done. Well, they only had $10 per month invested there and so they were not particularly interested. But if they’d been spending $200 a month, paying the full salary of the man on the job, then an elder who spent the week end in town would have looked into the situation! Where a man’s treasure is, there will his heart be also!

In fact, I have said, and I’m about to say again, that to contribute just $5 a month here and there and elsewhere for mission work is somewhat like giving a nickel to a beggar on the street. Do you know why you give that nickel? Not because you are interested in the beggar and not because you are concerned about what he is doing, but to ease your own conscience. You are seeking to purchase ease of conscience with expenditure of a mere nickel! If the beggar is worthy, he ought to have more than a nickel; if he isn’t worthy, he doesn’t deserve even a nickel. And so when a congregation merely contributes five dollars to each of a few places, to soothe their conscience, they can say, “Yes, we are doing some mission work,” but certainly they are following the line of least resistance. They may have purchased ease of an untrained and misinformed conscience at a minimum cost, but this does not mean that they have done their duty in meeting the responsibility that God has placed on them!