The American Missionary — Volume 36, No. 12, December, 1882

by Various

1. It is believed that the churches desire the exchange.

A living missionary society must have a vital connection with the churches. Thence mainly come its funds, and funds are as essential to it as to a bank or factory; yet if it get from them nothing but funds, it is no better than a bank or factory. It needs to be grounded in the confidence of the churches, and to be permeated in every branch and fibre by their piety and prayers. The wishes, therefore, of the churches as to methods as well as aims should be sought and heeded. Do the churches desire this change? That they do, I offer in evidence the effort made to that end in the National Council at New Haven. That effort was no sudden impulse originating in the mind of a single individual, and as suddenly laid aside by the Council. An elaborate report on the subject was presented and discussed at great length. It is true that the movement was not successful, yet it was full of significance, mainly from the character of those who pressed it. They were among the strongest and most influential men in the denomination. They were at the time outvoted, but their convictions were not changed, nor in so far as they were representative men is the weight of their testimony to be disregarded. Passing down to the present time, we come to the respectful resolution adopted by the Congregational Association of Ohio, asking for substantially this exchange. This resolution is not the work of foes, but of warmest friends, as our cordial invitation and reception here abundantly testify.

But the most convincing fact of all is the reception which has been given to the announcement of the proposed change. Almost unanimously comes to us the assurance that the exchange is heartily approved by the churches. I have said “almost” unanimously, for there have come to us, from a few old and tried friends, words of regret that we should abandon our work in Africa, so cherished in precious memories.

There may be more of sentiment than of sound judgment in this plea, but I beg the privilege of expressing my personal sympathy with the feelings of these old friends. When I think of the toils and sufferings of the workers in the Mendi Mission, of the buried dead there, and of the survivors now in this country, with shattered health, and when I think of the friends in this country and across the ocean who have sustained this mission by their prayers and offerings, I am frank to admit that it has cost me sleepless hours and a sore heart to yield my consent to part with it—unimportant as that consent may be. But in spite of all these sympathies and of old associations, the reasons for the exchange seem to me so conclusive as to leave no room for hesitation; and one of these strong reasons is the one I have just presented—the wishes of the churches.

2. The division will simplify the appeals in behalf of the two Boards.

It is a surprise that so many people know so little about Missionary and Benevolent Societies. This is sometimes simply amusing, as when at the recent meeting of the American Board in Portland, it is said that an agent of a railroad centering in Portland asked if the Am. Board was an “Odd Fellows’ Society”; and an intelligent looking man was overheard instructing his friend that they were “Freethinkers.” But the matter becomes serious when it results in the improper designation of bequests in wills and legacies. People that leave legacies to missionary societies are certainly interested in them, and might be supposed to know about them, but mistakes are constantly made that invalidate legacies and cause perplexity to heirs and loss to missionary treasuries. But it must be admitted that the present distribution of work and the appeals in its behalf foster the mistakes into which so many fall. Sec. Humphrey, for example, appears before a Western conference and in eloquent and earnest words presents the broad claim of the American Board, dwelling with emphasis on the remarkable openings in Africa, an almost newly discovered continent, and then calls for sympathy for the Indians now lifting up their hands to welcome the white man’s Bible instead of his whisky. Then follows Sec. Powell in his vigorous and breezy way, telling not only of the colored man in the South but of the wonderful land of his fathers, and follows this with a stirring appeal for the Indians! Is it not too much to expect of the average Christian that he should be able to separate these tangled branches and make each tree stand out before him in its own proper individuality?

But now, if the Am. Board, with its history of nearly three-quarters of a century and its noble work in all parts of the foreign field, is recognized as the sole agency of the Congregational churches for foreign missions; if the Am. Home Miss. Society, with its record of more than half a century, and with its field stretching from Maine to California, dotted all over with the monuments of its beneficial labors and filled with a vast and ever-expanding population, shall be the channel for distinctively home mission work; and if the American Missionary Association, with its peculiar and diversified educational and religious methods, shall be set apart to the work among the colored people of the South and among the whites as far and as fast as the vanishing of caste prejudice will permit, and also among the Indians and the Chinamen on the Pacific Slope, then will the distinction between the several societies be made clear, and Benevolence, which, like commercial capital, is cautious, will see before it open and distinct channels, through which it may pour its benefactions.

3. Providential indications point to the change. Missionary Societies, if vital and effective, are born of the Spirit, but developed in outer form and methods of work by providential events, and if their usefulness continues, they must not remain stagnant, but be obedient to the call of providential changes. The American Board once wisely embraced three denominations of Christians, Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Dutch Reformed. But the growth of those denominations and of the missionary zeal in them, made it clear that each would do more good if working separately, calling out the individual responsibility of the several denominations, and the result has abundantly verified the anticipation. So, too, has the Board modified its work. The changes in its Indian missions, once reaching far South and now confined to Dakota, may be cited as an illustration, not of the Board’s fickleness, but of its wisdom.

The A. M. A. has been guided to marked changes. Its original aim was to do mission work free from all possible complications with slavery. It did not, as I understand the matter, assume that all other Boards were in favor of slavery, while it alone was opposed to it, but its founders felt that the time had come when their consciences could be no longer satisfied unless their missionary contributions and labors constituted an active and public protest against slavery. The breadth of this principle included all forms of missionary efforts, and hence the constitution of the Association provided for both home and foreign work, and in its greatest enlargement on this basis, it had about 110 home missionaries in the field, and its foreign missions extended to West Africa, Jamaica, the Sandwich Islands, Siam, the Copts in Egypt, the Indians in the United States, and the refugees in Canada. But the war changed the whole aspect of affairs for the Association. It set free the millions of slaves and gave the opportunity for reaching them directly with schools and the Gospel. The Association at once concentrated its efforts upon these people, having shortly before or soon after the war abandoned or transferred all its missions—home and foreign—except the Mendi, and this was retailed as cognate to its work among the Freedmen in this country. But now as we look back on the history of that mission, so useful up to the date when we surrendered our other foreign missions, and so comparatively unsuccessful since, we are constrained to ask if it, too, should not then have been relinquished.

Let me detail the facts: At the annual meeting in 1861, the Mendi Mission reported four stations, three outstations and seven preaching places; thirteen white missionaries on the ground, two who had just returned to America, and one under appointment—sixteen in all. Up to that date its schools and churches were prosperous, converts were added, a theological class was formed and one young man licensed to preach. And in addition to this more direct evangelical work, it has exerted a marked and happy influence in averting war among the natives, in checking the slave trade and in developing industry and commerce among the people. I find this testimony concerning a single station of the mission, that on the Boom River: “The whole trade of this river has been developed within the last ten years. It is now worth more than $40,000 a year. The coast, or slave trade to the North, has been stopped. Natives, in their own canoes, carry their produce to market, which only four years ago was bartered away for half its value. The credit for this change is due to the mission. The industry of the people has increased ten-fold through that influence.” The mission at that date was the most conspicuous work of the Association, and the account of it stands at the head of the Annual Report, and occupies seven pages. But at the close of the war, only four years later, this mission took its place at the close of the Report, occupied only a page and a half, and the sadly significant lines on that page and a half were: “The increased expense (owing to the very high rate of exchange) combined with the great demand for missionary labors among the freedmen and the absorption of young and middle-aged men in the armies of the country, has deprived the committee of the ability to reinforce the mission as it needs. For no inconsiderable portion of the year, Rev. Mr. Hinman and wife have been the only white missionaries at the mission.” For more than ten years the mission remained inadequately recruited. In 1876 we sent the loved and lamented Rev. E. P. Smith to explore the field with the view to enlargement, but, alas! he never returned to tell us the story, and his bones hallow the soil of West Africa. In 1877 we inaugurated the effort to supply the mission with the educated sons and daughters of the freedmen. From 1877 to 1881 we sent thither fourteen missionaries with five children—nineteen in all. To-day there is but one of these at the mission. Finally an effort was made to recruit the Mendi mission with well-trained colored men, but our efforts thus far have been unsuccessful. If twenty-one years ago we could have foreseen these results, could we have felt justified in going forward with the mission; and with the results now before us as history, can we hesitate to surrender it to another Board? Does not the Lord of missions seem to say to the Association: I have other work for you?