Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

pressed forward to accomplish the specific object of overthrowing the hostile forces and rescuing the heroic band whose lives were in imminent danger.

The missionaries in most of the great fields are in no personal danger, but are struggling under crushing burdens, attempting almost impossible tasks, confronting formidable problems, sketching the boundary lines of Christian empires; in short, summoning the aid of forces which are to revolutionize the world, and, above all other living men, they need every advantage which organized cooperation can give.

It is too early to decide questions which belong to the ultimate organization of Christian empires in the great mission fields, but not too soon to provide for plans of united effort for the effective distribution of missionary forces, for the creation of Christian literature, for the foundation of Christian institutions, adapted to the common wants of all Christians, tho bearing different names and coming from different lands.

Wild talk on the subject has been heard at times in the past, and some attempts at union have ended in dismal failure, but in most cases have been misdirected. The difference between corporate union and concerted action has not been kept clearly in view. The question of a common statement of doctrine is not even to be mentioned. The rights and privileges of existing churches are not involved. The practical and vital question at issue is that of united action. It is useless even to discuss the question of a framework for an ecclesiastical structure wide enough

to embrace all the Christians of India. Great ecclesiastical organizations are not made, they grow; the busy men of to-day have other and better work than to attempt impracticable and fruitless tasks, but can do much in the way of cooperation and in the cultivation of a fraternal spirit worthy of their work.

Missionaries are increasing rapidly in number, and every token indicates that the ratio of increase will advance rather than recede in the immediate future. The time for intelligent and courageous missionary action has come. The gates of nearly all the nations have been thrown open wide to us. God forbid that we should shrink from entering, and when we do enter, when India and China and Africa shall have five thousand missionaries each, and other countries five thousand more, it will double the strength and effectiveness of the mighty host if all can be organized for concerted action. A common love moves them to action, a common hope inspires them and assures them of victory; and if a supreme effort is made to keep in touch with the Leader and Commander of the Lord's host, they can not become separated from one another. We all believe in a good time coming when all the believers of the earth shall in very deed, in outward life as well as in the inward spirit, become one in Christ Jesus. May God hasten that day of joy! But, when it does come, and the historian of the future sits down to write the story of its consummation, I venture to say that he will place on record the statement that, under God, the chief agency in hastening the hallowed consummation was the great missionary movement of the twentieth century.

REASONS FOR CLOSER UNION

SAMUEL B. CAPEN, LL.D., PRESIDENT

OF THE AMERICAN BOARD

On February 7, 1812, the first missionaries of the American Board received instructions so broad that they sound like the modern principles of those who are most earnest for federation. The first reason why there is a closer federation of work on foreign mission fields than in our home land is that it started right. Furthermore, to supplant false religion, superstition, and paganism with the pure religion of Christ was a stupendous task. It was, therefore, most natural for the missionaries to minimize their differences. Again, they were few and often in peril, and common danger always brings men closer together. Thus, from the very beginning, they were far in advance of the home churches, and have always kept

So.

a

The present growing trend toward closer federation in missionary work abroad should be encouraged for the following reasons:

First. It is in harmony with the last wish of Christ, who prayed that we may be one. While organic union is impossible, by a closer federation we can help to answer that prayer.

Second. It will simplify our problem of teaching the people in the nonChristian world. When they begin to think, they must wonder at the differences among those who profess to follow one Master and believe in one Book. No wonder they are confused and greatly hindered in their prog

ress.

Third. It will greatly promote economy. Institutions need not be

duplicated. One large hospital can be better equipped than two or three, can have a better staff of physicians and nurses, and at less expense. The same is true of institutions for higher education. A single press in a given field can work for all, and furnish more and better literature.

As to the difficulties, they are far greater at home than abroad. For years the greatest foreign missionary problems have been at home. A leading missionary expert, who has been over the field more than once, writes: "I have sometimes thought that, if the missionary societies of North America and the British Isles could, by the use of statesmanship and by the help of the Spirit of God, both of which are indispensable, exactly solve. this comity problem, they would accomplish results equivalent to adding two or more thousand missionaries." Certainly we rejoice that there is a better promise here at home. The recent movement in this country to cooperate in Christian work is unmistakable, and is in harmony with the best thought of our day, which urges cooperation, not antagonism, economy in every department. The executive officers at home are recognizing these rapidly changing conditions, and approving of a federation abroad which would not have been possible twenty-five years ago.

and

Has not the time fully come for the leaders of missions here and in Great Britain to come together with the map of the world before them, divide up the unoccupied field, perhaps exchange work to promote economy and efficiency, estimate how much money will be required to cover the whole field by modern methods, and

then unite to raise the millions needed? Christian people have the money. Might we not then expect larger gifts than hitherto because the work has been federated as that of one Master and one Lord?

ADVANTAGES OF ORGANIC UNION

REV. H. K. CARROLL, D.D. Secretary of the Methodist Episcopal Missionary Society

The waste of rivalry, the weakening effect of discord, the necessity of increased economy and efficiency, and the multiplying exigencies in our complex civilization, will force the subject of closer Christian union in some or all of its phases upon the denominations which are earnestly praying, "Thy Kingdom Come." I do not try to forecast what form of agreement the outcome will take; but the reasons for economy in the application of the millions contributed for Christian work are already becoming irresistible. Nobody denies that there are too many denominations, too much division of Christian people in many communities, too much money wasted in trying to maintain churches where they are not needed and where their intrusion is harmful to the interests of Christ.

Christian unity in the mission field is always and everywhere desirablenay, its absence appears inexcusable. As a matter of fact, missionaries are less divided by denominational differences or denominational pride than ministers at home. Their essential oneness in the faith is emphasized by the awful gap between Christianity and paganism.

Association in occasional meetings and conferences, cooperation in se

curing objects common to all, are so obviously desirable and helpful that no argument seems called for in support or defense of them.

The question of federation, or organic union, demands more attention. The organic union of bodies of the same faith and polity and of the same denominational family appears very desirable. The union of Presbyterian and Reformed bodies in Japan is an object-lesson for other denominations and other fields. The united Church unquestionably adds to the strength and prestige of the Presbyterian movement, whose divisions at home simply stand for geographical or local reasons which can have no significance to Japanese Christians. The plan for the union of the churches of the various Methodist bodies working in Japan will, I earnestly hope, be brought to a satisfactory conclusion at an early day.

Where organic union is not now a possibility, various measures of cooperation or union on certain lines of work should be encouraged. Take, for example, the educational work in China. Dr. Arthur H. Smith says that China has undergone a greater change in the last five years than any other nation in the world. It has discarded the old system of the classics and accepted the Western idea of education. It is consequenly reorganizing its schools and universities, and revolutionizing its plan of study. The opportunity to the missionary institutions has never been equaled. We must have stronger faculties, better and bigger buildings, and more adequate equipment. But many of the denominations conducting schools in China can not separately raise the

means necessary to meet the exigencies of the situation. Hence a union for educational work, such as has been accomplished in North China by the American Board, the Presbyterian Board, and the London Missionary Society, should make for economy, increased efficiency, and larger results.

I, therefore, favor unity, agreement, comity, cooperation, federation, organic union-the first three always and everywhere, the last three as circumstances and conditions may allow-no forcing process to be applied.

PRINCIPLE AND PRACTISE

REV. JAMES I. VANCE, NEWARK, N. J. That the principle of federation in church work is Christian may be assumed, tho there may be honest differences as to its application. Perhaps here and there some may be found so conservative as to imagine they are saving the day for orthodoxy by regarding with suspicion the Christianity outside their own fold, and who claim to be obeying the Scriptural injunction to be brotherly by walking away from Christ's people. These are, however, a rapidly diminishing quantity.

Church federation is both sane and Christian. It is union for the sake of unity, cooperation for the sake of effectiveness, coordination for the sake of testimony, combination for the sake of the Kingdom. If federation be good for the churches in Christian lands, is it not equally so for the churches and church workers and native Christians in the mission fields? All the problems which exist at home and make closer ranks important ex

ist abroad, and, in addition, there is the one great problem which looms distinct above all lesser problemsheathenism. The foe is bigger. The need, therefore, for a strict economy of force is, if anything, more imperative.

Federation is desirable for the sake of the missionaries. It is not merely a question of making a small force go as far as possible in covering a vast field, but of giving the force solidarity and that encouragement which comes from comradeship. It is not enough for us to keep out of each other's way, to parcel out the territory, and agree that we will not climb fences. This is comity; but comity is not enough. It would be a great gain for the missionaries and native Christians, in the presence of their colossal foe, heathenism, to feel that they are not divided, even by the thin ledge of denominationalism. Every consideration based on the hurtfulness of friction, the disaster of waste, the sin of denominational rancor, the weakness of divisions, the extravagance and expensiveness and hurtfulness of competition makes federation in foreign missions desirable.

Is it not also as feasible there as at home? home? Is it necessary to reproduce abroad Our denominational differences? The competition there should not be between different schools of Christian thought, but between Christianity and a false religion. Why not have a Christian Church of Japan or of China rather than the denominational segments? Why not allow the native Church to develop according to the genius of the people, instead of fastening upon it the

legacy of denominationalism we have received from centuries of religious controversy? Whatever these things may represent to us, are they worth anything to them? Because we have these divisions, is it any reason they should?

It may be a Church might develop. which, while thoroughly evangelical, would possess latitude enough to house in the same temple some of the things for which we must build separate denominations. Certainly it is our duty to give them the chance.

Federation as far as possible should be the program in all our missionary work; and in deciding on what is feasible we should pay more respect to the work of saving a people than of enlarging a denomination.

MISSIONARY INFORMATION

PROF. AMOS R. WELLS, BOSTON, MASS. Managing Editor of The Christian Endeavor World

It is a marvel that the average Christian knows as much about missions as he does. Suppose I wished a clear idea of what American Christianity is doing in India. I should be obliged to send to the foreign mission boards of eighteen different denominations, try to find common ground among eighteen different systems of statistics, and familiarize myself with as many different ways of setting forth the methods and results. And to exhibit the work of American churches in the Indian Empire, I must introduce such a medley of Presbyterians, Canadian Presbyterians, Reformed Church in America, Reformed Episcopalians, Reformed Presbyterians, General Synod, Baptists, Free Baptists, Methodists, Free Methodists, General Council Luther

ans,

General Synod Lutherans, Friends, Disciples, United Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Christian Alliance, Moravians, and Mennonites, that the essential facts would be quite lost in the bewildering conglomeration.

As a matter of course, almost, the newspapers and members of each denomination know their own missions (perhaps), but are quite ignorant of the missions (very likely far more important and inspiring) of other denominations. For fifteen years, now, I have attended the regular monthly "missionary concerts" of one of the most active and intelligent missionary churches in the country, and, with the exception of a single meeting, arranged by myself, I think I have never heard mentioned the missions of any other denomination. That is the way everywhere.

Information is the basis of inspiration. Why should not the Congregationalists be warmed by the great news from the Methodist missions in North India? And both Methodists and Congregationalists be familiar with the marvelous work of the Church of England in South India? Why not all three, fired by the latest news from the Baptist Telugu mission?

What a loss to the other denominations that they know little or nothing about the Presbyterian mission countries, Persia and Siam, or the Congregational work in Turkey, or the Baptists' in Burma, the Methodists' in the Fiji Isles, the United Presbyterians' in Egypt, the Moravians' in Dutch Guiana!

Let no one say that Methodist missions are so extensive that Methodist

« ForrigeFortsett »