Foreign mission work is being challenged in non-Christian lands. The missionary is looked upon with mistrust and suspicion. His motives are often called in question, his every act is scrutinized, and his every mistake is heralded far and wide. During the last few years the foreign missionary has been much in the limelight, but the reaction has been far from flattering. Few favorable comments have come his way. His mistakes and failures have been magnified in newspaper, magazine, and book ; and it is claimed that the non-Christian world no longer needs or desires the old-time, evangelical missionary.
The gospel emissary is one of the pet aversions of travelers, authors, and representatives of Western scholarship. Educated classes in non-Christian lands have taken their cue from these outspoken doubting Thomases, belaboring the missionary whenever the opportunity has presented itself. According to such, the missionary is to blame for most of the ills which now afflict helpless peoples. It would have been better, they suggest, if the backward races had remained in ignorance of Christianity, for it has proved to be too much of a disturbing factor in their lives.
So far as China is concerned, they claim that Christianity was forced upon the people by the missionaries. The histories of China and Japan allege that the missionaries also played a part in forceful measures used in the early days of treaty writing. It is true that certain missionaries, because of their understanding of Chinese customs and language, helped to prepare the first treaties with China, and suggested the insertion of certain toleration clauses. These activities are now severely criticized. A Chinese who at one time was a professor in the Yenching University, at Peking, wrote the following concerning this:
"Christianity was forced upon China by the so-called Christian powers, with the full approval of Christian missionaries ; for the latter believed that in so doing they, Were fulfilling the will of God t As a result, the 'toleration clauses' were incorporated in the treaties. In missionary schools, religious education and services were put on a compulsory basis. This was the cause of the Boxer uprising in I goo, and of the recent antireligious movement."—The Shanghai Times, July 26, 1931.
These treaties have been condemned as "unequal treaties," forced upon a helpless people by "imperialistic powers," and are blamed for all the ills of China for the last hundred years. Because missionaries had a hand in the preparation of these treaties, and during later years received the protection of foreign powers in their work, they are now accused of adopting "a gunboat policy" in connection with their work in China. So far as these toleration clauses are concerned, it does not seem that they could have been the cause of such evils as have been charged against them. The one inserted in the treaty of 1858, between the United States and China, reads as follows:
"The principles of the Christian religion, as professed by Protestant and Roman Catholic churches, are recognized as teaching men to do good, and to do to others as they would [have] others do to them. Hereafter, those who quietly profess and teach these doctrines shall not be harassed or persecuted on account of their faith. Any person, whether citizen of the United States or Chinese convert, who according to these tenets peaceably teaches and practices the principles of Christianity, shall in no case be interfered with or molested."—"Treaty Obligations Between China and Other States," by M. T. Z. Tyau, p. 182.
One writer asks, "What is there in these articles which injures China, or is contrary to good morality and to international amity? And how can any thoughtful man imply that the 'toleration clauses' forced Christianity upon China?" Nevertheless, we must admit that the strong backing by foreign powers was conducive of certain evils which later developed. The fact that the missionary and his converts were both under the guardianship of strong nations in a day when China was weak, gave opportunity for the unscrupulous "convert" and the careless missionary to be partners in many un-Christian acts.
We learn something of these later developments from an editorial which appeared in the Peking Leader during the anti-Christian campaign of 192. "That the record of the Christian church as an organization contains many dark pages, no one will seriously deny. Or can it be argued that on many occasions the church and individuals calling themselves Christians have failed abysmally to act in accordance with the spirit of Christ.--April 7, 1922. Giving some specific instances of actions that could well be censured. the editor writes:
"In the actual relations between the Christian and non-Christian Chinese in the villages in many parts of the country, the Christian organization has been a sort of secret, mutual, at-the-expense-of-outsiders society. No doubt in most cases the foreign missionary does not appreciate what is being done, but it still is true that in instances, which could be numbered by the thousands, the members of his 'flock' have used the prestige of foreign association and what amounts to a strong union to work injustice on the non-Christian in the community."—Ibid.
Others have called attention to this evil, which is well known to missionaries who have had an extensive experience in China. A Chinese official writes thus:
"Not once, but many times, in my life as an official, have I found these Protestant missionaries taking the part of some miserable malefactors, affording asylum to them, protecting them against punishment, aiding them to escape from justice, and generally mixing themselves in the affairs of the disaffected."—Shanghai Times, Aug. 5, 1927.
Another common criticism is expressed in a statement issued by an anti-Christian organization.
"What are missionaries? The majority of them are, as far as our observation goes, below the level of intelligence of the average adult of their own countries. They would not have held the same positions and enjoyed the same material life in their countries as they are now holding and enjoying in this country."—Peking Leader, April 7, 1922.
We cannot dismiss these criticisms of missions and missionaries with the reply that those who cast aspersion on missionary work are generally those who know nothing about it personally, or that it is always easy to criticize a work of high standard. The fact is, mistakes have been made. There have been missionaries, even in our ranks, who have used their advantageous position in unwisely seeking immunity for unworthy "converts."
Then, too, there have been missionaries not too well prepared for the tasks committed to them as leaders. Their lack of proper training has been noticed when they have had to deal with officials and other educated men. On the other hand, there have been missionaries of simple education, possessing natural talent and a teachable spirit, whose work is recognized as of real value. There have been many errors in judgment and a careless use of prestige. But the good that missionaries have done far outweighs errors of policy and judgment. We are glad for the words of Kenneth Scott Latourette, Yale professor of Missions and Oriental History, who writes of the great work done by missionaries and gives credit to "the character of the missionaries." He says:
"Some missionaries arc bigoted and narrow, others are eccentric to a degree, and now and then there is one who is ignorant. The vast majority, however, while by no means freed by their profession from human frailty, are high-minded, devoted to the Chinese, pure in speech and life, quietly courageous, and show by their lives their profound confidence in a God who loves men and longs to save them."—Atlantic Monthly, May, 1939.
Although much good has indeed been accomplished, and many missionaries are worthy representatives of the church, we should never blind our eyes to the need of correcting mistakes as far as possible. We must constantly remember that faults and errors in a good work are magnified a thousandfold and thus opposers of truth are given the opportunity to criticize that they are looking for. The higher the profession, the worse the evil when it is done. And none make a higher profession than those who go to a distant land as representatives of the true church of God. We do well to ponder the past and see what lessons it has to teach.
(An article to follow on "Misconceptions and Mistakes of the Missionary" will make personal application of these lessons.—Editor.)
Rural Phase of Missions
The rural aspect of the mission problem a is stressed by Professor Ross J. Griffeth, of Butler University, in the December, 1937, World Call. He first quotes from John R. Mott who spoke before the Agricultural Missions Conference held last October:
Nine tenths of the population in mission lands live in rural areas. About two tenths of the persons who give their lives to the missionary enterprise work in rural fields.
Next he presents this thought-provocative excerpt from Dr. John H. Reisner, executive secretary of the Agricultural Missions Foundation, who spoke at the same meeting:
Of eighteen thousand missionaries on the field, not more than fifty have technical preparation for rural work. The missionary enterprise has been concentrating its efforts upon institutions in urban centers rather than upon Christian life and community building in rural districts.
Yet the writer asserts: "Ninety-three per cent of 'Christians in mission lands are the product of work among rural populations."
Then follows this stimulative observation on cities in general that may well be pondered in the light that has been given us as a people relative to leaving the cities with their increasing last-day perplexities, and in the light of the repetition of the days of Lot and the city issue at that time—ground familiar to all Adventist workers:
Cities are always dying. They live only as they receive continuous transfusions of rural blood into their urban veins. Rural life (and consequently the rural church) faces many economic difficulties. In time of prosperity, wealth flows from the country into the cities. In times of adversity, the poverty stricken take their poverty to the country. . . . Urbanites turn to the government more and more for preservation. City dwellers accept dictators, because city dwellers value security more than liberty.
And these words at the same conference, from Dr. T. J. Jones, educational director for the Phelps-Stokes Foundation, embody sound principles:
The greatest menace to civilization today is the increasing control of every phase of life by urban influences. The urban theory is that the good life is one that frees us from labor and sacrifice. . . The eternal value of the individual survives best in the open places and is opposed to the regimentation psychology so prevalent in industrial and urban areas.
