The "Why?" of Our Missions Program

SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS are widely and rightly recognized as a mis­sionary people. We have often been asked "Why?" With the ever-increasing flood of lectures and articles on the subject of Chris­tian missions, we are today being asked this question more than at any other time in our history as a people. We must be able to explain intelligently that scattering "into all lands, letting the light of Christ shine out from them" is a commission to the church in every age (Thoughts From the Mount of Blessing, pp. 42, 43).

Some comprehensive surveys have been made, and much that has been given as a result of these has been excellent. There is, however, a strong feeling among overseas missionaries that much that is spoken and written on this subject is the result of in­adequate contact with the missions pro­gram, often resulting from a comparatively brief tour taken by someone who actually visited only the "show" places easy of ac­cess. Obviously, conclusions gained in this way would be of limited value when it comes to assessing Christian missions accurately—what they have accomplished in the past, their present status, and their prospects for the future.

There are anthropologists and others who approach the question from a so-called scientific angle. Some missionaries have called them the "noble savage" people, be­cause they have a strong tendency to delve so deeply into the lore of the past and so shallowly into the facts of the present, tak­ing the best of the past and the worst of the present. Their questions often take this form: "With the tribal past so glorious and the present so far short of what might be desired, why should Christian missions try to change the people from their old tribal ways of living?" Seventh-day Adventists should be able to give them an ade­quate answer.

Overseas missions almost everywhere are forced by the circumstance of being foreign missions to deal largely with the various governments under which they operate. Most of these governments are represented by fine, dedicated men very much inter­ested in the welfare and betterment of the native peoples under their administration. Generally speaking, however, this interest takes the form of economic, educational, and social betterment. Many governments have no interest at all in religious changes in the people. We must agree that such in­terest would be out of the sphere of govern­ment. We, too, take an interest in the economic, educational, and social better­ment of the people for whom we work, but we put major emphasis on these better­ments being based on an adequate religious experience. To some degree, everywhere, this brings a conflict of interest between government and missions. When the gov­ernment asks us why we place such strong emphasis on the strictly soul-saving aspects of our program, we should be able to give a clear answer capable of being understood and appreciated by these leaders of the people.

In many lands there are commercial peo­ple we could very well classify, as they are classified in Africa, as traders. Some of these traders do much to help advance the mission program. However, there are many who put the profit-making basis of their enterprise so far above everything else that they see in every advance of the native peo­ples only a lessening of the possibility of exploiting them from the profit angle. Such traders very often make vociferous claims that missions are "spoiling the native." We meet them regularly. They have a right to ask us questions as to why we conduct our program as we do. They may not want to understand the answer we give, but it should be clearly given, nevertheless.

While we were still doing pastoral and evangelistic work in the United States be­fore accepting a call to mission service, we found that it was not unusual for those ap­proached for donations to our Ingathering to question the use made of the funds do­nated. They often emphasized the many calls upon them for assistance and seemed to be much more willing to donate to something that would be used locally. We could see how they would prefer to con­tribute to the welfare of the people who traded with them and kept them in busi­ness. However, there still was the overseas aspect to our Ingathering appeal, and a Seventh-day Adventist making this appeal and meeting such questions ought to recog­nize the right of the donor to ask questions as to the use of his donation and be able to give a brief but comprehensive answer. The Ingathering is growing year by year, and we have no reason to believe that these questions are any less in need of an answer today than they were when we first met them fifteen or so years ago.

Sometimes our own people question the use of such a large portion of our funds in foreign mission work. There are so many needs in the local churches. If it is a new church building there are many things that need to be added to make it completely functional. If it is an old church building there probably is a campaign for funds for a new building, or at least an ever-increas­ing demand for funds for repairs and re-decoration. There is usually the church school or some other equally worthy proj­ect that is in need of funds. With so many pressing needs of a local nature, every pas­tor should be able to give adequate reasons as to why we should support our whole missions program.

Recently, someone from one of our smaller churches wrote to the General Con­ference, asking why the mission fields have such fine buildings and wonderful equip­ment when in the homeland the smaller churches often have very inferior things. In the main such questions come from sin­cere and consecrated members who really have a vision of our world work, but are, for the moment, deeply concerned that the available funds should be used to the best advantage. Somewhat overwhelmed by their present local needs, they ask an honest question and should receive an honest answer.

While on our second furlough we lis­tened to a number of questions from sin­cere members. They wanted to know whether some mission fields had actually been closed, and if so, why the pressure on missions giving had to be kept up. These people loved their Lord no less because they questioned. They had a perfect right to do this, especially when giving meant much sacrifice, and it is our responsibility to give them a clear answer.

Once in a while word gets around that some missionary has been returned to the homeland because he has failed in the work for which he was appointed. Often these reports are either wholly untrue or grossly-exaggerated. But our people know that missionaries, like workers in the homeland, sometimes turn out to be less than adequate for the task and have to be replaced.

Then again, many of our people know of good workers who have made themselves available for a missions call but did not re­ceive one. These experiences often lead our people to question as to what type of men are needed in our missions program.

It seems to us that all of these various questions, arising from many sources with as many backgrounds and as many reasons for asking them, could be gathered into one fundamental question, "Why should we carry the gospel to those who do not know Jesus Christ as their personal Saviour from sin?"

Unquestionably, a missions program is a daring enterprise to which we give our best. It is daring for a conference to for­ward to one of its best workers a call for missions service when the leadership of that conference knows that a diligent search will have to be made to find another worker to adequately fill the gap in the program of the conference left by the worker if he accepts the call.

It is daring for the worker who accepts the call because he goes to new ways of liv­ing and working that will call for consider­able adaptability on his part. There will be economic problems, problems of health for him and his family, and often serious problems in the education of his children.

It is daring for the parent who sees his child go. We vividly remember the day in the station when my wife's parents said good-by to us. Tears streamed down their faces at the separation and the uncertain­ties—yet they were proud as could be, and would not have had it otherwise.

Missions are also an expensive enterprise to which we give the bulk of our funds. For instance, the bulk of our Sabbath school offerings and a good percentage of our In­gathering goes to missions. There are also other special funds that go either largely or wholly to our mission program.

Such a daring and expensive program should be undertaken or continued only for the best of reasons. It is advantageous for us to re-examine these reasons from time to time, that we -may have a clear pic­ture for ourselves, and that we may be ready to give an answer to questions coming to us regarding that program. We pro­pose in future articles to make such re-examination.