How much voice should the national (or “receiving”) church have in the affairs of overseas missionaries working in its midst? Do changing conditions indicate a change in the missionary task?
To examine these and other important questions of motive and strategy, the Board of World Missions of the Presbyterian Church in the United States (Southern) called a unique consultation. The week-long meeting (October 13–19) was unique in that participants were not chosen by the board: national churches abroad sent delegates they had selected; missionaries representing the board’s work in nine countries were elected by fellow missionaries in their fields; other boards and agencies of the denomination sent delegates of their choosing.
In addition a host of outside experts were called in. Other churches and organizations with which the board has relations were invited to send non-voting correspondents. Specialists in particular areas of missionary activity were invited as non-voting consultants. About 70 of these visitors were given the privilege of debate.
Voting in the deliberations were some 120 delegates: the board and its key staff personnel, missionaries, nationals, and members of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, who represented other boards, agencies, and organizations.
Wide Range of Debate
The diversity of opinion represented by participants led to sharp debate in many sessions. The conferees came from a variety of situations. In Mexico the Presbyterian mission is involved in proceedings to set up a consultative committee of all missions and the Mexican Presbyterians which will handle all strategy decisions. Independence in the Congo has brought many problems to the young church on the largest Presbyterian mission field. In Iraq and Ecuador the Presbyterians work through a united mission. Divisions within the Korean church and revolution in that nation have posed problems there. Political uncertainty, runaway inflation, and a vigorous daughter church were factors in Brazil. In Japan the mission is involved in much institutional work and is cooperating with both the Reformed and United churches. Portugal is a cooperative venture with other Presbyterian bodies. Taiwan is a field where the board began work only after its personnel were forced out of mainland China.
Issues of the debate were sharpened in platform addresses. Dr. T. Watson Street, new executive secretary of the board, led off with a review of the current situation. Next was Dr. John A. Mackay, retired Princeton Seminary president and former chairman of the International Missionary Council. He was followed by Bishop Lesslie Newbigin, director of the World Council of Churches’ new Division of World Mission and Evangelism, who recalled experiences in the church of South India and decried the presence of a mission as a unit on some fields.
After the first session of the five study committees, an address on what the man in the pew expects of world missions was delivered by Dr. Harold John Ockenga of Boston’s Park Street Church. Speaking on “teamwork” the next day was Dr. Jose Borges dos Santos, Jr., veteran leader of Brazilian Presbyterians. Miss Esther Cummings of the Biblical Seminary gave an address on the spiritual qualifications of the missionary.
Delegates heard from a varied group of correspondents and consultants. Foreign missions board personnel of the Assemblies of God and the United Church of Christ (and of several other denominations) were there. The National Council of Churches (with which the board works) sent a contingent, and one staff member of the Evangelical Foreign Missions Association (with which the board does not work) came. No independent faith missions were invited to send representatives.
Questions under consideration were primarily concerned with the respective roles of the missionary, the field mission, the board, the sending church, and the national church. The question of a theological basis ran through all the discussions.
Answers and Generalities
Four days of debate brought some general answers for the board. Some were general enough to be praised for their ambiguity.
At the final session, while the committee on theological issues was still at work, the delegates “re-affirmed” the missionary declaration of the first (1861) General Assembly of the denomination. That statement defined the missionary task as obedience to the Great Commission and declared that a proper conception of its “vast magnitude and grandeur is the only thing which, in connection with the love of Christ, can ever arouse her (the Church’s) energies and develop her resources.…”
When the committee came in, its report was adopted with only minor amendment. A key section says of Jesus Christ: “There is no other king; there is no other hope; there is no other life. Without Him man perishes.” The statement continues: “Thus we who hope in the Lord Jesus alone for salvation stand under the inescapable imperative to carry the Gospel to all those who do not know Him as Saviour and Lord.” The statement also calls for acts of repentance and rededication by the Church for its failure to bear faithful witness.
Ignoring ‘Practical Universalism’
A key question in the agenda was: “What are the theological convictions which undergird missionary outreach? How can the Presbyterian Church in the United States strengthen these convictions and meet the challenge of ‘practical universalism’?” Committees struggled with this until the last minute of the consultation.
There was no specific mention of “practical universalism” or suggestion about meeting its challenge in the general answer to the theological statement.
Hammered out after long debate was the answer to the crucial question on the role of the mission—the organized unit of missionaries on a particular field. No particular cooperative plan or form of “integration” was recommended. Rather, the consultation decided “that the structure of relationship of missionaries to a national Church should be worked out by that national Church in consultation with the Presbyterian Church in the U. S.”
Other Considerations
Another statement in the report on the mission says of cooperation: “The national Church has immediate responsibility for the evangelization of her own people, and so the national Church should have primary responsibility in the definition of freedom and initiative for the sending Church.” The report also suggests that mission and national church should feel free to propose to each other any change in the status quo that either feels necessary. Another proposal suggests mission consultation with the national church before the start of any new project.
Financial considerations were a subject from time to time in the debates. It was recommended that aid to daughter churches should be given in such a way as to stimulate the development of stewardship but that after funds are given there should be no more control over them by the sending church.
On the subject of missionary salaries, nationals generally supported higher pay but pointed to the danger of displays of comparative wealth (such as having many servants) by the missionary.
Missionary giving in the home church ($4.59 per capita last year) prompted the consultation to observe: “It is our conviction that only a deepening of the home Church’s devotion to her Lord will ever produce the outpouring of gifts so desperately needed for her witness around the world.”
Facing the Future
Unique and diverse in composition as it was, the consultation gave vent to many long-smoldering discussions. Because “the air was cleared,” many missionary leaders of the Presbyterian Church in the United States saw the meeting as the beginning of a new advance in the denomination’s work.
One Brazilian delegate expressed what was considered to be the opinion of all the nationals when he said on the floor: “This consultation was (taken on) your initiative, and we love you for it.” A Mexican suggested: “Now our Church can listen to you, and I hope your Church will speak to us in a very frank way.”
One consultation recommendation asks the board to “clarify its channels of communications” with churches abroad, but a proposal to reorganize in a manner similar to The United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America’s Commission on Ecumenical Mission and Relations, was defeated.
How will the board and the home church deal with national churches in the future? One board member put it this way: “The day of unilateral decisions is over.”
No action of the consultation is binding, however. The board called it to ask only for advice on the work of its more than 500 missionaries in nine countries. It heard much.
ARTHUR H. MATTHEWS
