Which Policy Shall We Follow?
We have a great work to do. The best message of God to this generation is to be proclaimed “unto every nation and tribe and tongue and people” to prepare the way for the coming of the Lord. The idea that the field is the United States instead of the world has dominated our plans too much in the past, and it seems hard to break its hold upon many minds even now. A most earnest effort has been made during the last three or four years to enlarge the vision of the denomination until it should include the whole world, and there have been many very encouraging results, but in spite of this progress in the right direction there seems to be a tendency to become absorbed in that which is near at hand, and to forget that which is afar off. In dwelling upon the great needs and the many openings for the truth at home, the greater needs and the larger openings abroad are likely to be entirely forgotten, or neglected for lack of the very men and the means absorbed in this country. In view of these general considerations and some special indications of a disregard of world-wide interests in order to build up large interests within our own borders, we are constrained to press upon the minds and hearts of our brethren in positions of responsibility some questions the answers to which involve far-reaching consequences in this advent movement:— 1. Are we not just as responsible for the proclamation of this message in one part of the world as another? 2. Must not this warning message be given in all the world before the Lord will come? 3. Is it not in harmony with the very spirit of the gospel that we should divide our funds and our laborers with the most needy fields? 4. Will it not bring new life and a larger measure of success into our local work if we exhibit the true missionary spirit by liberally sharing our resources with the struggling conferences and mission fields where believers are few and laborers are still fewer? 5. Is it a wise and justifiable policy to undertake the establishment of so many institutions in this country that we shall be embarrassed with financial burdens and pressing obligations to such an extent as to render it practically impossible to maintain a vigorous foreign mission policy? We are heartily in favor of earnest and aggressive work in the home field, and would do nothing to hinder it, but we believe that the real success of the home work is bound up in the success of the foreign work. We fear for the prosperity of a conference when we see such obligations assumed as will call for the best efforts of its officers and will absorb the larger part of the resources of its membership in order to prevent financial distress. It would be deemed unwise for a conference already in debt to pledge twenty-five to fifty thousand dollars for the work in other fields, and is it altogether wise to involve the conference in debt for an equal amount for the local work? We invite our brethren in the field to weigh these questions carefully when they are deciding upon their institutional policy. We do not wish to see the work restricted, but rather enlarged, and yet we can not be satisfied to see the great part of our resources devoted to building institutions in those fields which already have so much better facilities for giving the message than are found in most of the outside fields. Furthermore, genuine zeal for a good work is commendable, but when such apparent zeal is evidently only one form of opposition to the same work in another locality, we can not feel unbounded respect for it. These are times when it is advisable to consider every unauthorized call for means in all its bearings, and not to forget some of the plain instruction which has been given through the spirit of prophecy concerning the present duty of this people in establishing the work of God according to his own plans. The counsel of the Lord concerning his own work will be fully justified, and the folly of opposition to it will yet be made manifest.