THE DANGER OF MODERN MISSIONS.
By Henry S. Nash
Henry S. Nash, D. D., in the Churchman. We look down upon the Middle Ages. We thank God that we no longer think of handing heretics over to the “secular arm,” piously commanding the said “arm” to deal with them “without shedding of blood.” But a brief study of recent events in connection with foreign missions may moderate our pride by suggesting that our Christianity is still entangled in that hideous confusion between spiritual and secular principles. Our government, whenever it has time and opportunity, presses upon Turkey the question of payment for the damage done to the property of American missionaries in Armenia. At first blush this strikes us favorably. It even thrills us to think of an American fleet in a quarter of the world where our flag has too long been unfamiliar. Bombard some Turkish port! But let us take a second thought. Might it not be better for American Christians to rebuild, twenty times over, the buildings which the “unspeakable Turk” has destroyed, rather than make the “Oregon” and the “Kearsage” agents of the Lord Christ, of him who died for pure love of men? We do well to say that the deadliest error of Mohammedanism is its complete identification of church and state, its adulterous connection between force and religion, its perpetual alliance between the Koran and the scimitar. But is our shield altogether clean? Damages for missionary property destroyed, collected by the state, perhaps at the cannon’s mouth! Is this the pure gospel of Christ? The present situation in China has brought to light another striking example of the vicious consequences ensuing upon an unclear conception of the missionary motive. A recent letter signed by many of the missionaries in China, urged upon our government the duty of strenuous exertions in defense of all Americans in China. Thousands of letters from the friends and kinsfolks and supporters of missionaries have been sent to Washington to press the same duty. Just a little while ago a prominent official complained that the government was expected to send a regiment or a battle-ship to defend every single merchant and missionary who might be in danger. Observe the fatal association—“merchants and missionaries.” Men who have gone out in search of gain are put on a footing with those who have gone forth in search of souls. And apparently Christians at home will have it so; for with one voice they demand that the government shall protect the missionaries. . . . But are not our missionaries Americans? Are they not under the flag wherever they go? Is it not the bounden duty of America to protect them and all her citizens at all costs?—Not so. Our missionaries go forth not as Americans, but as Christians. Their only flag is the cross. To demand of the state that it shall protect them by force of arms is to degrade and abase the missionary motive, and to rob missionary efforts of their chief glory. What a humiliating situation in China, with English missionaries under the English flag, German missionaries under the German flag, American missionaries under the American flag, and so on. If the Sublime Porte will but rouse himself and send one of his crazy war-ships to defend the Mohammedan missionaries in China,—if there be any such,—our shame will be complete.