The action of the South Georgia Conference of the Methodist Church in
voting $65,000 to Foreign Missions, last week, moves the _Jeffersonian_
to say another word upon that subject.
Some time ago, the New York _World_ published a statement to the effect
that, out of every ninety dollars contributed in this country to the
Foreign Mission fund, only one dollar reached the heathen. This is a
sweeping arraignment of the honesty and efficiency of the management of
the funds which we are not prepared to indorse.
Our criticism follows a different line. The question raised by the
_Jeffersonian_ is this,—_What moral right have American Christians to
leave their own poor_,—UNFED, UNCLOTHED AND UNREDEEMED,—_and
to drain off into foreign lands millions upon millions of American
dollars to feed and clothe and redeem the poor of those foreign lands?_
It is a most serious question, Brother.
You tell us, as per formula, that we are commanded to carry the Gospel
to all the world. Granted. But where are we commanded to leave our own
poverty-stricken wretches to die like poisoned rats in their holes,
while we relieve the physical distress of the Chinese?
What moral right have we to deny the beggar at our gate, and to heed
the plaint of the Chinese beggar?
One of our private correspondents a little while ago, wrote us that a
certain preacher, whose attention he called to our statements on this
subject, declared that said statements “_were misleading_.”
Wherein? They could not _mislead_. If what we have said about our
foreign missionaries furnishing food, clothing, medicine, fuel, etc.,
to foreign “converts” is the truth, our people are entitled to know it.
If our statements are false, _we_ want to know it.
A very prominent and able Baptist minister,—who has long been a
laborer in the Foreign Missions field,—and a well-known Methodist
minister, who has been similarly engaged, _are responsible for the
statements made by the Jeffersonian_.
One of these noble men said that the most discouraging thing about the
Foreign Missions work was, that _when the rations to the “converts”
were cut off, the convert lost interest in the Christian faith_.
What words could we employ that would arraign the system more severely?
* * * * *
The idea of the _Jeffersonian_ is that each nation of the world should
take care of its own poor. We are not responsible for pauperism, vice
and crime in China. There is no more reason why we should be taxed for
_contributions to maintain a commissary_ in Pekin or Hong Kong than in
Paris, Berlin or London. We leave to the French the task of providing
for the Parisian poor; we don’t think of supplying food, raiment and
medicine to Berlin paupers; and we consider it the duty of the English
to provide for London outcasts. Why, then should we virtually coerce
our American Christians into sending money to heathen lands for the
purpose of relieving the physical distress of the heathen?
While penning this editorial, it occurred to us to glance at a New York
exchange, for the purpose of noting _some contemporaneous instance of
starvation, or of suicide because of hunger and lack of employment_.
The newspapers of the North have been gruesomely full of many ghastly
incidents of that kind.
Yes, _there it was_, page 3, of the N. Y. Evening Journal, of December
4th, 1908.
A white woman, sick and starving, and with a babe at her breast, fell
exhausted on Fifth Avenue,—the home-street of the richest men the
world has ever known. All of them are Christians. When prosecuted for
their criminal methods of taking other people’s property away from
them, they blandly perjure themselves, escape the feeble clutches
of the law, turn up serenely at church, next Sunday, and contribute
handsomely to Foreign Missions.
The woman who fell starving, on the street where these richest of men
live, was named Mrs. Mary Schrumm. She was young, thinly dressed, and
_had not tasted food for two days. The child was nearly famished,
almost frozen and had acute bronchitis._ Her husband was out of work;
an old woman with whom she had found shelter had been given notice to
vacate; and Mrs. Schrumm had gone into the streets to seek refuge in
some one of the charitable institutions. _She had been turned away from
each of these that she could reach. She had begged that her babe, at
least, might be taken in. No; the babe was sick, and_ THEY COULD
NOT TAKE IN A SICK CHILD!
God! And we talk about _what the heathen need! The hardest-hearted
heathen that Jehovah ever made are some of the seared hypocrites who
call themselves Christians._
Denied everywhere, poor Mrs. Schrumm wandered about the streets, in the
bitterly cold wind, until she fell, completely tired out.
_Then_, indeed, charity had to sit up and take notice. The starving
woman was put into an ambulance, and carried to a hospital. _She_ will
probably recover; her child will probably die.
Then, _what moral right_ have you to let such unfortunates as these
_fall starving in_ YOUR _streets_, while you are sending
_hundreds of millions of dollars abroad to feed, clothe, physic and
make fires for the hungry, “thinly clad,” sick and shivering Chinese_?
Doesn’t your own “mother wit” tell you that _Foreign Missions could
not consume such vast sums of money_, IF THE MISSIONARIES LIMITED
THEMSELVES TO PREACHING THE GOSPEL!
Put on your think cap, son.
In the New York _World_ of December 5, 1908, is reported the case of
George Schulze who shot himself to death, in spite of the pleadings of
his wife and children, because he was out of work, had tried in vain to
secure employment and was in despair.
If these were not typical cases, we would not dwell upon them. But they
_are_ typical cases, _and you know it_.