Should the African Mission Be Abandoned. — (The Spirit of Missions. August, 1913.)
The development of the Church mission in Liberia has been most encouraging. It began in March, 1836, when James M. Thompson, a colored man, opened a mission school at Mount Vaughan with seven native children. It has grown until, in his last report, Bishop Ferguson stated that there were 26 clergymen, 8 candidates for holy orders, 2 postulants, 25 lay teachers, and 46 catechists and teachers. During the year of 1912, 242 children and 237 adults had been baptized—423 of them being converts from heathenism. During the year there were 165 confirmations. The grand total of baptisms to date was 9,565; the total of confirmations, 4,856. The number of present communicants was 2,404, of which two-thirds were natives. The estimated value of buildings belonging to the mission was $121,250; 22 day schools, 19 boarding schools and 38 Sunday schools was conducted; 1,210 day-school pupils, 643 boarding-school pupils, 2,714 Sunday-school pupils were in attendance. It is a noble record of results for faithful service.
It has been suggested in some quarters that the American Protestant Episcopal Church shall abandon this promising mission field; or rather it is proposed that it shall exchange this successful and flourishing work with English brethren, for work started by them in Central America. It is possible that from the point of view of church administration such an exchange may be desirable; it is certain that from any other point of view it will be a great misfortune. The writer of this article has himself been in Liberia, and is profoundly interested in Liberian problems. He believes that any proposal to abandon work in Liberia could only arise through ignorance of the actual conditions in the Black Republic. He has no wish to interfere in affairs which in no wise concern himself. Deeply interested, however, in the progress of the only remaining country of Africa which is administered by black men, he desires to express his reasons for opposing the suggestion.
It is now seventy-seven years since the Liberian work was begun. It has been wisely directed, it has been nobly supported, it has been successful. Surely the ultimate aim in all such labor is to produce a self-supporting church in the mission field. The Liberian Church is already approaching the point of self-support. In his last report Bishop Ferguson says: “I believe the greatest joy of my life would be to be able to say to the Board of Missions, ‘The Church in Liberia will hereafter support itself. You need not appropriate any more funds towards its maintenance.’ That I am unable to do so as yet is not because of an indisposition on the part of the people to contribute to such a worthy object, but rather because of their poverty, through not having learnt to work profitably. It must be remembered that two-thirds of our communicants are native Africans who, as well as the majority of the class we call ‘Americo-Liberians’ making up the one-third, need to be trained in some remunerative industry. The fact is, that the financial burden of the Church in the district is resting on a comparatively small number. Taking this into consideration, the amount raised from time to time for the building, repairing, and improving of churches, and to meet other parochial expenses is rather creditable than otherwise. Besides expenses at home, they contribute annually toward missions in general in the shape of Lenten and Easter offerings and the missionary apportionment fund. Our quota of the last named has already been paid up for the present year. But as above shown, comparatively few deserve the credit. To make the work self-supporting, at least a majority of the members should be able to contribute to it.”
Certainly, it is a basic error to abandon a work which has been conducted for seventy-seven years, when it approaches the point of self-support. A change subjecting the mission to a new administration, would mean setback and delay in gaining the end desired.
The American Church is bound in a special way to Liberia; the original settlers in Liberia were American freed-men; they had been our slaves. As Americans we had been responsible for the dragging of thousands of helpless black people from their homes; we had held them for years in captivity. When finally we sent them back as freed-men to the shores of their native continent, our obligations by no means ceased.
When Bishop Lee preached the sermon at the consecration of Bishop Ferguson, he used the following strong terms: “To the millions of this race among ourselves, as well as to those beyond the sea, we should count ourselves debtors. If any branch of the evangelistic work of our Church has peculiar and sacred claims to general support, it seems to me to be our African Mission as well as our home Mission among our colored people. With glad and ready hearts should we enter this open door. With free and unclosed hands should we pour our gifts into the Lord’s treasury. And when we read with averted eye the shocking details of former injustice and inhumanity, well may we thank God that He has shown us a way in which we may send back to those sunny climes a benefaction, the value of which cannot be told.”
In 1893 Dr. Langford, General Secretary of the Board of Missions, said: “The lapse of time does not lighten by a shade the deep damnation of its curse. If America were to pay a million dollars a year for fifty years, it would not suffice to cancel a tithe of her debt to Africa.”
England has no such duty nor obligation to Liberia; she cannot be expected to take the same legitimate interest in that mission. Nor have the Missions of Central America anything like the same claim upon the interest and sympathy of the American Church as has Liberia. Nothing but blindness to the seriousness of our obligation could lead us to make the exchange.
It is true that the United States has at no time shown the hearty interest in, and sympathy with Liberia which she should have. It is, however, true that, as a result of all the past, the civilized Liberians are to-day far more American in spirit than English. The Liberians are different in their bearing and manner from all other blacks upon the coast of West Africa. This is not merely a personal claim. Travelers, ever since the early days of colonization, are united in their statements: the Liberian is more independent—he is more a man—than the black man in any of the European colonies. This spirit has been frequently criticised; it is no advantage to colonizing nations to encounter black men of spirit and independence; such are a bad example to colonial subjects. But, if Liberia is to remain a nation, this spirit of independence must be maintained. The transfer of this mission to England would dampen enthusiasm; it would check the independent spirit; it would introduce the element of weakness. No one who has seen the blacks of Freetown can fail to grasp my meaning. The attitude of the Englishman toward colored peoples may be fairly fair and just, but it is repressive. In the nature of things, administration of the Liberian Church by British leaders would necessarily lead to irritation and assumption of superiority on the one side and subservience upon the other; there would be less of self-respect and independence. If the Church held its own in numbers, it would be through the loss of its most desirable members and their replacement by people of less strong character.
The work of the Protestant Episcopal Church is not the only mission work within the limits of Liberia. There are also missions, more or less active, conducted by the Methodist Episcopal, African Methodist Episcopal, Baptist, Lutheran and Presbyterian denominations. If these mission efforts are to be successful there must be fellow feeling between the different missions; harmony and unity should be the order of the day. We regret that there has not always been the most harmonious relations between the different branches of Christian efforts in the Republic. Surely, however, every mission there established should do its utmost toward harmony; surely it should be the policy of each separate mission to do nothing which could interrupt or destroy harmonious relations. But all these other mission efforts in Liberia are in American hands; the transfer of the Church mission to English hands would be certain, under the political and social conditions of the country, to introduce friction and enmity which would be destructive beyond the possibility of calculation. From the point of view of Christian harmony it would be a blunder to transfer the mission.
I believe that Liberia may have an important influence in solving our Negro problem. It is doubtful whether we shall send a large number of emigrants from our southern states to the Republic; it is likely that a small migration will constantly take place from us to Africa. But it is of the utmost consequence both to Liberia and to our American black people that there be intimate relations between the two regions. It is desirable that many black men from America should visit and know Liberia; it is most important that Liberians should find it easy to come to America and see our institutions. In this easy contact and intimate relation there is certainly ease for our black man’s troubles. Everything which cultivates close, frequent, repeated and continued contact will help us as much as it helps them. We ought, then, at least, to think a long time before we sever any connection already established.
In view of these conditions and tendencies, it seems to me that the proposed exchange would be a serious blunder. Motives of economy and ease of administration cannot excuse it. Duty, honor, enlightened patriotism, demand that the American Church continue to carry the Liberian mission until such time as it may become self-supporting.