GORDON, Andrew

[s. 288] : Born in Putnam, N. Y., September 17, 1828; graduated at Franklin College, O., 1850; studied theology at Canons burg, Pa., 1853; appointed by synod mi ionary to Sialkot, North India; sailed September Dr. Gordon was the founder of this 28, 1854. mi ion of the United Presbyterian Church. He was a devoted and useful laborer with pen and tongue. He returned to the United States in 1865 greatly debilitated, but having gained sufficient strength to warrant active laljor again, he reembarked in 1875 and was stationed at Gurdaspur, Northern India. He returned home the second time because of illne of members of his family, and looked forward confidently and eagerly to a return to his work in India. After a school. GOSPEL IN FOREIGN PARTS; Society for the See Society foh the Propagation OF THE Gospel. See GOVERNMENTS; Relation of Mi ionaries to: This is a matter of great perplexity, difficulty and importance. The mi ionary is in one sense a man without a country. In another sense he is a man of many countries. He does not renounce his nationality or citizenship. As Paul at times fell back on his high position as a Jew and Pharisee, so the mi ionary must often a ert his privileges of birth and country. At the same time he is a resident of foreign lands and inevitably related to foreign governments, on his own account, as an individual; in behalf of the property and other local interests acquired by his mi ion, and in behalf of converts and adherents, who rely on him for advice and sympathy as to enjoying justice and protection in secular things. As Paul appeared now before Ananias, the highiiM now before Felix and Festus, Roman governors; now before Agrippa, and finally appealed to Csesar, so the mi ionary may find himself to ed between different, often conflicting, sources of authority, seeking to reach some supreme Csesar, often finding only Herods and Pilates who will make friendship over his defeat. The relation which he sustains to the government of the country where he works may have Ever since the to be one of virtual defiance. Apostles met the prohibition of their persecutors by saying, “We ought to obey God rather than men,” and rejoiced “that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for His name,” the first preachers of the Gospel have encountered in most non-Christian countries the hostility of the powers that be. From Stephen to Bishop Hannington they have found hostile peoples and rulers arrayed against them, and yet have persisted in gentle defiance of threat and command and force. The first Protestant work in Japan was in quiet disregard of hostile laws, pro clam a And for years before. Cathtions and penalties. olic priests had been at work sustaining suppre ed Christianity, “sleeping,” as one of them Long expre ed it, “by day, working by night.” have they also done the same in Korea, where, entered for the at last, our own mi ionaries understood purpose of establishing a prohibited religion. Their position at Seoul, the capital, afforded for some years a most interesting instance of the curious intermingling of po ible priest; relations with different governments. As foreigners at an open port they were under the diplomatic protection of their home governments. As court physicians, heads of hospitals, asylums, schools, etc., they were under the protection of the Korean government, received distinct appointment as Korean officials of a certain rank, and had a kind of private policemen In -a igned them for protection and service. private they were also recognized as mi ionaries. labor was Yet in all this public capacity, mi ion prohibited; in any capacity it was liable to be stopped at any moment. The situation was full of complications both for the judgment and the conscience. But Christianity has taken root in Korea; Good Hope 271 it has made progre more rapidly than in Japan at the start and it has won for itself a place in the land. In Japan one restriction long remained which involved the question of the true relation of the Out mi ionaries to the Japanese government. side of the open ports, pa ports were required and could be had for travel only for purposes of health and science. It was often a question among mi ionaries whether such traveling pa ports ought to be used for evangelistic purposes. The first mi ions to India were in defiance, not so much of heathen as of Christian government. The history of the East India Company’s friendship with heathenism and hostility to effort is one of disgrace, happily relieved, however, by noble exceptions, and steadily improved by the pre ure of the better sentiment of England until, with the a umption of rule by the British government in 1857, the Christian present policy of friendly neutrality was adopted. At the time, however, there was often nothing for the deported or prohibited mi ionaries to do but seek some other country, like Burma, or cast themselves on the help of a friendly government like that of Denmark at Serampur, or wait in Go’vernmentn quiet and disguise for reluctantly extorted permi ion to go on with work. In Turkey the Christian laborer stands under the protection of his own government, with explicit recognition of his character as a mi ionary. Yet so far as his work touches Mohammedanism, he is engaged in an endeavor to lead persons to violate by a change of religion the most stringent provisions of the law of the land. This change only the most persistent pre ure on the part of Christian governments has induced the Turkish government to relieve, in theory, from punishment by death. Practically it is still bitterly opposed and severely punished. The relation of a mi ionary to a government thus compelled against its will is of nece ity He must have constant dealings with lower and higher officials who on the most flimsy strained. pretext, or with no pretext at all, seek to close his schools and chapels, stop his printing pre and silence his native preachers, while the unthinking multitude are stirred up to riot against Protestants, and wildest exce es are committed, until the claims of humanity force the powers at Constantinople to interfere. The censorship of the pre exercised in Turkey and especially directed against the mi ionaries is in many cases only more ignorant than it is severe. To keep in communication with hostile officials, to endure oppre ive edicts while contending for equitable treatment promised by treaty or by law, to pre important cases on the attention of the American consul or minister these are among the great embarra ments and hardships of a mi ionary’s life, not only in Turkey, but in China, Korea and po ibly to some extent in — Japan. To specify one further question that is full of embarra ment to the mi ionary: When a mi ionary is hampered by the unwillingne of local officials to give him rights secured by law, how far may he follow usages that prevail in Turkey or in China and secure his civil rights by payments which will induce the official to do his Backshish is duty instead of evading it? expected and demanded in Turkey and Persia. Yet its influence is demoralizing. How far shall the mi ionary seem to sanction the prevailing corruption? How far must he resist it? This most practical question repeatedly recurs. The mi ionary’s difficulties are more subtly perplexing in case he enters into anything like an alliance with any government. But these difficulties are not peculiar to the foreign field. They must be For dealt with as they are dealt with at home. every such alliance is in effect a union of Church and state. The failings of Roman Catholic mi ions in this respect, whether in North and South America, in Japan, China, India, or other counT hey form tries, are too well known to be told. a most instructive part of the history of mi ions. France and Germany to-day are eager to offer such allianee to mi ionaries. France, in particular, has sought to advance its diplomatic and colonial interest through claiming to be the protector of all the mi ions of the Roman Propaganda. It has long sought to gain political power in China by posing as the patron of all Roman Catholic mi ionaries of whatever nationality. It has regarded and treated both Catholic and Protestant mi ionaries as its own emi aries in pushing its colonial schemes. The Legion of Honor medal has been recently conferred upon M GovcrnmeiitB GrahamstOTrn Casalis, an old French Protestant mi ionary, for “extending the influence of France in Basutoland,” in the sphere of British influence in South Africa. Germany, too, has the colonial fever, and the interest in mi ions has been increased all over the land because it is believed that, even if mi ionaries are not succe ful as Christianizers of heathendom, they can be used wisely as German As a veteran mi ionizers of certain parts of it. ary friend in Germany puts it: “The opinion of the German African Society with regard to mi ionary societies is that they are not unselfish attempts to spread the Gospel, but merely handmaids to colonial politics a cow to give milk to the mother-country.” This alliance with the government on mi ionary ground gives rise to a new set of hostile relations. France wants only French, Germany only German, mi ionaries. The language and sentiments of each country must be exclusively taught Mi ionaries of in the colonies of that country. other nationalities must be excluded, for they neither could nor would enter into such alliances for political and national schemes. The mi ionary may be often tempted to — a ume an attitude of critic or mentor to half civilized officials of the land where he is preaching the Gospel. For a large cla of questions is added to those which perplex the mi ionary when he is appealed to by native Christians to secure government aid or interference in behalf The expectation of them and their interests. and hope of such aid and protection from the mi ionary is one of the motives most damaging It harms the to the sincerity of new converts. mi ionary, too, by filling his time and thoughts with civil matters, lawsuits, appeals, etc. For instance, in Travancore, the question of the They caste privileges of Christians comes up. are said to be low caste, which would shut them off from much. They claim to be no caste. One The privileges of typical case decides many. entire communities are at stake; the courts must decide, the mi ionaries must make up, present, and push the case. That may keep them in the courts for years. Anywhere in India the right of Christians to use the village well or fountain may be denied. But the government has declared the wells free to all. The mi ionary is impelled by kindly compa ion to bring such a case before the collector. In China and in Turkey or Persia officials are not strict observers of the laws. When they oppre the Christians the influence of the mi ionary is ince antly invoked to help his adherents. Natural sympathy for those in distre and the desire to see fair play have made some men allow most of their time for years to be consumed by such lawsuits, whose result, of whatever sort, was sure to be harmful to their spiritual work. Another such connection with the local government often appears to work for good. From their superior education and ability mi ionaries are often appointed to some official position. Dr. Verbeck was for some time a state official of Japan. President Martin, of Peking, at the head of the Imperial College, was appointed by the fovernment of China. Dr. Allen and Mrs. lunker were the court physicians of the King and Queen of Korea. Dr. McKenzie at Tien-tsin was closely related to the Viceroy Li Hung Chang. Others have served for a time as diplomatic agents 272 of the home government, like S. Wells Williams or The appointment of Dr. Whitney, of Tokio. men to such positions often prepares the way for the Gospel and commends it to strangers. such Yet as a rule, contrasting the high calling of a simple mi ionary with any other position, one might say of some who turn aside from the mi ion to official work what Dr. Carey wrote regretfully of his son “Felix has shrunk to an amba ador.” The general rule of the Church Mi ionary Society, as published among its regulations, is “Every mi ionary is strictly as follows: charged to abstain from interfering in the political affairs of the country or place in which he may be laboring;” “Never a ume a position of hostility to the ruling powers;” “Stand aloof from all questions of political leadership and political partisanship;” “Tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.” It is not strange, when one sees what a snare is spread in all dealings with magistrates and civil authorities, that many of those who are most consecrated and experienced should decide that the only safe plan for mi ionaries is that of The best silent abstention in all such matters. they can ask from any government is to be let alone, and regarded with friendly neutrality. The best they can do for the mi ion is to lean on no arm of flesh, invoke no aid of consul or magistrate, but rely on God and what He may do for His servants. They are not the foes of any people, they should not be the political engines of any government, nor should they make any govern: ment their engine. Another complication of this question is the attitude toward mi ionaries sometimes adopted by ill-informed officials of the home governments. Such officials sometimes regard mi ionaries as pestiferous lunatics whose object in life is to get themselves into trouble with a view to disturbing the peace of officials abroad who are charged with the protection of their wandering fellow countrymen. The ignorance which fosters such opinions may be gauged by perusal of the article in this book on The International Service of Mi ions. We cannot better close the discu ion of these delicate problems than by the following suggestions prepared for this work by the veteran mi ionary and student of mi ions, Rev. James S. Dennis, D.D., which foreshadow, perhaps, opinions to be set forth in the third volume of his Christian Mi ions and Social Progre : “We shall not undertake to call in question the fact that under exceptional circumstances, under the pre ure of misunderstandings, or as the outcome of religious fanaticism, the entrance of Christianity into non-Christian lands has been unwelcome, and awakened more or le opposition. This is natural, perhaps inevitable, and nistorical precedents would lead us to expect it. It seems to be incidental to the propagation of Christianity, and yet so long as the mi ionary teacher is within recognized and acknowledged treaty rights, and does not transgre international agreements, he is not called upon to refrain from pursuing his So calling by fear of diplomatic difficulties. long also as his appeal is only to the reason and moral nature of man, without attempting to exact an unwilling adherence by any expedient which forces the conscience, he is strictly within the bounds of that universal exercise of moral free GovernmentB 873 freedom which belongs to man as man. It is not in fairne or justice within the sovereign rights of any government, despotic or liberal, to exercise lordship over the conscience in the realm of That would be to usurp a religious freedom. power which belongs to God alone and which He As a has never delegated to human rulers. religious teacher of God’s truth and God’s law of righteous living, using only the moral instrumentalities of appeal and persuasion, the Christian mi ionary has the right of way the world over. Within his proper limitations he is unimpeachThe highest able as a moral force among men. authority which mankind is called upon to acknowledge has commi ioned him to discharge a duty which is sui generis in history. He may be hindered, opposed, persecuted and martyred, but his credentials are authoritative, and cannot be destroyed. He may be silenced temporarily, or banished for a time, but his opportunity is certain to come, and he is bound to avail himself of it.”It becomes him under these exceptional conditions to discharge his duty with meekne , patience and tact, to exemplify in his own character and conduct the wisdom, gentlene and sincerity of the religion he teaches, and to seek only moral victory by legitimate spiritual means. Where the mi ionary service is rendered in this spirit it is rarely, if ever, offensive, and any po ibility of disturbing goodwill is reduced to a minimum. In fact, the charge which has sometimes been made indiscriminately that mi ions are the cause of international alienation has been greatly exaggerated. There has been much misunderstanding on this point, and some considerable misrepresentation. The conspicuous illustration, of course, has been China, and on the basis of a false induction, a sweeping and railing accusation has been made against mi ions in general as a While it is cause of trouble among the nations. no doubt true that the political a umptions of Roman Catholic mi ions in China are offensive to the Chinese officials, yet it can be safely said that Christianity as exemplified in Protestant mi ions, exercising its simple and legitimate function as a teacher in the sphere of morals and religion, is guiltle in the matter of political meddling. In reference to the Boxer disturbance of 1900 in China, and other similar outbreaks which preceded it, it is sufficiently clear that the aversion of the Chinese to foreigners, and especially their resentment at foreign encroachments upon official prerogative, territorial integrity and native industries, are adequate explanations of the uprising, which has aimed at the foreigner of whatever cla as an intruder, but chiefly in his official and commercial character rather than at the mi ionary as a religious teacher. In fact, the mi ionary, all things considered, has made it safer and more po ible than it would otherwise have been for all foreigners to reside in China. Numerous friendly acts and proclamations by high officials of the empire, since the convulsions of 1900, have indicated a The specially kindly feeling to mi ionaries. Mi ionary Peace Commi ion of 1901 in Shansi is a remarkable evidence of the respect and consideration shown to mi ionaries by many Chinese officials since the troubles of 1900. The recent opening of Hunan province by the mi ionaries of the London Society has reclaimed in a measure an immense section of China to foreign residence, which will be a boon both to mi ions and commerce. 18 Grabamsto^TDi “At the Seventh Annual Conference of Foreign Mi ion Boards of the United States and Canada, held in New York City January, 1899, a report was presented embodying the results of a careful canva of mi ion fields throughout the world as to the attitude of civil governments toward Christian mi ions and mi ionaries wherever they had been established. The report revealed the fact that almost the world over the attitude of local governments was friendly and helpful, with few signs of friction and opposition. In view of the many regrettable incidents in the contact of Western nations with Eastern peoples, and the objectionable personal example and conduct of many foreigners residing in the East, the outcome above indicated is especally significant and speaks much for the respect accredited to mi ions and their representatives.” GOVERNOR’S HARBOR: A station of the WMS in Eleuthera Island, Bahamas, with (1903) 1 mi ionary, 24 native workers, 4 preaching 1 day school, and 593 profe ing Chris places, tians. A village in Chota Nagpur, GOVINDPUR: India, situated about 25 miles S. W. of Ranchi. Station of the Go ner Mi ionary Society, with (1900) 2 mi ionaries, 76 native workers, men and women; 37 preaching places, 2 day schools, 1 boarding school, 1 dispensary, and 8,722 profe ing Christians. 291