Sending Money To Germany
(Editor's Note: We pass on brother Johnson's letter for study. We believe there-may be merit in his suggestion; but we see some very serious objections to it. Some of these objections have been aired through these pages the months gone by. Anyhow, we are grateful for this letter. It shows the brethren are thinking; and therein lies our salvation. We will be happy to publish other letters of this type from our readers. In a full and free discussion we can hope for all facts to be brought out, and the truth will prevail.)
Beamsville, Ontario Dear Brother Tant:
For many months I have watched the missionary efforts of our brethren with grave fears and many anxious prayers. I trust that it will not be thought presumptuous for me to speak on the issue.
So much that is irrelevant has been said that the issue is clouded. I have waited long for some clear statement or definite suggestion as to how the work should be done. My observations thus far have led me to believe that no one wants to do anything contrary to the scriptures, but that some things have been done thus seems obvious.
I have read several times, very carefully "Facts Regarding the German Work.' Some of the indefinite matter brother James W. Adams has already dealt with, and I think that the others will be noticed by him in due course. I shall not therefore, refer to them here.
The diagram that brother Adams used has long been in my mind and serves well to point out what is being done, whether intentional or otherwise. The thoughtful can readily see the potential Missionary Society. This brief note is to supplement the diagram with some positive suggestions.
I believe that all will agree it is better or rather more economical to send money through the bank in large sums such as the Broadway Church in Lubbock, Texas, is doing, especially in view of the fact that they "have arranged with a bank to handle this without charge.' It is, therefore, good business to send it this way. But here a problem arises. Some, no doubt well-meaning-elders, label their contribution "to be used as you see fit.' This does two things that are wrong: (1) It places an unfair, not to say unscriptural, responsibility upon the Broadway elders. (2) It shifts responsibility from the first group of elders to the second group of elders. Yet in spite of suggestions and requests that donations be labeled, some insist on sending this way. The fact is that the contributing elders should shoulder the responsibility of how and where their money is to be spent, but when they do not, should the Broadway elders refuse the donation? I think not. Let the Broadway elders make it clear that all such contributions will go to a given purpose or work, such as: (1) relief work; (2) building program; (3) support of a German worker, etc., etc. This may seem very trivial to some, but to my mind it solves the very problem confronting us. If it was made clear that unlabelled contributions went to a given work then the contributing elders would be forced to decide whether they wanted their money to go to that work. (It may even make them decide to designate their contribution.)
Looking then at the diagram in the Gospel Guardian, issue of March 29th: Let each American Church label their contribution and forward same to the, elders at Broadway, Lubbock. Let it be designated for a certain destination. Let the elders at Broadway bulk the money and send it to the English speaking church, Frankfurt, Germany together with instructions as to the disbursement of same according to the expressed desire of the original donor. This would remove anything that looks like a society. The elder in Germany would have no say in how the money was to be disbursed, nor would the elders in Lubbock, Texas. The donors would be directly responsible.
This may create a little more record-keeping, but who would not be willing to do the extra work if it meant doing the Lord's work the Lord's way.
Let the congregation in Germany inform the elder at Broadway, Lubbock, as needs arise or change, and let the Broadway elders in turn inform the American churches, thus the funds can be balanced and each donor directly responsible for the use to which his money is put.