The American Missionary — Volume 43, No. 01, January, 1889 by Various
page 23 of 98 (23%)
page 23 of 98 (23%)
![]() | ![]() |
|
I. It prevents waste.
(a.) Waste in administration of funds. Its accounts are open to and audited by those whose money is being spent. Reports of the financial standing, receipts and expenditures to the half-penny are presented every year. Look them over and note how minutely your accounts are kept. Officers and missionaries are held by you to strictest responsibility. This is sound business sense applied to missionary work. But one naturally asks why, when such absolute safeguards are thrown around the administration of the funds committed to the A.M.A., some of those who established those safeguards give a considerable portion of their money to individuals over whose expenditure they have absolutely no control, and where funds may be, and often are, wasted? And in this way the percentage of the cost of administering the funds committed to the A.M.A. is also increased. This can scarcely be called sound business wisdom. (b.) Waste in field work. It requires wide experience and knowledge of the whole field in order to adjust and direct, without waste of laborers, the force of missionaries. Those who know only one locality cannot do this. It is often remarked that each missionary thinks his particular field the most important, and the one especially needing help and enlargement. This is a grand tribute to their faithfulness and Christian enthusiasm. But the systematic investigation of the whole field, constantly and patiently carried on as it is by the A.M.A., determines with larger wisdom whether work should be strengthened and developed in Tennessee, or Georgia, or Texas. Gen. Grant was familiar with the whole field, and placed his men according to the varying exigencies of the campaign. Just so the systematic methods of this Association place these noble missionaries where there will be least waste of labor. |
|