And yet another interactivity post:
The spring 2006 issue of Christian History & Biography contains an article with a concise overview of A. Judson’s life and mission. One of the distinguishing marks of his legacy is his status as the first American missionary. He was sent from the Congregationalist American Board to India and carried with him a letter of introduction addressed to William Carey, the famed English missionary pioneer. Judson was excited about meeting the Baptist missionary and in preparation for dialogue with Carey, he used the voyage to study the differences between the Congregationalist and the Baptist views on water baptism. While studying, Judson, a highly educated man, became convinced of believers baptism and with his wife was baptized by one of Carey’s associates upon arrival in India. The consequence of this action was immense. This meant that Judson would lose financial support from the Congregational missions board, that Judson himself had worked so hard to create. To meet the financial need, Luther Rice, a member of Judson’s missions team was sent back to the United States to promote a new Baptist mission board.
On one hand, the courage of Judson is admirable - he sought the Word of God, interpreted the text, changed his belief based on scripture and allowed his actions to coincide with his beliefs.
On the other hand, one could argue that Judson acted inappropriately - he was sent by the Congregationalists, funded by their sacrifice, commissioned with the laying on of hands and trusted with carrying out the intended mission.
Question:
Were Judson’s actions correct? If you were counseling a young missionary today facing a similar situation, what would you say? The purpose of this question is to critique the ethics of Judson’s course of action and to contemplate the relationship/allegiane a missionary has with his/her sending organization, RATHER than a theological debate concerning water baptism. This is an important issue in our evangelical world where denominational lines have blurred a bit from Judson’s era and cooperation among missions organizations is growing.
I am having a hard thinking about this question because it just seems like it is asking if our obligations should lie in a group of people and their theological convictions or our conscience before God as we look in Scripture. I mean for Judson, what’s his alternative? Once he becomes convinced of believer’s baptism is he to say nothing to his sending group as though nothing had happened? Should Judson lie because he wants to please men? It seems to me that he had no other option but to go in the direction God was leading him and have the integrity enough to say that he had altered slightly theologically. How could any one accuse him of abandoning those who had sent him? That’s like asking whether it was right for Luther to believe in justification by faith and ask the questions he did of Rome. We can’t help what we believe. We either believe it or not. And if we do believe something, we have to be able to undergo the implications that are incumbent with it. I mean, let’s ask the question the other way. Judson was the one going to the field. Was it right for the congregationalists to sever financial support to a man who had the utmost integrity and faith to do what he was doing; a man that made their mission board exist? If there were ever an ethical question to be raised here, I think that would be the most pertinent.
How can you look at this apart from a theological debate? It was a theological issue that divided these people, ridiculous as it was. This wasn’t a mere luxury preference that Judson had which cost him his support unnecessarily. He looked at Scripture and was convinced because he was open to that doctrine. Is that his fault as though he was looking for something to split from the congregationalists over because he was a jerk? I hardly think anyone believes that.