Jack Hides And The Missions

How Some of the Organisations Dealt With a Thorny Subject

MISSIOXARY bodies of modern vintage are more tolerant than the stovepipe hat variety of sixty or eighty years ago; and the manner in which some of the Aus tralian mission organisations composed their differences with Mr. Jack Hides is a model worthy of study by argumentative people in secular life.

The following circular, distributed among the Missionary Societies, etc., early in Oc tober, is self-explanatory.

SOME of our people have been perturbed by the statements that have appeared in the daily press, from which it would seem that Mr. Jack Hides, who conducted such a remarkable and heroic expedition to the interior of Papua, discovering a large and hitherto unknown tribe, had suggested that this new-found people should be left alone, and that missionaries and others should not be permitted to enter their territory.

Most of us felt that he must have been, as so many of us have been, misreported in the press, and that a frank talk with him might clear up some misunderstand ings.

The Rev. J. W. Burton, as Chairman of the National Missionary Council of Australia, wrote to Mr. Hides, and invited him to meet some of the executive officers of the major missionary societies. In ac cepting this invitation Mr. Hides wrote as follows: “Firstly, I wish you to understand clearly that I have not, at any time, made any criticism, or reference to Papuan

missions or missionaries—or any influence of missions on native peoples. Whatever I have said has been upon these new people, among whom, of course, no mis sions have yet been. I think I raised a point on Christianity. I asked ‘Was Christianity alone sufficient for these people (the new race) ?’ and when I did so I had in mind various American and Eng lish peoples who seem to get the idea that this newly discovered tableland, with its dense population, is just a modern Jerusalem, and all they would have to do would be to enter it. It is, of course, a bigger problem than that.

“What I would not like to see, person ally, is outside missions in an unholy scramble to be first among these new people. I think we have better and more experienced missionaries in Papua.

“What is to be the future of these people I do not know; for Sir Hubert Murray controls the destiny of Papua’s people, and he has not told me. But I think you may rest assured that there will be no interference with them from other sources than the Government and missions. I have a great love and a great interest for my country, and it was a relief to me to learn that there was no gold, or indi cations of it, in this area in question.

“I hope I have made myself clear. It seems absurd to suggest that I, born in Papua, my greatest friend and guide a missionary, should try to condemn some thing that has withstood so many diffi culties for so long. I should be grateful if you would clarify my idea to your con

nections, and clear away any misunder standing.”

Mr. Hides was met at luncheon by the Rev. Canon Needham (chairman of the Australian Board of Missions), Rev. A.

Fleming (secretary of the Presbyterian Foreign Mission Committee), Mr, R. Hic kin (Secretary of the National Missionary Council), and Rev. J. W. Burton, M.A. (general secretary of the Methodist Board of Missions). The Rev. L. Hurst (secre tary of the London Missionary Society) and Rev. R. J. Hewett (secretary of the New South Wales branch of the Church Missionary Society) were unable to be present.

In a very frank and manly way, Mr.

Hides amplified what he had written in his letter to Mr. Burton, and pointed out that he was merely expressing the fear that a type of inexperienced missionaries might go amongst these people, disrupt their social system, and cause such dis integration of native life as would bring in its train disaster. He had in mind re ports that had come to him which sug gested that there would be an unholy rusn on the part of some bodies to occupy this territory: and he did not wish to see any such competition and consequent con fusion to the people.

He had nothing but appreciation of the work of the missionaries at present en gaged in Papua, and stated that he num bered some of the missionaries among his best friends. Emphatically, his remarks did not apply to the major societies at present in Papua.

The real question at issue seemed to be, “What is meant by Christianity?” If by that elastic term is understood a mere method ©f “saving souls only” without any care for the whole life of the people, then we are at one with Mr. Hides. Chris tianity, however, has wider implications and a vaster programme than that. The mission of Jesus was to human life in its totality—embracing moral, physical, and economic good as well as spiritual eman cipation. Nor can they be separated.

We were all impressed by Mr. Hides’ sincerity and frankness, and more than once, as he evidenced his love for these people, we were touched by his enthu siasm and devotion. And he has earned the right to speak on their behalf.

We found that in the main we were in harmony with his objective—a sane mis sionary policy working in conjunction with a sane civil administration. All this points the moral that missionaries who go to these primitive peoples should be thoroughly equipped for their delicate task and should be aware of the danger of breaking down a long-organised past without having carefully thought out plans for future development. For old interests, if a change has to be made, there must be substituted new and wor thier ones.

It was a happy gathering and we con fidently assure our people that Mr. Jack Hides and the Papuan Government staff, of which he is so illustrious a member, are in complete sympathy with the mission ary objective which is the well-being—in the widest and best sense—of native races.