In the early days of ISI we sponsored numerous conferences for Christian foreign students from poorer countries, commonly called "the two-thirds world." In open forums and discussions many of these Christian students expressed outrage at what American missionaries were doing in their countries. I can’t list all these things in a brief magazine article, but hope to document them in a book to be published in the future.
Suffice it to say that we finally, around 1960, began to be a voice for our fellow believers in other countries. We devoted an issue of our newsletter to the need for change in the way missionary work is done. The response was unprecedented. That paper was duplicated thousands of times and sent to the ends of the earth. Letters poured in by the hundreds, about half of them praising us for our courage and half condemning us for daring to mention anything negative about our missionaries.
Our headquarters was in Washington then, where I had frequent fellowship with the head of the Evangelical Foreign Missions Association. He took me to task for saying negative things about foreign mission works because, he said, even though they were true they might cause some contributors to give less for their support. He let me know in no uncertain terms, that some leaders of EFMA member missions were very upset about the contents of our newsletter. And as I would meet these leaders in missions conferences they would often express their displeasure to me directly.
On the other hand, we received many letters and phone calls commending us for the things we said. A missionary with the Sudan Interior Mission wrote, "I have come to exactly the same conclusions since coming to Africa." Our most enthusiastic supporters were leaders of indigenous missionary works in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Many of them had seen their ministries virtually wiped out by rich Americans who had come on the scene to compete with them by hiring away their workers, dividing their churches, and setting up Bible schools across the street from existing ones to lure away their students and teachers.
The ensuing conflict could have torn us to pieces, but God was with us. We were one body in Christ with our fellow evangelicals in the traditional missions, and also with our brothers overseas whose works had been hurt by colonial operations. We were determined to walk in love with God’s servants on both sides. But some colonial mission leaders and other prominent evangelicals wouldn’t let us do it.
A radio preacher in D.C. published a blistering condemnation of ISI in his monthly newsletter. He called us "a cult denying the great commission." I went to see him immediately because I loved and respected him as my brother in Christ. But he rejected my offer of fellowship, saying, as he eased me out the door of his house, "I’m gonna fight you." And fight he did, attacking us frequently on his radio program and in his newsletter. But we never fought back. We just kept on loving him and prayed that God would forgive him. As we did regarding the many others who attacked us. We were very careful to never make a negative comment about any specific person or work. We spoke in general terms only.
At that time ISI had a two-fold ministry. We were recruiting native missionaries from among foreign students in the USA, and providing financial backing for those who returned to spread the gospel and plant churches among unreached peoples. Scathing verbal attacks were directed against both operations by leaders of colonial missions. This opposition created horrendous problems for us. Hal Guffey, ISI Field Director, recruited the pastor of a denominational church to be our international student missionary worker in the Pittsburgh area. Since that pastor was well known and liked by churches of his denomination, he fully expected that he could enlist many of them to help in the ministry of ISI. But the head of the denomination’s foreign mission board spread the word that they should have nothing to do with ISI. That new recruit for our staff suddenly found himself cut off from his former friends and associates. It began to appear that ISI could not be successful in enlisting the cooperation of U.S. churches if we continued to call for change in the way foreign missionary work was being done.