Missionary Survey As An Aid To Intelligent Co-Operation In Foreign Missions Part 6

This proposal sets before us a real end for the mission station. It suggests a point at which the station will have done its work; the mission would then have no more place in those parts. The station has thus an end, not only in the sense that it has an object at which it aims, but a point at which it ceases. But this end is not simply a point in the far distant future; it is a condition, or state of the Church in the district, into which it must be growing. Then the growth of the native Church is more important than the growth of the mission, and all things should be directed primarily to that end, so that as the native Church waxed the mission should wane, and thus the end should be reached naturally and easily and not by a catastrophe. If that is the end, then the survey of the station and its district cannot fail to take the form of an inquiry how far progress in this direction has been made.

Since our ideas of missionary work are wrapped up with the establishment of mission stations and consequently with the purchase of land and buildings, since we rely almost wholly upon paid workers for the prosecution of the work, since we employ most expensive methods of propaganda, such as the establishment of great medical and educational inst.i.tutions, since our societies at home are almost wholly absorbed in the effort to procure funds to pay for all these things, it is not surprising that money takes a supremely important position in our thought of all missionary work. Consequently, when we think of the growth of the native Church in power to carry on the work which we have begun we naturally think first of self-support.

Self-support is now one of the most common missionary catchwords. We hear it on every platform at home; we hear it in the mouths of large numbers of our converts abroad. There exist in the mission field large numbers of what are called "self-supporting churches". Our missionaries often set this self-support before their converts as a status of honour, and offer them encouragements of various kinds to induce them to become self-supporting as soon as possible. At home, if we ask concerning the progress of the native Church, they often answer us by telling us the numbers of these self-supporting churches.

What then is meant by a self-supporting Church? We might naturally suppose that a self-supporting Church was a Church which was independent of external support; we might suppose that it could maintain itself without any a.s.sistance from mission funds; we might suppose that, when a Church became self-supporting, the mission, so far as finance was concerned, could withdraw and move to some fresh place. That is sometimes the case, but very rarely. We know, for instance, a case where fourteen Christians in a small town provided their own chapel and its furnis.h.i.+ng and upkeep, and all subsidiary expenses without any a.s.sistance. They had no paid ministers and therefore no salaries to pay. They were from the very beginning entirely self-supporting, and the missionary could, and did, leave them and go to others who needed him more. But in this case there was no mission compound, no elaborate system of mission education, and no mission fund from which the chapel could be built and a pastor provided, before the converts were ready to provide these things for themselves.

Most commonly the mission does all these things, and then self-support does not necessarily imply independence of foreign support. We have met native Christians who a.s.sured us in one breath that they were members of a self-supporting Church and that their Church did not receive its fair share of mission funds. Self-support does not necessarily mean independence of external pecuniary aid.

What then does the status of a self-supporting Church imply? Nothing certain, but just what the society, or the missionary, chooses. Take a case. In a newly opened outstation the converts subscribed $5 Mexican, a head, per annum. The missionary in charge of the district estimated that $500 per annum would pay the rent and upkeep of the chapel, and the salary of the pastor. Therefore he calculated that when the members.h.i.+p of the chapel reached 100, the congregation would be self-supporting.

But if a school were founded and fees paid, then the day of self-support would be very far off.

Hence it is obvious that self-support is an arbitrary standard fixed on no certain grounds; and progress towards self-support is simply a progress towards a line which the foreigner prescribes. Just as each father among us here in England, according to his cla.s.s and standard of living, fixes a standard for his son, saying, "When he earns so much he will be able to maintain himself," so the society, or the individual missionary, fixes the standard for converts. In this case, the foreigner insisted on the salary for the pastor, he created the building, its ornaments and expenses; and where this is done the day of self-support must be more or less delayed. More or less, for what one man considers abundant another thinks hardly decent, simply because each has learnt in a different school different ideas of what is necessary or desirable.

Consequently one man makes the day of self-support easy of attainment, another loudly proclaims that his people are so poor that they cannot possibly be expected to provide for themselves.

Furthermore, we must observe that in the first case the converts arrived speedily at self-support because the foreign missionary never for a moment allowed them to be anything else, whilst in the second the missionary provided what he thought necessary until such time as the Church was sufficiently wealthy to pay for it. The one Church decided for itself what it needed, and what it needed it took the necessary steps to supply: the other accepted what was given to it and was asked to subscribe more and more to pay for it. But when the provision is first made largely from some more or less mysterious foreign source, the converts will never subscribe to a fund so organised as they will to a fund which they raise and administer themselves to supply what they themselves want, and cannot have unless they provide the necessary money to get it. Self-support then, as the word is most commonly used, means anything but genuine self-support, and does not represent the power of the people to supply their needs. It means only the subscription of money sufficient to pay for certain things which are more or less arbitrarily fixed by the missionary or his society.

Neither is it any sure evidence of the zeal and liberality of the Church which is called self-supporting. The existence of self-supporting churches is indeed sometimes used as an argument to show that the Church is growing in this Christian virtue. But this is largely deceptive. The existence of self-supporting churches does not necessarily prove Christian liberality. Take the case which we quoted above where the Christians subscribed $5 a head. It was said that when they numbered 100 members they would be self-supporting. But, if they still subscribed $5 a head, there would be no more liberality in the Church of 100, which was self-supporting, than in the Church of ten, which was not self-supporting. There might be more, if the ninety members added were very poor; there might be less if one wealthy man joined the Church.

Since the status of a self-supporting Church is one of honour and privilege, the members might even be tempted to admit an unworthy member who was well off in the hope that his subscriptions might aid them to attain that glorious position without much self-denial or effort on their own part.

Moreover, the collection of money is a highly developed art. It is extraordinary what pressure men can bring to bear upon converts to induce them to subscribe, so that the contribution is in many cases little different from the payment of a tax. It is truly amazing to read how many forms of appeals and fees can be invented to collect money from more or less unwilling givers.[1] We cannot then accept the existence of self-supporting churches as an evidence of liberality, nor base our calculation on the sum subscribed for the upkeep of such churches.

[Footnote 1: This is a list of the means employed to raise money by one missionary in order to a.s.sist the people in his district to arrive at self-support:--

(1) Sunday collections. (2) Share of first fruits (crop seasons). (3) Monthly members.h.i.+p family a.s.sessment. (4) Special missionary or harvest thanksgiving (twice a year). (5) Pinch of rice at every meal as thanksgiving (women's share). (6) Box in houses for prayer meetings, etc. (7) Church box. (8) Dedication of special pepper or cocoa-nut trees for church repair. (9) Bible society collections. (10) Hospital collection. (11) Baptism offerings. (12) Marriage offerings. (13) Lord's Supper offerings. (14) Special gifts for church building or equipment.

It is not surprising that he adds that he is told that some of the new converts have gone back because they see the regularity and frequency of giving.]

Nevertheless, seeing that self-supporting churches are widely recognised, let us begin with these and seek to find out what information a table of inquiry might supply. We should ask first for the number of self-supporting churches in relation to (_a_) the number of communicants (or full members) in the district, and (_b_) the number of Christian Churches organised, but not self-supporting. By an organised Church we understand a body of Christians in any place who hold regular religious services, and may send delegates to any council which may exist for the whole station district.

--------------------------------------------------------------------- Communicants.|Proportion of |Organised|Proportion of |Remarks |Communicants |Churches.|Organised |and |connected with | |Churches |Conclusions.

|Self-supporting| |Self-supporting.| |Churches. | | | --------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | _____________|_______________|_________|________________|____________

From this we should learn briefly, and as a starting-point, the proportion of the self-supporting churches, and that might help us to understand the progress made towards self-support as it is understood in the district, and enable us to compare it with that of other districts.

But this by itself would not be of any great value in a.s.sisting us to understand what progress had been made towards the establishment of a Church which could stand alone, if the station with its foreign staff were withdrawn. No Church which does not advance can stand, and the mere attainment of this arbitrary standard does not necessarily prove capacity to advance or to stand. The effort to attain it sometimes leads the converts to concentrate their attention upon themselves. They set self-support before their eyes as an end to be attained for their own sake. It has consequently sometimes happened that native churches, established on this self-supporting basis, have become self-absorbed, self-seeking. They have so looked on their own things that they have tended to lose sight of the things of others. They have become, like many little Christian communities at home, so entangled in the effort to maintain their own dignity, their own services, their own progress in outward prosperity, that they have forgotten the real purpose of their existence, and, instead of becoming centres of light and attraction and active zeal for the spread of the gospel, have degenerated into self-contained units indulging a self-satisfied pride in the glorious position to which they have attained as self-supporting churches. The history of some churches on the West Coast of Africa and in South India suggests the need for such a warning, and urges us to pursue the inquiry further.

We should inquire, then, what number of inquirers, adherents, hearers, catechumens, etc., are seeking entrance into the Church in connection with the self-supporting churches as compared with the total number of such inquirers, adherents, etc., in the district and compared with the number of communicants in connection with those churches.

---------------------------------------------------------|-----| In District (excluding Self-supporting Churches). | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Communicants. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Inquirers and Adherents. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Proportion of Inquirers to Communicants. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| In Self-supporting Churches. | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Communicants. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Inquirers and Adherents. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Proportion of Inquirers to Communicants. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Remarks and Conclusions. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----|

Such a table should, we think, prove illuminating as revealing the influence and zeal of the members of the self-supporting churches.

A further light on this subject might be gained by comparing the number of unpaid workers connected with the self-supporting churches with the number of such workers in the whole district, excluding the self-supporting churches.

---------------------------------------------------------|-----| In District (excluding Self-supporting Churches). | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Communicants. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Unpaid Workers. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Proportion of Unpaid Workers to Communicants. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| In Self-supporting Churches. | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Communicants. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Unpaid Workers. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Proportion of Unpaid Workers to Communicants. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Remarks and Conclusions. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----|

This would supplement the previous table and tend to correct any mistakes to which it might give rise.

Thus far of the missions which recognise self-supporting churches. As for the mission districts in which no such distinctions have been made, all that I think we need to do is to recall the tables which we made when considering the native force (p. 54 _sqq_.), and to supplement them with tables designed to reveal (1) the power of the Christians to conduct their own religious services independently of the foreigner; (2) their power to direct their own Church government; (3) their power to supply the material needs of their organisation according to the ideas which they have received and hold.

With regard to the first question, all that we need to know is what proportion of the Christians are in a position to carry on their own religious life independently of foreign help. In the Anglican Communion that involves the presence of a duly ordained priest: in some societies which deny the necessity of ordination, yet give a position not unlike that of the priest to their ordained men, it would involve the presence of a pastor. Others deny the necessity or advantage of any ordained ministers. Under these circ.u.mstances we cannot use accepted ecclesiastical terms; but by capacity for conducting their own religious services we must certainly at least mean capacity to perform all necessary religious rites, and that, for Anglicans at any rate, must include Baptism and Holy Communion. Suppose then that we accepted the "organised churches" as a basis and inquired what proportion of these organised churches could, and did, perform _all_ necessary religious rites, we should indeed omit the floating and isolated members of the unorganised Christian community which in some districts might be very large, but we should nevertheless, we hope, get a definite and common basis which would really give us some light on this difficult but important problem, and if we added a question as to the proportion of the Christian const.i.tuency connected with these organised churches we should have some check upon a serious misunderstanding.

---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Number of Organised Churches. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Proportion of Christian Const.i.tuency | | Connected with these. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Number of Churches Capable of Performing _all_ | | Necessary Religious Rites without External a.s.sistance. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Proportion of these to Number of Organised Churches. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Remarks and Conclusions. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----|

The second question is, How far the Church in the district can direct its own life and order its own government. The difficulty here arises from the very diverse forms of Church government which have been taught to the natives by their foreign teachers, some of them late and difficult representative systems, not easily grasped even by educated men. Is there then any general question which will suffice to throw light on this problem, where the people are in the midst of the process of learning an unfamiliar form of government?

Were very simple and almost universal ideas always followed, as for instance in episcopacy, which naturally adapts itself to the simplest and most common conceptions and experiences of men, in that the bishop is closely related in idea to the father of the family, or the head man of a village, or the governor of a province, or a chief of a tribe, or an autocratic emperor, or a const.i.tutional monarch, according to the notions and experience of the people--so that a bishop is as easily understood by a nomad family, or a village community, as by a democratic nation, according to its stage of development, and if native bishops were universal, as they are not, the problem would be comparatively simple. Indeed then we need scarcely ask the question at all. Either patriarchal episcopacy, or monarchical episcopacy, or const.i.tutional episcopacy all men can understand, whether the bishop is elected by his people, or appointed by his predecessor, or by his fellows, or both elected by his people and confirmed by his fellows--such things all men can understand and maintain, each the form suited to their own stage.

But const.i.tutional episcopacy when the people are at the patriarchal stage of development, or republicanism when the people are at the monarchical stage, they cannot understand, until they have learnt to understand it by long and slow experience. But many of the systems introduced by us are the latest and most advanced systems. How then can we discover to what extent the Christians have mastered them? We can find no question which solves this problem. We can only suggest the bare questions, what proportion of the people take a proper and active part in the system of Church government under which they live; and what proportion of the congregations take an active part as congregations in that system of Church government.

---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Number of Christians who take any part in Church | | Government by Vote or Voice. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Proportion of Total Christian Const.i.tuency | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Number of Congregations who take a share as | | Congregations in Church Government. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Proportion of Christian Congregations. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Remarks and Conclusions. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----|

By the first question we understand the number of Christians who vote or speak or act in any way, either personally or by electing representatives, in the direction of the common action of the whole Christian community viewed as a unity; by the second question we understand the number of congregations which are represented at any council higher than the council of their own congregation.

We think these questions most unsatisfactory, but we can devise no others. We have no doubt that, if all the foreigners disappeared suddenly, the native Christians would either perish or would speedily adopt a form of Church government which they understood. The whole necessity for these questions arises from the fact that we have foisted upon them foreign systems and are uncertain to what extent they have really grasped them. The consequence is that when we think of a Church capable of standing alone we are in doubt. We do not feel certain that the converts could carry on their government; and some of us think a change in the form of Church government as serious a matter as the change from Paganism to Christianity: it is an excommunicating matter.

Inevitably then in an inquiry such as ours we must try to discover how far the people are advanced in the understanding of the organisation which they have been taught. Until they are quite sound in this faith and fully trained in this system, whether it is a circuit or a presbytery or a democratic episcopacy, or a papacy, they cannot possibly stand alone. Who would dare to suggest such a revolutionary idea! Why, they might adopt a native governmental system--something which they understood at once, quite easily, and then where should we be? We know how to administer the system in which we were brought up: it is better that they should learn that.

Finally we make an inquiry concerning the power of the Christians to supply the material needs of their religious organisation. We want to know to what extent they are really dependent on foreign funds, and to what extent they can stand alone financially.

It is tempting to imagine that we can discover this by a mere calculation of the total expenditure on all work carried on in the district and comparing this either with the number of Christians and their relative wealth or poverty, or simply with the contribution which they actually make, concluding that the difference between their contribution, or their estimated power to give, and the cost of the work carried on in the area is the difference between their power to supply their needs and their real needs. But foreign funds are largely spent upon things which, however excellent they may be in themselves, are not really _necessary_ for the religious life of the Christians, such as missionaries' salaries, high schools, colleges, medical inst.i.tutions, and expensive buildings. Consequently to know the total expenditure in the area is not to know the necessary expenditure. The native Church might maintain its life and conquer the whole district without spending in actual money a t.i.the of that which we spend on providing the people with medicine and education and buildings and foreign missionaries.

Yet the question cannot be avoided. Missionaries all over the world carefully count every penny which the converts subscribe, and search diligently for some new method of doubling it, in order to lead their converts towards the goal of self-support. What that goal is we do not know. We cannot tell how far the Christians can supply their own needs, if we do not know what the needs really are. And that we do not know. In a certain very real sense Christians can always provide what is necessary for their religious life. They could all always be self-supporting, if we did not invent needs and insist upon them; and what we insist upon depends entirely upon the school in which we were brought up. The standard set, as we have already explained, is purely arbitrary.

Under these circ.u.mstances how can we express the position of the native Church with any approximation to truth? We can only suggest that these arbitrary standards should be accepted, and ask that they should be defined in every case. We should ask the missionaries, or the societies, to estimate the amount required to supply that minimum upon which they insist. If we did that, remembering always that the estimate made must be doubtful and arbitrary, and that the native contribution, whilst comparatively large funds are regularly supplied from a foreign source, will never represent the power of the Christian community to supply its own needs, we should at least have some standard by which we might estimate the position of the Christian Church in the country, and its progress. We suggest then that three items should be included in the table: (1) the total expense of carrying on all the work in the station district, whether the funds were provided from foreign or native sources; (2) the amount estimated to cover the necessary expenses of the native Christian Church; and (3) the amount subscribed by the native Christian community. We think these three items taken together would help us to understand the situation.

---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Total Expense of Church and Mission in the Area | | per Head of Christian Const.i.tuency. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Amount Estimated to Cover all Necessary Expenses of the | | Native Christian Const.i.tuency per Head. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Amount Subscribed for all Purposes by the Native | | Christian Const.i.tuency per Head. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Remarks and Conclusions. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----|

We have now, we hope, some light on the question how far we are really succeeding in attaining a purpose which we hear constantly proclaimed, as if it were indeed a governing object of our work, the creation of an independent native Church.

CHAPTER IX.

SURVEY OF DISTRICTS WHERE TWO OR MORE SOCIETIES ARE AT WORK AND SURVEY OF MISSIONS WITH NO DEFINED DISTRICTS.

I. Districts in which Two or more Societies are at Work.

Hitherto we have taken for granted that only one missionary society is at work in the district and that the survey is therefore simple; but in many mission station districts some other society is also at work.

Occasionally the district of one station overlaps part of the district of a station of another society. In many districts Roman Catholics are at work, and certain forms of their work cannot be ignored, and no form of their work ought to be ignored in surveying the district.

If two missions sent by different societies are at work in the _same_ district then, it would be an immense advantage if the survey of the district could be made a joint production. Union for study is often possible, when union in work is impossible, and the common understanding of the situation is most useful.

But if that is impossible, then each society must survey the whole district, and, what an immense amount of labour would be wasted in the preliminary survey, the physical toil of travelling over the country to see the villages and towns, which must be seen to be known, and must be known to reveal the secret of the task which the mission is founded to fulfil, that labour is known only to one who has undertaken such a task, and will soon be known to anyone who starts out conscientiously to survey any district. But it is helpful and illuminating labour, and it would be far better that the heads of two missions should survey the whole of the same district separately than that neither should survey any of it. If both feel that in any real sense that is "_their district_," then they ought both to survey it all; for to call a district _mine_ which I have not even surveyed and do not know even by sight is absurd; but it would lighten their labour and help their mutual understanding if they surveyed it together.

If a part of the district overlaps part of another mission district, that part should be surveyed together if possible, or if that is not possible, by each separately.

In this survey the work of no Christian society, however remote ecclesiastically or theologically from the surveyor's point of view, should be omitted. Ignorance of the work done by others is the worst possible form of separation. There is a sense in which it is true that the more remote the ecclesiastical position of another is from our own, the more near we are to definite opposition, the more important it is that we should know what his work is. We may find in it so much to admire that our annoyance at what seem to us his ecclesiastical absurdities may be softened. If we survey the district together we shall perhaps find there is room for both, even if we each start with the persuasion that there is no room for the other anywhere in the world.