Read Ebook: Missionary Survey As An Aid To Intelligent Co-Operation In Foreign Missions by Allen Roland Cochrane Thomas

Font size: 10 px 15 px 20 px 25 px 30 px 35 px

Background color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Text color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Apply/Save settings

Ebook has 249 lines and 54845 words, and 5 pages

Seeing that the missionary task is essentially world-wide, it is obvious that a world-wide work cannot be properly directed without a world-wide view. Now, missionary survey is in its infancy, and in most parts of the world it has yet to be begun. A full and complete missionary survey of the whole world would necessarily be a considerable undertaking, for many important facts could not be easily or quickly collected. There is then a strong tendency for men to argue that, since all the facts desirable cannot be known at once without much time and expense, it is futile and dangerous to collect those facts which can be collected speedily without great expense. A little knowledge, they say, is a dangerous thing ... let us remain ignorant.

We would venture to suggest that a little knowledge is only dangerous when it is mistaken for much knowledge; that it is far better to act on knowledge which can be obtained than to act in total ignorance, blindly. Where we must act it is our duty to know all that we can know, and if, because we cannot collect all the information that we should wish to possess, we refuse to collect that information which we can obtain, because we realise that it will be incomplete, we commit a serious moral and intellectual crime. If we can know only one factor out of one hundred, we offend if we refuse to know that one. We must act. We have no right to shut our eyes to knowledge which ought to guide our action because we are aware that action taken on that one factor will be insufficiently guided. The one factor is an important one and must influence our action, and would influence our action if we knew all the other factors. We ought to allow it to influence our action even in ignorance of the other factors.

In daily life we habitually act on partial knowledge, and we should think that man mad who urged us to refuse to be guided by our partial knowledge until our knowledge was complete; we should think a man mad who, being under necessity to act, refused to know what he could know, because he was aware that fuller knowledge might lead him to modify his action. Now missionaries and missionary societies are acting and must act, and the refusal to collect the information which they can obtain is as culpable as the ignorance of a man who refuses to attend to the one word "poison" printed on the label of a bottle which he can read, because he cannot read the name of the stuff written on the label.

Yet it is very commonly argued that unless survey can be made complete, unless, that is, every factor which we can think of as exercising an influence on our action is duly weighed, it is futile to survey the larger, commoner, and more easily accessible factors. This objection recurs again and again, and unless it can be put out of the way it must prejudice missionary survey. It would be wise, it would be right, to collect information on only one point, if that were all that we could do. It would be better than to rest content with total ignorance. Nevertheless, when anyone collects with care statistics on any particular point, he is certain to meet the objection that his labour ought to be ignored because he has not collected information about something else. As if total ignorance were preferable to partial knowledge! Is there any answer to the argument, that "Where ignorance is bliss 'tis folly to be wise," when supported by "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing," other than Dr. Arnold's maxim, "Where it is our duty to act it is also our duty to learn"?

We have not been careful to avoid asking for details of which we are well aware that the statistics do not now exist. We have thought it our duty rather to point out the information necessary for arriving at right conclusions than to mislead our readers by pretending that it is possible to form judgments and act properly without taking the trouble to collect information which is really necessary. This is no contradiction of the argument which we set forth that partial information is better than none, but it does warn the surveyor that blanks in the forms leave him not fully equipped, and that steps ought to be taken to secure information without which his conclusions are uncertain.

STATION DISTRICT SURVEY.

THE WORK TO BE DONE, AND THE FORCE TO DO IT.

Missionary work is presented to us here at home mainly at two points; the one, work at a mission station, the other, the condition and needs of a country or of a continent. In the one case we hear a great deal about the missionary's life and work; in the other we hear about great problems, religious, moral, social, and very little about the facts of the work.

We propose to begin with the mission station and to set down the information which we need, in order that we may take an intelligent interest in the work at the station, viewed by itself, as progress is made towards the immediate object of its existence; and then we propose to look at it in relation to other stations in the province or country, both comparatively to see how they differ, and as parts of a whole, to see what is the position of the Church in the province or country, and what place each station occupies in the work done in the larger whole.

We can do this, because the definition of a parish or district implies the recognition on the part of those who define the parish or district, of the purpose, if not the duty, of preaching the Gospel and establishing the Church in the area of that parish or district. The mere definition of the area, therefore, implies a policy for the mission which defines the area and for the station for which the area is defined. For such a station, therefore, we design our first survey, the object of the survey being to discover how far the work of the station is succeeding in performing the task which it obviously undertook when it accepted the definition of area.

The reasons why we adopt this extremely wide expression are: Some societies, whose members are undeniably Christian in morals and thought, do not baptise adults; many societies do not baptise infants; yet these unbaptised people are certainly not heathen; they certainly do not belong to any other religious organisation than the Christian. Again, some societies baptise very much more freely than others, and count as members large numbers of people whom other societies would consider to be in the position of inquirers or hearers. Consequently any just comparison between different areas in which different societies are working is impossible unless a very wide expression is employed, and a very wide interpretation given to it.

The Christian cause, both for good and evil, is largely influenced by the existence of these unbaptised. They are called Christian, they are considered to be such by their heathen neighbours, they suffer persecution often with the other Christians when any outbreak occurs. Their numbers and conduct exercise a wide influence in the society in which they live, for or against the progress of the Christian faith.

The attitude of these people to the Christian missionary is quite different from that of the heathen. They acknowledge Christ as the one Divine Teacher and Lord. The missionary cannot count them as belonging to the heathen; he cannot approach them as the teacher of a new religion. He must approach them as an exponent of the religion which they already profess. However inadequate and confused their ideas about Christian theology and practice may be, they expect to receive from a Christian teacher instruction in their own religion, and that religion is a religion common to him and to them. Consequently to omit them from the Christian constituency is to do an injustice to them, and to misrepresent the true facts of the case.

In many areas two or more societies are at work and their conception of the qualifications for the name of Christian differ. In a survey each society is tempted to ignore the members of the other, and to reckon as Christians only those who fulfil the conditions which are applied by the one society. So certain Protestant societies ignore all Roman Catholics; but that for the reasons already stated is most misleading, for when persecution arises Protestants and Roman Catholics alike suffer for the Name of Christ. Whatever the members of another society may be, they are certainly not heathen; the heathen deny them. Consequently they cannot properly be counted with the heathen by any surveyor who wishes to present the facts.

For these reasons we have been compelled to adopt a very wide expression, and the expression used by the China Continuation Committee seemed to be sufficiently elastic to serve our purpose. Nevertheless, to avoid error as far as possible, when we institute comparisons between Christian and non-Christian population, we introduce side by side with the total Christian Constituency the total Communicants , which is a valuable check.

Take then an example. The figures here given are obviously not the figures of a station area; they are figures for a province; but they serve to illustrate the point. We cannot fill up the area table; we can only supply figures for the population.

Now, here of the 534,238 Christians 500,655 are Roman Catholics, the Protestants numbering 33,583. The Roman Catholics in this area began work about 300 years earlier than the Protestants. Are we to eliminate them?

Are all these 33,583 Protestants more worthy of the name of Christian than some of the Roman Catholics? Or shall we eliminate some of the 33,583? If so, how many, and on what grounds? Is not the denial of the Name to those who claim to be servants of Christ absurd? Are there not enough non-Christians to be converted?

Suppose the Roman Catholic figures to be an estimate. Is it not plain that in dealing with considerable areas estimates may be useful though faulty? How little difference in the work to be done does an error in that estimate make? Knock off or add on 50,000 and is the work to be done seriously affected? It is true that in some calculations an error of that magnitude might mislead us somewhat, but hardly enough to vitiate our whole view of the situation, especially if we carefully check our conclusions by the results of other tables given later.

At the first glance these figures produce the impression that very little has been done. In the beginning, and that was many years ago, there were over 32 million non-Christians; there are over 32 million to-day. But let us look at proportions and see what a different impression is produced.

One Christian to every sixty non-Christians gives us a totally different impression. We begin to feel that if only the Christians awoke to their duty they could influence the whole population profoundly. That is precisely the effect produced upon the Christians by a missionary survey undertaken with them, and understood by them; they begin to see the immensity of the work to be done, they begin to see that it can be done.

There should properly then here be two tables parallel to the first two. Thus:--

Observe what light is thrown upon a district by the mere juxtaposition of those few facts. I think those two tables alone should suffice to prove that a survey which regarded only a very few factors might be of immense service, if those who used it kept clearly before them its partial character and did not allow themselves to treat it as complete.

But, unfortunately, these first facts which we have desired are, like other facts of importance, procured only with difficulty and toil. In order to fill up the preceding tables the missionary surveyor must be able to state what is the area and what the population in the station district. But some could not supply that information. Its acquisition might involve a journey of many months given up to careful examination and inquiry. It is no small demand to make. In many cases a reasoned estimate is indeed the only possible statement; but as we have already argued careful estimates are invaluable, and where a census does not exist they give us for the time something to work upon.

Where the physical survey can be undertaken it is most illuminating work, illuminating both to the missionaries and to their native helpers, who often gain an entirely new view of their work and its possibilities from such personal examination. Testimony to the value of this experience is growing daily in weight and volume.

This physical survey would naturally result in the production of a map of the area in which the cities, towns, and villages in the station district were marked with notes on their character from the missionary point of view. In this map all places where Christians resided, where there were Christian congregations, churches, preaching places, schools, hospitals, dispensaries, etc., would be marked. It would be a pictorial presentation of the facts so far as they were capable of expression in map form.

But whether in map form or in statistical form, the area and the population for which the mission is working must be expressed either by exact figures or by estimates if we are to trace progress.

If these tables were kept over a number of years, the missionaries on the spot and directors and inquirers at home would be able to see what progress was being made towards fulfilling the obligation implied by the definition of the station area or district, and what that obligation involved.

We need then a table of the foreign missionary force. In its form it will be a mere statement of proportions. The proportions are essential in order to make comparison between one area and another possible; and comparison is the sweet savour of survey. We cannot compare the work of three men labouring among an unstated population with the work of two other men working in an unstated population; the moment that the proportions are worked out the cases can be compared. But some men detest this purely quantitative comparison. They insist, and rightly, that there is no true equality in the comparison. One man differs from another man and his work differs from the work of the other man: over large areas it is often the work of one man among many which really saves the situation. It is quite true. In the last resort survey becomes survey of personalities. But in a survey of the kind which we propose, survey of personalities is impossible and most undesirable.

We turn now to the permanent Christian force in the district. We want to know what is the force. We ask, therefore, that the total Christian constituency may be accepted as the first expression of the native force. The progress of the Gospel is most seriously affected by the whole number of those who in any sense call themselves Christians. They are the force in the place which influences the heathen for or against it. It is of the utmost importance that they should be reckoned first, and treated first, as the force which above all others works slowly, quietly, imperceptibly, but mightily. The whole body of those who profess and call themselves Christians should be put in the very first place.

Then the communicants are commonly the body to which all turn for voluntary zealous effort. The communicants are the strength of the Church. We compare them next with the work to be done. Then the paid workers. Then the voluntary unpaid workers, recognised as such.

The difficulty of calculating the unpaid voluntary workers is indeed very great. We know of no definition which would serve to give any uniformity to returns made by different missions. We recognise that different missions would make the returns on different bases. We earnestly desire a common definition, which all might accept. But under existing circumstances it seems impossible to find one. Nevertheless, without some statement of the number of voluntary workers, we are, as we shall see, in grave danger of misjudging the situation and wronging our missionaries and the native Christians. For the time then we suggest that it would be far better to accept the returns given to us by the missionaries on their own basis, asking them to append a note to the return explaining how they calculated their voluntary force. We should then have the following table:--

Here again it is the proportions which are illuminating and enable comparisons of different areas to be made. The bare figures of the number of Christians and communicants and workers by themselves would tell us very little; only when we have them related to a common factor do we get any real light.

Let us now sum up our inquiry thus far.

If these tables were kept over a series of years, the progress of the force in relation to the work to be done would be most interestingly revealed.

But in estimating the Christian force in the district we need to know more than its number; we need to know so much of its character as statistical tables can show.

One Christian to every 129 heathen may mean much or little. It might mean that the day when the Christian force would be the controlling force in the area was close at hand. That would depend largely upon the capacity of the Christians, their education, their zeal. The tables which we now suggest are designed to reveal, so far as tables can reveal, the truth in these matters.

We begin then with the proportion of communicants in the Christian constituency. If we take the last table and, instead of considering the proportion of the communicants to the non-Christian population, consider the proportion of communicants to the Christian constituency, we gain a very different view. We gain then an idea of the character of the Christians. Instead of an idea of the size of the force at work we receive an impression of the quality of the force. Even one who lays little stress on the value and necessity of sacraments would not deny that he would expect more from a Church of 1000 in which 500 were communicants than he would from a Church of 1000 of which only 100 were communicants. He might deny that his expectation was based upon any faith in the virtue of sacraments, but he would acknowledge the fact that in our experience the Church which possesses large numbers of communicants is generally stronger than the Church which possesses a small number. The comparison of the number of communicants in relation to the number of the total Christian constituency does properly produce an impression of the strength of the Christian body.

If we can fill up the table

we gain an impression of the strength of the Church. But it is important to observe that it is only in relation to the earlier tables, which set out the force in relation to the work to be done, that this impression of strength is of immediate importance to us. We are dealing with a missionary survey, a survey concerned with the propagation of the Gospel. The mere strength of the Church, unrelated to any work in which the strength is to be employed, is a very different matter. We might take pleasure in the sight of it. We might congratulate ourselves and the missionaries on the beauty of the strength revealed, but not until it is related to work to be done does strength appear in its true glory. We find in nearly all missionary statistics the number of communicants and converts set forth, and we often wonder what for. It cannot be that we may glory in our conquests and say: See how many converts and communicants we have made! But, unrelated to any task to be done, that is all that appears. Therefore we have instituted this comparison here, in close relation to the earlier tables, that we may know what is the force on the spot at work in the area defined.

There is indeed a way of judging the zeal of native Christians for the propagation of the Gospel very popular among missionaries, the way of tabulating and comparing the amount which they subscribe for missionary work. Obviously this method is the form most natural to us, but it is one of the worst conceivable. When a Christian congregation lives surrounded by heathen, for it to learn to satisfy the divine spirit of missions by putting money into a box, is most dangerous. The zeal of Christians for the spread of the Gospel ought always to be expressed first in active personal service. We should prefer to omit any question as to the amount subscribed for missionary work far off. We believe it to be a most delusive and deluding test. It deceives the giver, it deceives the inquirer. We should prefer to inquire the number of hearers or inquirers brought to the Church by the undirected effort of the Church members, or the number of Church members who go out to teach or preach in their neighbourhood, or perhaps best of all, the number of little Christian congregations which as a body are actively engaged in evangelising their neighbours. But we admit missionary contributions as an additional question

That a Church must be instructed and instruct its children all are agreed: where men differ is with respect to the manner of the teaching. On the one side are those who would safeguard the faith by committing the teaching of it to a small body of carefully trained men, the clergy, whilst the majority of the Christians, the laity, remain unlearned and accept what is taught by the trained official teachers: on the other side are those who would boldly commit the faith to all, opening to all the door of learning. The one party would preserve the faith in the hands of a select few, the other would put the Bible into every man's hands. It is an old controversy; but we suppose nearly all those for whom we write are of the second party, men who would gladly see every Christian able to read the Bible and to base his religious life upon it. We stand for the open Bible; we believe that the Christian Church in every country will progress and develop strongly if it is based on a widespread knowledge of Holy Writ, and we are prepared to believe that a capacity to read the Bible is a sure sign of health in any Christian Church. The test of literacy commonly adopted in our missions is the capacity to read the Holy Gospels: we accept that gladly and confidently.

Furthermore, the influence of the Christian Church in the country will largely depend upon the extent to which the Christians are better able to read and understand literary expression than their heathen neighbours.

We want then to know the literacy of the Christian community as compared with the literacy of the non-Christian population from which it springs, and, if possible, a little more than that--what proportion of the Christians have had a sufficient education to enable them not only to satisfy the very slight demands of a literary test, but to have some wider knowledge with which to improve their own position and to enlighten others.

The table which results is as follows:--

In this table we touch one of the points on which exact figures are often inaccessible and an estimate must be made. An estimate which is recognised as an estimate is not misleading, and, if it is carefully made and based on evidence understood, is generally most useful, only estimates carelessly made and mistaken for precise and accurate statements of fact are misleading.

We ought now to be able to form some idea of the work to be done and of the force to do it. We know in quantitative terms the work to be done, we know the relative force of missionaries, we know the relative strength of the native Christian constituency, its communicants, its workers, its education, its wealth, in relation to the work to be done.

We have now to consider how the force is directed, along what lines it is applied, and how its efforts are co-ordinated.

THE EMPHASIS LAID UPON DIFFERENT TYPES OF WORK.

When we know the area and the force at work in it, we must next consider how this force is applied. We need to know in what proportion it works amongst men and women, how far different classes of the population are reached by it, and what emphasis is placed upon different forms of work, evangelistic, medical, and educational. We propose then four tables which will help us to understand these things.

First, we inquire into the relative strength of the force in relation to work among men and women. In the foreign missionary force we distinguish men, wives, and single women; in the native force we distinguish only men and women; because marriage generally affects the character of the foreigner's work more than it affects the character of the work done by the native Christians who live in their own homes among their own people.

Share on: WhatsApp @Hash Facebook Tweet