{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_13360/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_13360","id":"gutenberg_13360","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/13360","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Religion/Spirituality","Missions"],"text":"Transcriber's Note: In order to maintain appropriate line length, some\ntables have been transposed, i.e. rows are columns and vice versa.\n\n\n\n\nMISSIONARY SURVEY AS AN AID TO INTELLIGENT CO-OPERATION\nIN FOREIGN MISSIONS\n\nBY\n\nROLAND ALLEN, M.A.\nSOMETIME S.P.G. MISSIONARY IN NORTH CHINA\nAUTHOR OF \"MISSIONARY METHODS, ST. PAUL'S OR OURS,\" ETC.\n\nAND\n\nTHOMAS COCHRANE, M.B., C.M.\nLATE PRINCIPAL OF UNION MEDICAL COLLEGE, PEKING, AND HON. SECRETARY\nOF THE LAYMEN'S MOVEMENT, LONDON MISSIONARY SOCIETY\n\n1920\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nThis book, written by Mr. Allen, bears both our names because we studied\nthe material together, and settled what should be included and what\nexcluded. We discussed and disputed, and finally found ourselves in\ncomplete agreement. We therefore decided to issue the book in our joint\nnames, on the understanding that I should be allowed to disclaim the\ncredit for writing it. But the book would never have been written at all\nsave for the inspiration and help of Mr. S.J.W. Clark, who, in his\ntravels in nearly every mission field, has brought an unusually acute\nmind, trained by a long business experience, to bear upon mission\nproblems, and has done more hard thinking on the question of survey than\nany man we know.\n\nLet anyone who doubts the need for survey study the present distribution\nof missionary forces. He will find little evidence of any plan or\nmethod. In one region of the world there are about four hundred and\nfifty missionaries to a population of three millions, while in another\narea with more than double the number of people, there are only about\ntwenty missionaries.\n\nAfter travelling in the latter region I asked one of the senior workers\nwhat in his opinion would be a large enough foreign staff, and he\nindicated quite a moderate addition to the existing force. Suppose I had\nsuggested a total of a hundred missionaries, he would have declared the\nnumber far too large. Perhaps he was too modest in his demands.\nConditions in one area differ from those in another. But such a wide\ndifference in distribution and in demands makes the need of survey to\nascertain facts and conditions absolutely imperative, especially when we\nremember that to the force of four hundred and fifty in the territory\nwith the smaller population, missionaries will probably continue to be\nadded and unevangelised regions will have to wait.\n\nAfter surveying one of the better staffed divisions of the mission\nfield, a missionary declared that not more missionaries were needed, but\na more effective use of the force at work; and fortunately in that\nparticular field central direction is beginning to secure that end. But\nusually there is no central direction and no comparison of plans between\nneighbouring missions on the field, although several missions may be\nlocated in the same town or city; and two Mission Houses in London may\nbe almost next door neighbours, and may have missions in the same city\nin the Far East, and may yet be entirely ignorant of each other's plans\nfor work in that city. They might be rival businesses guarding trade\nsecrets! Hence it is not strange that when late in the day a survey of a\ncity in China is made in which there are about two hundred missionaries,\nit is found that not one of them is giving full time to evangelistic\nwork! Across the city of Tokyo a line could be drawn west of which all\nthe foreign workers live, while east of it there are nine hundred and\nsixty thousand people without a single resident missionary!\n\nBut not only is intermission planning, based on survey, sadly lacking;\nfew missions have thoroughly surveyed their own fields and their own\nwork, and fewer still have surveyed them in relation to the work of\nothers. The result is that policies are adopted and staffs increased in\na way which--for all administrators know to the contrary--may be adding\nweight where it should be diminished, and may be piling up expenditure\nin the wrong place.\n\nIt should be pointed out, however, that survey is beginning to come into\nits own. It is being more and more realised that it should be the basis\nof all co-operative work, and the survey of China now nearing completion\nplaces that country in a premier position as far as a foundation for\nwise building is concerned. Recently in London, neighbouring Mission\nHouses have been getting into touch with each other, and the Conference\nof British Missionary Societies and the analogous body in America have\nmade conference between missions frequent and fruitful. But there is a\nlong way yet to travel before we can have that comprehensive planning\nwhich the present world situation imperatively and urgently demands.\n\nBut just as neighbouring missions should get to know about each other's\nwork and plans in order that funds may be spent most effectively; so a\nworld survey is necessary if the command of Christ is to be adequately\nobeyed. The unit is the world, and survey in patches may misdirect money\nwhich would have been spent differently if the whole need had been\nbefore the eyes of those who are charged with the responsibility of\nadministration.\n\nWe make bold to affirm that no Society can be sure that it is spending\nthe money entrusted to it wisely unless it has a satisfactory system of\nsurvey in operation, a system which takes account not only of its own\nwork but also of the work of others. We go further and say that the\nchances are the money is _not_ bringing the maximum return. When world\nneed is so vast it is time to challenge a reasoned contradiction of this\nassertion. If each Society did what in justice to its constituency it\nought to do, a survey of an area such as a province or a country would\nbe an easy task, and a survey of the world would be neither difficult\nnor expensive, and after all, until we know the whole, we cannot\nintelligently administer the part.\n\nThe missionary enterprise waits for the men who will take the\ncomprehensive view and become leaders in the greatest and most\nfundamental task of all time. Until these leaders appear, mission work,\nfor those who seek to understand it as a world enterprise, will, as a\nlayman said recently, remain worse than a jigsaw puzzle!\n\nTHOS. COCHRANE.\n\n\n\n\nANALYSIS OF CONTENTS.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nTHE IMPORTANCE OF A DOMINANT PURPOSE.\n\n\nThe modern demand for intelligent co-operation\nThe same demand in relation to Foreign Missions\nThe need for a definition of purpose\nThe failure of our present reports in this respect\nIs definition of purpose desirable?\nIt is necessary for formulation of policy\nSocieties with limited incomes cannot afford to pursue every good\n  object\nThe admission of diverse purposes has blurred the purpose of Medical\n  Missions\nThe admission of diverse purposes has confused the administration\n  of Educational Missions\nThe admission of diverse purposes has distracted Evangelistic\n  Missions\nHence the absence of unity in the work\nHence the tendency to support details rather than the whole\nThe need for a dominant purpose and expression of relations\nThe need for a statement of factors which govern action\nThe need for a missionary survey which expresses the facts in\n  relation\nThis demand is not unreasonable\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nPRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS.\n\n\n1. All survey is properly governed by the purpose for which it is\n  made\nThe purpose decides what is to be included, what excluded\nA scientific survey is a survey of selected factors\nThis is not to be confused with the collection of facts to prove a\n  theory\nThe collection of facts is independent of the conclusions which may\n  be drawn\n2. The survey proposed is a missionary survey\nThe difference between medical and educational surveys and missionary\n  survey\n3. The survey proposed is designed to embrace the work of all\n  Societies\n4. Definition of aim necessarily suggests a policy\nWe have not hesitated to set out that policy\nWe make criticism easy\n5. Survey should provide facts in relation to an aim, so as to guide\n  action\n6. Twofold aspect of survey--survey of state, survey of position\nSurvey is therefore a continual process\n7. Possible objections to method proposed--\n  (i) The information asked for statistical\n  All business and organised effort is based on statistics\n  Every Society publishes statistics\n  (ii) The admission of estimates\n  The value of estimates\n  (iii) The difficulty of many small tables\n  Why burden the missionary with the working out of proportions?\n  The tables should assist the missionary in charge\n  (iv) The objection that we cannot obtain all the information\n  Partial knowledge the guide of all human action\n  (v) The tables contain items at present unknown\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nSURVEY OF THE STATION AND ITS DISTRICT.\n\nThe Work to be Done, and the Force to Do it.\n\n\nWe begin with survey of the station and its district\nIf the station exists to establish the Church in a definite area then\n  we can survey on a territorial basis\nThe definition of the area involves a policy\nI. When the area is defined we can distinguish work done and work to\n    be done, in terms of cities, towns, and villages; in terms of\n  population\n  The meaning of \"Christian constituency\"\n  The reasons for adopting it\n  Example of table, and of the impression produced by it\n  Example of value of proportions\n  Tables of proportions\n  The difficulty of procuring this information\n  The value of the labour expended in procuring it\nII. The force at work\n  The permanent and transitory elements\n  (a) The foreign force\n  The use of merely quantitative expressions\n  Such tables essential for deciding questions of reinforcement\n  (b) The native force\n  Reasons for putting total Christian constituency in the first place\n  The Communicants. The paid workers. The unpaid workers\n  The difficulty in this classification\n  The interest of these tables lies in the proportions\n  Summary\nBut we need to know something of capacity of the native force\n  (1) Proportion of Communicants\n  The importance of this proportion in itself\n  In relation to the work to be done\n  (2) Proportion of paid workers to Christian constituency and to\n    Communicants\n  The difficulty of appreciating the meaning of this proportion\n  It must be checked by (a) the proportion of unpaid voluntary workers\n  (b) The standard of wealth\n  (3) The contribution to missionary work in labour and money\n  (4) The literacy of the Christian constituency\n  The importance of widespread knowledge of the Bible\n  The importance of Christians having a wider knowledge than their\n    heathen neighbours\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nTHE EMPHASIS LAID UPON DIFFERENT TYPES OF WORK.\n\n\nI. Work amongst men and women respectively\nWe first distinguish men, wives, and single women among the Foreign\n  Missionaries\nThe reasons for applying the distinction between men and women to the\n  Native Force\nII. The different classes in the population chiefly reached by the\n  mission\nIII The different races and religions\nEmphasis upon one class or race or religion is no proper basis for\n  adverse criticism of the mission\nIV. The emphasis laid on evangelistic, medical, and educational work\n  respectively\nThe difficulty of distinguishing medical, educational, and\n  evangelistic missionaries\nThe reason why grades need not here be distinguished\nV. Sunday Schools--\nThe diverse character of Sunday Schools\nThe table proposed\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nTHE MEDICAL WORK IN THE STATION DISTRICT.\n\n\nThe tendency to treat medical and educational work as distinct from\n  evangelistic\nMedical and educational boards and their surveys\nThe difficulty of determining the aim of the medical mission\nFirst of medical missions as designed to meet a distinct medical need\nTwo tables designed to present the medical force in relation to area\n  and population\nThe necessity of considering non-missionary medical work in this\n  connection\nThe extent of the work done in the year\nThen of the medical mission as designed to assist evangelistic work\n  (i) The extent to which evangelists work with the medicals\n  Caution as regards the use of this table\n  (ii) The extent to which medicals assist the evangelists outside the\n    institutions\n  (iii) The extent to which the evangelistic influence of the hospital\n    can be traced\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nEDUCATIONAL WORK IN THE STATION DISTRICT.\n\n\nThe difficulty of determining the aim of educational missions\nThe difficulty presented by different grades and standards\nThe reason for excluding Colleges and Normal Schools at this stage\nFirst of the educational mission as designed to meet a distinct\n  educational need\nTwo tables designed to present the educational work in relation to\n  area and population\nThe necessity of considering non-missionary educational work\nThe existence of non-missionary schools may either increase the need\n  for missionary schools or decrease it\nThe extent to which education is provided for the better educated and\n  the more illiterate\nThe extent to which education is provided for boys and girls, for\n  Christian and non-Christian scholars\nThe extent to which mission schools receive Government grants throws\n  light on their character and purpose\nThe extent to which education is provided for illiterate adults\nThe importance of this\nThe importance of the distinction between Christians and\n  non-Christians in this table\nThen of the educational mission as designed to assist evangelistic\n  work\n  (i) The extent to which evangelists work with the educationalists in\n    schools\n  Caution needed in the use of this table\n  (ii) The extent to which educationalists work with evangelists\n    outside schools\n  The importance of the work done by educationalists outside the\n    schools\n  (iii) The immediate evangelistic results of education given\n  The difficulty\n  The table proposed\n  The support given by the Natives to medical and educational work\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nCO-OPERATION.\n\n\nThe importance of the relation between the different parts of the\n  mission\nThe relations already expressed in earlier tables\nThe chief difficulty lies in the relationship between medicals\n  and educationalists\nThe importance of medical work in schools\nThe table showing the work of medicals in connection with schools\nThe importance of educational work in hospitals\nThe table showing the work of educationalists in hospitals\nSummary of co-operation between evangelists, medicals, and\n  educationalists\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nTHE NATIVE CHURCH.\n\n\nThe end of the station, a Native Church\nThis end a condition into which the Church must be\n  growing\nSurvey must therefore deal with the Native Church\nThe reason for beginning with self-support\nThe meaning of self-supporting Churches\nIn rare cases it means independence of external support\nIn most cases it means attainment of an arbitrary standard\nIn most cases it does not represent the power of the people to supply\n  their own needs\nIn most cases it is not sure evidence of growing liberality\nNevertheless we must begin by considering the self-supporting\n  Churches\nWe ask for proportion of self-supporting Churches\nThis will not reveal the power of the Churches to stand alone\nWe inquire then the proportion of inquirers in self-supporting\n  Churches\nWe inquire then the proportion of unpaid workers in self-supporting\n  Churches\nWhere self-supporting Churches are not recognised we inquire--\n\n  (i) Power of Christians to conduct their own services\n  (ii) Power to order Church government\n  (iii) Power to provide expenses of Church organisation\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nSURVEY OF DISTRICTS WHERE TWO OR MORE SOCIETIES ARE AT WORK.\nSURVEY OF MISSIONS WITH NO DEFINED DISTRICTS.\n\n\nI. The possibility of united survey by missionaries of two or more\n  Societies\n  The evil of ignoring the work of others\n  Survey is concerned with facts not with ecclesiastical prejudices\n  The difficulty of obtaining the facts\n  The use of estimates\nII. The mission which has no defined district--A\ngeneral expression of the purpose of such a mission\n  In its widest terms survey of the work of such a mission would\n    involve survey of the whole state of society\n  In its narrower terms it is survey of a mission establishing a Church\n  In this case most of the preceding tables could be used, omitting\n    proportions to area and population\n  Then we could see force at work\n  Then we could see forms of work\n  Then we could place the mission in a survey of the Country\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nSURVEY OF THE WORK IN A PROVINCE.\n\n\nThe mission station is not an isolated unit\nThe relationship of station with station is recognised\nSo the relationship of all missions in a country is recognised\nWe can then consider the work of a mission station in relation to all\n  mission work done in the Province or Country\nConsidered in relation to the larger area, impressions produced by\n  the earlier tables may have to be revised\nThe first necessity is to gain a view of the whole work in the\n  Country\nThe difficulty presented by capitals and other large cities\nI. The items proposed as necessary for such a general view--\n  (1) The work to be done; a bare quantitative expression in terms of\n    population, perhaps also in terms of cities, towns, and villages\n    unoccupied\n  This expression ought not to suggest that the work to be done is to\n    be done by the foreigners\n  (2) The Foreign Force at work in relation to the work to be done is\n    larger than that presented by returns from all mission stations\n  The Native Force also is more than the sum of the station district\n  returns\n  (3) Different forms of work; one table revealing proportion of\n  Missionaries, Native Workers, Foreign Funds, and Native\n  Contributions employed in different forms of work\n  One table of results\n  A serious flaw in this table\n  (4) The extent to which different classes, etc., are reached. One\n    table including the station returns with the addition of special\n    missions which work among special classes in the whole Province or\n    Country\n  (5) Self-support. One table showing the relation of the native\n    contribution to the total salaries of all paid native evangelistic\n    workers\nII. To this must be added tables of students in training for\n  different forms of mission work\nFirst the relative proportion of students in training for different\n  types of work\nThen of each more particularly--\n  (1) Evangelistic\n  Confusion of nomenclature prevents more than a rough classification\n  (2) Educational: divided roughly into four classes\n  (3) Medical: divided into three classes\n  These tables are prophetic of line of advance in the near future\n  The question of perseverance\nIII. Then the Educational Institutions excluded from the district\n  survey must be added to the sum of the station returns to show the\n  relation of the educational work to the population of the larger\n  area\nThe importance of the relation of the higher to the lower grade\n  institutions\nThe educational work of non-missionary agencies must also be\n  considered\nIV. Medical work needs only the addition of provincial hospitals and\n  non-missionary medical work\nV. Two other subjects claim attention here, literature and industrial\n  work\nThe difficulty of dealing with literature. It needs special treatment\nTwo brief tables suggested\nThe difficulty of dealing with industrial work still greater\nFor industrial missions, other than those which are really\n  educational, we suggest three tables\nVI. Union work\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nTHE RELATION OF THE STATION TO THE WORLD.\n\n\nA world-wide work can only be conducted on world-wide principles\nThese world-wide principles must govern the work in every part,\n  however small\nNo country, however large, can be an isolated unit from missionary\n  point of view\nHow shall we gain a view of this large whole?\nWe suggest that four tables would suffice for our purpose:--\n  (1) A table showing the force at work in relation to\n    population\n  (2) A table designed to reveal something of the\ncharacter and power of the force\n  (3) A table showing the relative strength expended in evangelistic,\n    medical, and educational work\n  (4) A table showing the extent to which the native Christians support\n    existing work\n  This is only a tentative suggestion proposed to invite criticism\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nTHE IMPORTANCE OF A DOMINANT PURPOSE.\n\n\nIt is a marked characteristic of our age that every appeal for an\nexpression of energy should be an intellectual appeal. Emotional appeals\nare of course made, and made with tremendous force, but, with the\nemotional appeal, an emphasis is laid to-day upon the intellectual\napprehension of the meaning of the effort demanded which is something\nquite new to us. Soldiers in the ranks have the objective of their\nattack explained to them, and this explanation has a great influence\nover the character and quality of the effort which they put forth.\nLabourers demand and expect every day a larger and fuller understanding\nof the meaning of the work which they are asked to perform. They need to\nenjoy the intellectual apprehension of the larger aspects of the work,\nand the relation of their own detailed operations to those larger\naspects; and it is commonly recognised that the understanding of the\nmeaning and purpose of the detail upon which each operative may be\nengaged is a most powerful incentive to good work. In the past leaders\nrelied more upon implicit, unreasoning obedience, supported often by\naffection for the leader's own character, and profound trust in his\nwisdom, and a general hope of advantage for each individual who carried\nout orders unhesitatingly and exactly; but they did not think it\nnecessary, or even desirable, that the common workers should understand\ntheir plans and act in intelligent co-operation with them: to-day,\nintelligent co-operation is prized as it has never been prized before,\nand its value is realised as it has never been realised before.\n\nIf this is true in the world of arms, of labour, of commerce, it is\nequally true in the world of foreign missions. The common worker, the\nsubscriber, the daily labourer, is beginning to demand that he shall be\nallowed to take an intelligent part in the work, and missionary leaders\nare beginning to see the importance of securing intelligent\nco-operation. In the past the appeal has been rather to blind obedience,\nand immense stress has been laid upon the \"command\"; the appeal has been\nto the emotions, and love for Christ, love for the souls of men, hope\nof eternal blessings, hope of the coming of the Kingdom, and (for\ndirection of the work) trust in the wisdom of great missionary leaders\nor committees, have been thought sufficient to inspire all to put forth\ntheir best efforts; but to-day, as in the labour world, as in commerce,\nas in the army, so in the world of missions, the intellect is taking a\nnew place. Men want to understand why and how their work assists towards\nthe attainment of the goal, they want to know what they are doing, they\nwant to understand the plan and to see their work influencing the\naccomplishment of the plan.\n\nIt is no doubt true that the demand for intelligent co-operation, both\non the part of the subscribers and workers on the one side and of the\ngreat leaders and boards of directors on the other, is at present\nslight, weak, uncertain and hesitating; but it is already beginning to\nmake itself felt, and must increase. Certainly it is true that the\nsupport of a very large body of men is lost because they have never yet\nbeen able to understand the work of foreign missions. They are\naccustomed in their daily business to \"know what they are driving at,\"\nand to relate their action to definite ends; and they have not seen\nforeign missions directed to the attainment of definite ends. They have\nnot seen in them any clear dominant purpose to which they could relate\nthe manifold activities of the missionaries whom they were asked to\nsupport; and they cannot give to the vague and chaotic that support\nwhich they might give to work which they saw clearly to be directed to\nthe attainment of a great goal which they desired by a policy which they\nunderstood. The attitude of these men is the attitude of those who await\nan intelligent appeal to their intelligence.\n\nFor a true understanding of foreign missions it is necessary first that\ntheir aim and object should be clearly defined. Without such a\ndefinition intelligent co-operation is impossible. Unless the objective\nis understood men cannot estimate the value of their work. They cannot\ntrace progress unless they can see clearly the end to be attained; they\ncannot zealously support action unless they are persuaded that the\naction is truly designed to attain the defined end. There may indeed be\nmany subordinate objects, and men may be asked to work for the\nattainment of any one of these, but there ought to be one final end and\npurpose which governs all, and intelligent co-operation involves the\nappreciation of the relation between the subordinate and the final end.\nConsequently if many objects are set before us, as they are in our\nforeign missions, it is essential that these many purposes and objects\nshould be presented to us not simply as ends to be attained, but in\ntheir relation to one another and in their relation to the final end\nwhich the directors of our missions have clearly before their eyes.\n\nNow it is just at this point that we fail to attain satisfaction. All\nsocieties publish reports and statistics, but the reports and statistics\ndo not provide us with any clear and intelligible account of progress\ntowards any definite end. They seem rather designed to attract and to\nappeal to our sympathy than to satisfy our intelligence. They set before\nus all kinds of work unrelated, indefinite, changeable, and changing\nfrom year to year, as though the compilers selected from the letters of\nmissionaries any striking statements which they thought would attract\nsupport in themselves and by themselves. No goal is set before us, and\nthe progress towards that goal steadily traced from year to year; still\nless is the relation between the different methods and means employed to\nattain each subordinate objective expressed so that we can see, not\nonly what progress each is making towards its own immediate end, but\nwhat is the effective value of all together towards the attainment of a\nfinal end to which they all contribute.\n\nBut would not the definition of one great end or purpose hinder us? Are\nnot all the great ends which we set before ourselves indefinite enough\nto include a host of different and mutually separate and even\noccasionally incompatible subsidiary objects, aims, and methods? Would\nnot the rigid definition of the aim of our foreign missions, by\nexcluding a great many legitimate aims and methods, weaken and beggar\nour missions, which are strong in proportion as they admit all sorts of\ndifferent aims and methods? There are men who speak and act as if they\nthought so, and in consequence welcome as a proper part of the\nmissionary programme all Christian, social, and political activities.\n_Anything_, they think, which makes for the amelioration of life,\n_everything_ which tends to enlighten and uplift the bodies, the souls,\nand the minds of men, is a proper object for the missionary to pursue,\nand the missionary should assist every movement towards a higher life in\nthe heathen community as well as in the Christian, and should introduce\nevery method and plan, industrial, social, or political, literary, or\nartistic, which tends to ennoble the life of men. It may be so. It may\nbe true that the introduction of everything which tends to uplift and\nenlighten is a proper object for missionary activity, but we venture to\nargue not all at once, in the same place, nor even any one of them at\nthe whim of any missionary at any time, anywhere. Nor all in the same\norder. There is a more and a less important. And we do urge that if we\nare to take an intelligent part in foreign missions and to give those\nmissions intelligent support, we must know what is the more important\nand what the less. We are told that the duty of the foreign mission is\nto bring all nations into the obedience of Christ, and that \"all the\nnations\" means all the people of all the nations, and all the\ncapacities, powers, and activities of all the people of all the nations,\nindividually and collectively, and that any work which tends to bring\nany part of the collective action of any non-Christian people under the\ndirection of Christian principles is, therefore, the proper work of the\nmissionary, and that the most important is the particular social,\nindustrial, or political scheme which the missionary who is addressing\nus believes to be the pressing need of the moment in his district.\n\nSo long as foreign missions are presented to us in that way, so long as\nany mission may serve any purpose, we cannot possibly take any\nintelligent share in foreign missions as a whole. We are lost. We cannot\nco-ordinate in thought the activities of the missions, as we see plainly\nthat they are not co-ordinated in action in the field itself. And it is\npractically impossible for us to imagine that the missions are directed\non any thought-out policy, because a policy seems to involve necessarily\nthe sub-ordination of the aim deemed to be less important to another\nwhich is deemed to be more important, and the less or the more must\ndepend, not upon personal predilections, but upon closeness of relation\nto some one dominant idea; and, therefore, the definition of the\ndominant idea is the first necessity for the establishment of a\nreasonable missionary policy.\n\nTo some minds the idea of a policy in connection with missions seems to\nbe abhorrent; but can a society with an income of something between half\nand a quarter of a million pounds, or even less, afford to aim at every\ntype and form of missionary activity? Is it not necessary that it\nshould know and express to itself, to its missionaries, and to its\nsupporters what forms of activity it deems essential, what less\nimportant, what aims it will pursue with all its strength, and what it\nwill refuse to pursue at all? It cannot afford to pursue every good or\ndesirable object which it may meet in its course. It must have a\ndominant purpose which really controls its operations, and forces it to\nset aside some great and noble actions because they are not so closely\nrelated to the dominant purpose as some other.\n\nA society with the limited resources which most of us lament cannot do\neverything. In medicine it cannot afford to aim at a strictly\nevangelistic use of its medical missions and at a use which is not\nstrictly evangelistic. We hear men talk sometimes as if it were the\nbusiness of a missionary society to undertake the task of healing the\nphysical afflictions of the people almost in the same sense as it is the\nbusiness of a missionary society to seek to heal their souls. We hear\nthem talk sometimes as if it was the duty of a missionary society to\nsupplant the native medical practice by western medical science as\nsurely as it is their business to supplant idolatry by the preaching of\nChrist. And the tolerance of these ideas has certainly influenced the\ndirection of missions. The evangelistic value of medical missions has\nnot been the one dominant directing principle in their administration,\nand the consequences have been confusion of aim and waste of power. Nor\nhas any other dominant purpose taken control; no other purpose,\nphilanthropic, social, or economic, ever will take control so long as\nthe vast majority of the supporters of foreign missions are people whose\none real desire is the salvation of men in Christ. But the admission of\nanother purpose has blurred the aim.\n\nBecause they have been pioneers in education, missions earn large praise\nand not in-considerable support from governors and philanthropists; but\nthey have sometimes paid for these praises and grants dearly in\nconfusion of aim. Many of them started with the intention of relating\ntheir educational work very closely to their evangelistic work; but\nbecause the evangelistic idea was not dominant, a government grant\nsometimes led the educational mission far from its first objective.\nSimilarly, the establishment of great educational institutions altered\nthe whole policy of a mission over very large areas, because no dominant\npurpose controlled the action of the mission authorities. The\ninstitutions demanded such large support, financial and personal, that\nwhen once they had been founded they tended to draw into themselves a\nvery large proportion of the best men who joined the mission. In this\nway a great educational institution has often altered the policy of a\nmission to an extent which its original founders never anticipated, and\na mission which was designed primarily to be an evangelistic mission has\nbeen compelled not only to check advance, but even to withdraw its\nevangelistic workers and to close its outstations. But that was not the\nintention of the founders of the institution. The difficulty arose\nbecause there was no dominant purpose which governed the direction of\nthe mission. There was no purpose so strong and clear that it could\nprevent the foundation of, or close when founded, an institution which\nwas leading it far from its primary object.\n\nAgain it is notorious that what we call the work of the evangelistic\nmissionary is so manifold and variegated that it includes every kind of\nactivity, every sort of social and economic reform. Our evangelistic\nmissionaries are busy about everything, from itinerant preaching to the\nestablishment of banks and asylums. Can we afford it? What purpose is\ndominant, what aim really governs the policy of those who send out\nevangelistic missionaries? What decides the form of their work and the\nmethod by which they pursue it? It is hard to guess, it is hard to\ndiscover, it is hard to understand.\n\nNow when our missions are presented to us and we are asked to support\nthem on all sorts of grounds, as though a society with its slight funds\ncould really successfully practise every kind of philanthropic work, we\nbegin to doubt whether it can really be wisely guided. Each mission\nstation, each institution, seems to be an isolated fragment. The\nmissionary in charge often appeals to us as an exceedingly good and able\nman, and we support him, and we support the society which sends him and\nothers like him. And we call this the support of foreign missions; but\nforeign missions as a unity we do not support because we can see no\nunity. The directors of foreign missions appear not to have hitched\ntheir wagon to a star, but rather to all the visible stars, and we\ncannot tell whither they are going. So we fall back on the individual\nmissionary, or the isolated mission which at any rate for the moment\nseems to have an intelligible objective.\n\nHence the common conception of missionary work as small. We look at the\nparts, and the smallest parts, because our minds instinctively seek a\nunity, and only in the parts do we find a unity, nor there often, unless\nwe concentrate our attention on one aspect of the work. But by thinking\nof foreign missions in this small way and speaking of them in this small\nway, we alienate men who are accustomed to think in large terms of large\nundertakings designed on large policies.\n\nWhat we need to-day is to understand foreign missions as a whole. We\nwant to take an intelligent part in them viewed as a unity. We want to\nknow what is the grand objective and how the parts are related to that\nend. We do not want merely to support this mission because this\nmissionary appeals to us; we want to know what dominant purpose governs\nthe activities of the different societies, directs, and controls them,\ndeciding what work good and excellent in itself the mission cannot\nafford to undertake, what it can and must do with the means at its\ndisposal in order to attain an end which it has deliberately adopted.\n\nWe need more, we need to know on what principles the missionaries are\nsent here or there. We need to know what facts must be taken into\nconsideration before any mission, evangelistic, educational, or medical,\nis planted in any place, what facts decide the question whether work is\nbegun, or reinforcements sent, to this place rather than to that. It is\nnot enough to be assured that there is a need. There is need everywhere.\nWe cannot supply all need; but we can have some settled and clear\njudgment what facts ought to weigh with us, what information we must\npossess before we can decide properly whether the claim of this place is\nmore urgent than the claim of that. We ought to have same basis of\ncomparison. The mere appeal of an earnest and devoted man, the mere\nclamour of a body of men, the mere insistence of a persevering man, is\nnot sufficient to guide us aright. The mere offer of some supporter to\nprovide a building ought not to suffice. Acceptance of the offer may\nalter the whole balance and character of the mission. We ought to know\nwhat facts must be considered and how.\n\nWe need therefore a reasoned statement of the work of our foreign\nmissions expressed as a unity, which sets forth the work actually done\nin different departments showing their relation one to another and the\nrelation of all to a dominant object. In other words, what we need is a\nsurvey of the missionary situation in the world in terms of these\nrelationships.\n\nIt may be said that such a claim is outrageous and impossible; but we\nare persuaded that with our present enlightenment, with the means of\nknowledge which we now possess, we could, if we thought it worth while,\nlay our hands on the necessary information. Our firm conviction is that,\nif we did that, and set out the results of our examination in a form\nintelligible to thoughtful laymen, we should obtain the support of a\ngreat number of men to whom foreign missions at present appear as\nnothing but the ill-organised, fragmentary and indefinite efforts of\npious people to propagate their peculiar schemes for the betterment of\nhumanity. Without some such statement we do not know how anyone can take\nan intelligent, though he may take a sentimental, interest in foreign\nmissions.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nPRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS.\n\n\n1. We need a survey of the missionary situation in the world which will\nexpress the facts in terms of the relationships between the different\nmissionary activities and between them all in relation to a dominant\nidea or purpose. Such a survey is strictly scientific. All scientific\nsurvey is properly governed by the end or purpose for which it is made.\n\nIt is this purpose or end which decides what is to be included and what\nis to be excluded from the survey. If, for instance, we are making a\nsurvey of the acoustic properties of church buildings in England, it is\nnot scientific to introduce questions as to the character of the gospel\npreached in them. A scientific survey is not necessarily a collection of\nall possible information about any people or country; that is an\nencyclopaedia; a scientific survey is a survey of those facts only which\nthrow light on the business in hand. A scientific survey of foreign\nmissions ought not then necessarily to look at the work carried on from\n\"every point of view\". The point of view must be defined, the end to be\nserved defined, and then only those factors which throw light upon that\nend have any place in a scientific survey. We cannot be too clear about\nthis, because in survey of a work so vast and so many sided as foreign\nmissions we might easily include every human activity, unless we defined\nbeforehand the end to be served and selected carefully only the\nappropriate factors. Carefully defined, missionary survey is not the\nunwieldy, amorphous thing which people often imagine. There is indeed a\ndangerous type of survey which starting with a hypothesis proceeds to\nprove it by collecting any facts which seem to support it to the neglect\nof all other facts which might disprove it. The procedure advocated here\nis the adoption of a definite and acknowledged purpose for which the\nsurvey is to be made and the collection of all the facts which bear upon\nthe subject in hand. The facts are selected, but they are selected not\nby the prejudices or partiality of the surveyor, but by their own innate\nand inherent relationship to the subject.\n\nA scientific survey can only be a collection of facts; but inferences\nwill certainly be drawn from the facts which will direct the policy of\nthose who administer foreign missionary societies. The drawing of these\ninferences from the material collected must be carefully distinguished\nfrom the collection of the material (i.e. the making of the survey). The\nlatter precedes the former and is independent of it. Inferences hastily\ndrawn, or prematurely adopted, would only tend to discredit missionary\nsurvey as a means to the attainment of truth. The adoption of a\nhypothesis and the making of a survey in order to prove it by a careful\nselection and manipulation of facts would not discredit survey as a\nmeans to the attainment of truth; it would only discredit and debase the\nmoral character of the man who made such a survey.\n\n2. The survey here treated of is missionary survey, that is to say, it\ntreats of missions and is governed by a missionary purpose. And it is a\nsurvey of Christian missions; therefore it is governed by the purpose of\nspreading the knowledge of Christ. This statement is of great importance\nand needs to be carefully conned before it is accepted, because by it\nmissionary survey will be distinguished from all other survey. For\ninstance, medical boards survey medical institutions. Their sole\nconcern is whether those institutions are well found and efficient.[1]\nBut when a missionary surveys a missionary hospital (if the principle\nwhich we propound is accepted), he surveys it not _qua_ medical\nestablishment but _qua_ missionary utensil. The object is not to find\nout the medical efficiency of the hospital, but its missionary\neffectiveness. It may be answered that a medically inefficient hospital\ncannot be truly effective from a missionary point of view. That may be\ntrue; but it is not certainly true. Whether it is true or not, that does\nnot alter the fact that an efficient medical establishment is not\nnecessarily effective from a missionary point of view; it is not\nnecessarily either missionary or Christian at all. Then to survey\nmedical missions simply as medical institutions is to ignore their real\nsignificance. Missionary survey must relate the information asked for to\nthe missionary purpose; and unless it is so related the survey is a\nmedical survey, not a missionary survey. The same holds good of\neducational work, and of pastoral work.\n\n[Footnote 1: We could produce surveys of medical and educational mission\nwork which are essentially of this character, dealing solely with\nmedical and educational efficiency.]\n\n3. The survey here proposed is designed for all societies so far as the\nsocieties can be persuaded to supply the information. It would perhaps\nbe more simple to provide statistical returns for one society of which\nthe ecclesiastical organisation is known and the ecclesiastical terms\nused consequently fixed. But survey of the work of a society, invaluable\nand necessary as that is for a society, is not sufficient by itself. It\nis essential to-day that we should be able to place our work in the\nworld in relation to all the missionary work done. We can no longer\nafford to ignore the work of others and to plan our missions as though\nother missions did not exist. As we try to point out from time to time\nno society can act rightly in ignorance of another's work. Therefore we\nhave attempted to design a survey which would show what is the work of\nany mission in such a form that its work can be related in some sort to\nthe missionary work of all, and not only to the other missions of its\nown society.\n\n4. Seeing that all survey is scientifically governed by the object for\nwhich it is made, it is essential that in a survey such as we propose\nthe end for which it is made should be stated in each case as clearly\nand definitely as possible. This involves often such a definition of\nthe end as implies a certain missionary policy. Realising this, we have\nnot hesitated to set forth the policy implied in the terms which we use\nand the questions which we ask.[1] We are well aware that this lays us\nopen to attack from men who may question the policy and dispute the\nvalue of the survey. It would be far more easy to set down simply the\nfacts which we think any true survey should contain, leaving them\nunrelated to one another, so that no one could tell exactly what we were\ndriving at. This is the common plan. Men say they want to know the facts\nof the missionary situation, any facts, all facts, indiscriminately, and\nthey draw up a list of all the facts that they can think of and issue a\n_questionnaire_ which leaves the compiler of the answers in complete\nignorance concerning the purpose of the questions. Such heaps of\ninformation might be used anyhow if they were really complete; but in\nfact since they have not been designed for any definite use they are\ngenerally deficient for any definite use, and remain mere masses of\ninformation on which no true judgments can be based. So far from\nrevealing the missionary situation they obscure it. We have, therefore,\ntaken the risk of explaining why we want each piece of information, how\nwe think it might be used, and have drawn our tables in such a form that\nit is actually seen at work. By so doing we open the door at once, both\nfor intelligent co-operation and intelligent opposition. We frankly make\ncriticism easy; we invite it; for we believe that frank criticism on the\nbasis of agreed facts is extremely fruitful.\n\n[Footnote 1: It does not follow that we approve the policy implied.]\n\nWe may well acknowledge that the aim which above all others has appealed\nto us is the aim of the establishment in the world of a Christian\nChurch, native, indigenous, living, self-supporting, self-governing,\nself-extending, independent of foreign aid. That has no doubt coloured\nour work and will perhaps render it less acceptable to some; for the\nfacts which must be included in a survey which accepts that aim are\nprecisely the facts which societies do not now tabulate and are often\nestimated with some difficulty.\n\nBut though this thought has inevitably governed our conception of survey\nand we have made no attempt to conceal it, we have nevertheless tried to\navoid the danger of selecting for survey only those facts which might\nserve to support a theory of the method by which that aim is to be\nattained; and we have kept in our minds constantly the needs of men\nwhose idea of the aim of foreign missions differs from our own.\n\n5. Missionary survey must justify itself by assisting definitely and\nclearly those who make it and those who have to direct and support\nmissionary work in all parts of the world. The first question which we\nought to answer in every case where our help is asked is this: \"What do\nwe want to do? What is our purpose in doing anything at all here?\" The\nsecond question is: \"What must we know to enable us to act discreetly\nand wisely in this case? What facts are properly to be taken into\naccount in this matter?\" The first question is the question of aim, the\nsecond is the question of relation. Suppose we say that we want to send\nour missionaries where they are most needed, what information must we\nhave to direct us? First we must know what we mean by need, what kind of\nneed we are to put first in our thoughts; that is the question of\ndefinition of aim. Then, how shall we decide where that need is greatest\nat the present time, for us, that is, within our possibility of active\nassistance; that is the question of relation. The facts of need as we\ndefine it must be related and compared. The survey of which we speak as\nnecessary for an intelligent understanding of foreign missions must\nprovide these facts in a form easily grasped and understood and compared\nfor different countries and districts, so that those who direct action\nand those who support the action may be able to do so with reason, not\nbeing guided merely by the most influential voice or the loudest shout.\n\n6. To serve this purpose survey must have twofold aspect. It must be a\nreview of the present state of the work, it must also be a review of the\npresent position of the work. It is a review of the state of the work,\nthe stations, the converts, the Church; it is a review of the position,\nthe progress made compared with the work to be done. But the state\nvaries, the position changes, and action must be taken continually.\n\nThe survey, therefore, should be not simply a single act but a continual\nprocess. Mission work is not a task which can be undertaken and finished\non a predetermined plan, like the construction of a railway. It is a\ntask the conditions of which vary from time to time, and consequently\nplans and policies and methods must vary, and this variation can only\nbe rational if it is determined by recognition of the changing\ncircumstances, and the change of circumstances can only be understood\nand appreciated if the survey of missions is a continuous process kept\nconstantly up to date. It is a form of mission history in which the\nomission of a few years may break the connection of the whole narrative.\n\n7. (i) It may perhaps cause surprise to some that the information for\nwhich we ask is mainly such as can be expressed in a statistical form.\nBut the fact remains that all statesmanship (and foreign missions\ninvolve large elements of statesmanship), and all organised effort (and\nforeign missions are highly organised), is in the world always based\neither upon carefully compiled statistics, or upon guess work; and that\nthe business which is directed by guess work does not enjoy the same\nconfidence as the business which is directed by knowledge derived from\ncarefully compiled statistics.\n\nTake, for example, this extract from a letter written by a firm in the\nUnited States of America which deals with candy securities:--\n\nThe candy business, the history of which shows a remarkable record of\nfreedom from failure, is to-day enjoying unparalleled prosperity, and\nthere is every reason to believe that the present high earnings of all\nthe large candy concerns in the United States will continue\nindefinitely. Those fortunate enough to hold shares in well-established\ncandy manufacturing concerns may expect, therefore, to enjoy larger\nearnings than could reasonably be expected from funds placed in most\nother enterprises. _Prohibition is proving a tremendous factor in\nincreasing candy sales. Best estimates show that the American public is\nnow spending between $800,000,000 and $1,000,000,000 annually for\ncandy_. ---- & Co. are specialists in the candy and sugar securities. We\nmaintain a statistical department, and endeavour to furnish information\nconcerning all of the prominent issues based on these industries. You\nare invited to avail yourself of this service, and if you are interested\nin any candy or sugar stock, we will be pleased to have you confer with\nus. This department now has in preparation an analysis of the candy and\nsugar situation as it exists to-day in the United States. Interesting\ndata is also being collected from most reliable sources, giving figures\nand statistics for the world. The number of copies which we are\npreparing for general distribution is limited. If you will sign the\nenclosed card, and return it to us, we will take pleasure in extending\nto you the courtesy of a copy of this analysis free of charge.\n\nWhen individuals work individually, for themselves, as they please,\nstatistics are only necessary for the onlooker who wants to compare\nindividual effort with individual effort; the individuals who want to\nmake no comparison of their own work with that of others, nor to keep\nany record of the progress of their work, need keep no statistics; but\nsocieties always want to keep a record of their work, and that record\nmust be largely statistical.\n\nIt is vain to attack statistics to-day. Every society publishes\nstatistical sheets. Every society by publishing them shows that it\nrecognises the value of statistics. The difficulty to-day is not that\nthe societies do not publish statistics, but that the statistics which\nthey publish are not related to any aim or purpose, and do not include\nfactors or standards which enable us to measure progress.\n\n(ii) It may also cause surprise that we ask for estimates in some cases\nwhere exact information is not immediately accessible. It may be said\nthat statistics are misleading, but estimates are hopelessly misleading:\nlet us have correct figures or none. That attitude is easily understood,\nbut under the circumstances it is vain. \"Correct figures,\" that is,\nmeticulously exact figures, are unattainable. An estimate is in nearly\nall matters of daily life and business the basis, and rightly the basis,\nof our action. It will be noticed that in that letter which we quoted\nabove concerning the statistics of the candy trade in the United States\nof America, estimates had a place, and foreign missions involve matters\nabout which \"correct figures\" are more difficult to obtain than the\ncandy business. An estimate carefully made and understood, a deliberate\nstatement expressed in round numbers, is not unscientific: it is only\nunscientific to mistake such figures for what they do not profess to be.\nWhen men object that the figures are not exact, if the figures do not\nprofess to be exact, it is the objector who is unscientific, not the\nstatistics.\n\nNevertheless, we must acknowledge that the admission of estimates and\nround figures does open the door to serious error. Men will be tempted\nto mistake an estimate for a guess. An estimate is a statement for which\nreasons can be given, a guess is--a mere guess. The great safeguard\nagainst guesses, as against all slipshod statistical entries, is the\nassurance that the statements made will be used. At present missionary\nstatistics are untrustworthy mainly because so few people use them, and\nconsequently those who supply them do not feel the need of revising them\ncarefully.\n\nFurthermore, it is important to bear in mind that the field for estimate\nin statistics of the kind proposed is limited; it only embraces figures\nfor which exact totals are unobtainable, for instance, area, population,\nand figures of societies which refuse to give statistics, etc., and in\nevery case precision in these statistics is not of vital importance.\n\n(iii) The main difference between our tables and those of others is that\nwe make them very small and express in each a relation. The figures\nsupplied by the societies in their reports are seldom related to\nanything; they are mere bundles of sticks; we suggest the introduction\nof a relation into every table which gives to each figure a significance\nwhich by itself it does not possess. In our tables every figure is set\nto work. Our idea of missionary statistics demands that they should be a\nbasis for action. We think that it is waste of time to collect\nstatistics from which no conclusion can be certainly drawn both by the\ncompiler and the reader--a conclusion which ought to be suggestive when\ntaken alone by itself, and, when considered in relation to the\nconclusions suggested by similar tables, compelling.\n\nBut it may be said that we are adding to the already overwhelming burden\nof accounts and reports over which missionaries toil to the great\ndetriment of their proper work. The tables in this book are arranged\napparently for the worker on the spot as well as for the intelligent\nsupporter and director at home; why multiply tables and trouble the\nmissionary with the sums of proportion? Why not ask the man there simply\nto give the necessary facts and then let the man at home work out for\nspecial purposes the various relations? The answer is simple: we\nourselves have been asked to fill up long schedules of unrelated facts;\nand we know that the labour is intolerable. The supply of unrelated,\nmeaningless facts dulls and wearies the brain. Few men can do the work\nwith pleasure or profit, and consequently the schedules are often filled\nup, not indeed with deliberate carelessness, but with that heavy\npainfulness which, taking no interest in the work, often produces as\npitiful a result as downright carelessness. \"Thou shalt not muzzle the\nox that treadeth out the corn\" is a maxim which has a great application\nhere. The man who provides the information should be the first to profit\nby it and to be interested in it. The first man to criticise these\ntables should be the missionary who fills them up on the spot; and his\nmost valuable criticism might be a demonstration that the last column in\na table was futile; that the table led him to no conclusions and\nsuggested no remarks. That column of conclusions and remarks we hold to\nbe the most precious of them all. We would have no man supply\nmeaningless information. Only, we believe, when the information is of\nvital importance and interest to the man who supplies it will it be\nsupplied carefully, correctly, willingly, and above all, intelligently.\nWe venture to hope that our tables may be one step towards the day when\nthe supply of statistical information by the missionary will cease to be\nmere drudgery.\n\n(iv) Seeing that the missionary task is essentially world-wide, it is\nobvious that a world-wide work cannot be properly directed without a\nworld-wide view. Now, missionary survey is in its infancy, and in most\nparts of the world it has yet to be begun. A full and complete\nmissionary survey of the whole world would necessarily be a considerable\nundertaking, for many important facts could not be easily or quickly\ncollected. There is then a strong tendency for men to argue that, since\nall the facts desirable cannot be known at once without much time and\nexpense, it is futile and dangerous to collect those facts which can be\ncollected speedily without great expense. A little knowledge, they say,\nis a dangerous thing ... let us remain ignorant.\n\nWe would venture to suggest that a little knowledge is only dangerous\nwhen it is mistaken for much knowledge; that it is far better to act on\nknowledge which can be obtained than to act in total ignorance, blindly.\nWhere we must act it is our duty to know all that we can know, and if,\nbecause we cannot collect all the information that we should wish to\npossess, we refuse to collect that information which we can obtain,\nbecause we realise that it will be incomplete, we commit a serious moral\nand intellectual crime. If we can know only one factor out of one\nhundred, we offend if we refuse to know that one. We must act. We have\nno right to shut our eyes to knowledge which ought to guide our action\nbecause we are aware that action taken on that one factor will be\ninsufficiently guided. The one factor is an important one and must\ninfluence our action, and would influence our action if we knew all the\nother factors. We ought to allow it to influence our action even in\nignorance of the other factors.\n\nIn daily life we habitually act on partial knowledge, and we should\nthink that man mad who urged us to refuse to be guided by our partial\nknowledge until our knowledge was complete; we should think a man mad\nwho, being under necessity to act, refused to know what he could know,\nbecause he was aware that fuller knowledge might lead him to modify his\naction. Now missionaries and missionary societies are acting and must\nact, and the refusal to collect the information which they can obtain is\nas culpable as the ignorance of a man who refuses to attend to the one\nword \"poison\" printed on the label of a bottle which he can read,\nbecause he cannot read the name of the stuff written on the label.\n\nYet it is very commonly argued that unless survey can be made complete,\nunless, that is, every factor which we can think of as exercising an\ninfluence on our action is duly weighed, it is futile to survey the\nlarger, commoner, and more easily accessible factors. This objection\nrecurs again and again, and unless it can be put out of the way it must\nprejudice missionary survey. It would be wise, it would be right, to\ncollect information on only one point, if that were all that we could\ndo. It would be better than to rest content with total ignorance.\nNevertheless, when anyone collects with care statistics on any\nparticular point, he is certain to meet the objection that his labour\nought to be ignored because he has not collected information about\nsomething else. As if total ignorance were preferable to partial\nknowledge! Is there any answer to the argument, that \"Where ignorance is\nbliss 'tis folly to be wise,\" when supported by \"A little knowledge is a\ndangerous thing,\" other than Dr. Arnold's maxim, \"Where it is our duty\nto act it is also our duty to learn\"?\n\n(v) We have not been careful to avoid asking for details of which we are\nwell aware that the statistics do not now exist. We have thought it our\nduty rather to point out the information necessary for arriving at right\nconclusions than to mislead our readers by pretending that it is\npossible to form judgments and act properly without taking the trouble\nto collect information which is really necessary. This is no\ncontradiction of the argument which we set forth that partial\ninformation is better than none, but it does warn the surveyor that\nblanks in the forms leave him not fully equipped, and that steps ought\nto be taken to secure information without which his conclusions are\nuncertain.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nSTATION DISTRICT SURVEY.\n\nTHE WORK TO BE DONE, AND THE FORCE TO DO IT.\n\n\nMissionary work is presented to us here at home mainly at two points;\nthe one, work at a mission station, the other, the condition and needs\nof a country or of a continent. In the one case we hear a great deal\nabout the missionary's life and work; in the other we hear about great\nproblems, religious, moral, social, and very little about the facts of\nthe work.\n\nWe propose to begin with the mission station and to set down the\ninformation which we need, in order that we may take an intelligent\ninterest in the work at the station, viewed by itself, as progress is\nmade towards the immediate object of its existence; and then we propose\nto look at it in relation to other stations in the province or country,\nboth comparatively to see how they differ, and as parts of a whole, to\nsee what is the position of the Church in the province or country, and\nwhat place each station occupies in the work done in the larger whole.\n\nWhen we look at the mission station viewed by itself, the first question\nwhich we ask is: Has the station any defined area, district, or parish,\nconnected with it in which it is the business of the missionaries to\npreach the Gospel and establish the Church? If the answer to that\nquestion is, \"Yes, it has,\" and that answer would very commonly be\ngiven, then at once we get our feet on firm ground. We can start our\nsurvey on a territorial basis; and with a common territorial basis we\ncan immediately compare the work of one station with that done at\nanother station. We have further a _terminus ad quem_, and in our survey\nwe can tell whether progress is in that direction and how rapid it is.\n\nWe can do this, because the definition of a parish or district implies\nthe recognition on the part of those who define the parish or district,\nof the purpose, if not the duty, of preaching the Gospel and\nestablishing the Church in the area of that parish or district. The mere\ndefinition of the area, therefore, implies a policy for the mission\nwhich defines the area and for the station for which the area is\ndefined. For such a station, therefore, we design our first survey, the\nobject of the survey being to discover how far the work of the station\nis succeeding in performing the task which it obviously undertook when\nit accepted the definition of area.\n\n1. We begin then by surveying the position of the work in the station\ndistrict extensively: we ask--What is the relation between the work done\nand the work remaining to be done? We ask this question in two forms;\nfirst, in terms of the cities, towns, and villages which lie in the\nstation area, and secondly, in terms of population. We ask the question\nin this double form because we believe that by this means the surveyor\nwill obtain a clear view of the situation and will be able easily to see\nwhat has been done in relation to the work yet to be done, and it is the\nrelation of those two that is most illuminating. If these tables were\nconstantly revised the progress of the work could be traced from year to\nyear easily and helpfully. Put side by side they illuminate each other,\nand each affords a check upon the other. Progress in numbers in\nproportion to population and progress in the number of places occupied\nshould often properly advance side by side. Progress in numbers in\nproportion to population without any increase in the number of places\noccupied may often occur; progress in the number of places occupied\nwithout a corresponding increase of the Christian population in\nproportion to the non-Christian population may also occur, and each must\ngive the missionary food for thought. The tables are simple, dealing\nwith bare numerical proportions:--\n\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n         |       |             |  Number of|  Number of |\n         |       |   Date of   |  Occupied |  Unoccupied|  Work to\nDistrict.|  Area.|   Foundation|  Cities,  |  Cities,   |  be Done.\n         |       |  of Station.|    Towns, |  Towns,    |\n         |       |             |  Villages.|  Villages. |\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n         |       |             |           |            |\n_________|_______|_____________|___________|____________|__________\n\n\nBy \"occupied\" we mean places where there are resident Christians, few or\nmany.\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------\n   Total   |    Total      |     Total      |Work to   |  Remarks\nPopulation.|   Christian   |  Non-Christian | be Done. |      and\n           | Constituency. | Constituency.  |          |Conclusions.\n--------------------------------------------------------------------\n           |               |                |          |\n___________|_______________|________________|__________|____________\n\nBy _Christian Constituency_ we mean the total number of people who call\nthemselves Christian in the area in question. They may not be baptised,\nthey may be mere inquirers or hearers; but if asked their religion they\nwould call themselves Christians rather than anything else.\n\nThe reasons why we adopt this extremely wide expression are: (1) Some\nsocieties, whose members are undeniably Christian in morals and thought,\ndo not baptise adults; many societies do not baptise infants; yet these\nunbaptised people are certainly not heathen; they certainly do not\nbelong to any other religious organisation than the Christian. Again,\nsome societies baptise very much more freely than others, and count as\nmembers large numbers of people whom other societies would consider to\nbe in the position of inquirers or hearers. Consequently any just\ncomparison between different areas in which different societies are\nworking is impossible unless a very wide expression is employed, and a\nvery wide interpretation given to it.\n\n(2) The Christian cause, both for good and evil, is largely influenced\nby the existence of these unbaptised. They are called Christian, they\nare considered to be such by their heathen neighbours, they suffer\npersecution often with the other Christians when any outbreak occurs.\nTheir numbers and conduct exercise a wide influence in the society in\nwhich they live, for or against the progress of the Christian faith.\n\n(3) The attitude of these people to the Christian missionary is quite\ndifferent from that of the heathen. They acknowledge Christ as the one\nDivine Teacher and Lord. The missionary cannot count them as belonging\nto the heathen; he cannot approach them as the teacher of a new\nreligion. He must approach them as an exponent of the religion which\nthey already profess. However inadequate and confused their ideas about\nChristian theology and practice may be, they expect to receive from a\nChristian teacher instruction in their own religion, and that religion\nis a religion common to him and to them. Consequently to omit them from\nthe Christian constituency is to do an injustice to them, and to\nmisrepresent the true facts of the case.\n\n(4) In many areas two or more societies are at work and their conception\nof the qualifications for the name of Christian differ. In a survey each\nsociety is tempted to ignore the members of the other, and to reckon as\nChristians only those who fulfil the conditions which are applied by the\none society. So certain Protestant societies ignore all Roman Catholics;\nbut that for the reasons already stated is most misleading, for when\npersecution arises Protestants and Roman Catholics alike suffer for the\nName of Christ. Whatever the members of another society may be, they are\ncertainly not heathen; the heathen deny them. Consequently they cannot\nproperly be counted with the heathen by any surveyor who wishes to\npresent the facts.\n\nFor these reasons we have been compelled to adopt a very wide\nexpression, and the expression used by the China Continuation Committee\nseemed to be sufficiently elastic to serve our purpose. Nevertheless, to\navoid error as far as possible, when we institute comparisons between\nChristian and non-Christian population, we introduce side by side with\nthe total Christian Constituency the total Communicants (or Full\nMembers), which is a valuable check.\n\nTake then an example. The figures here given are obviously not the\nfigures of a station area; they are figures for a province; but they\nserve to illustrate the point. We cannot fill up the area table; we can\nonly supply figures for the population.\n\n----------------------------------------\n Population. :  Total      : Total Non-\n             : Christians. : Christians.\n----------------------------------------\n  32,571,000 :  534,238    :  2,036,762\n----------------------------------------\n\nNow, here of the 534,238 Christians 500,655 are Roman Catholics, the\nProtestants numbering 33,583. The Roman Catholics in this area began\nwork about 300 years earlier than the Protestants. Are we to eliminate\nthem?\n\nAre all these 33,583 Protestants more worthy of the name of Christian\nthan some of the Roman Catholics? Or shall we eliminate some of the\n33,583? If so, how many, and on what grounds? Is not the denial of the\nName to those who claim to be servants of Christ absurd? Are there not\nenough non-Christians to be converted?\n\nSuppose the Roman Catholic figures to be an estimate. Is it not plain\nthat in dealing with considerable areas estimates may be useful though\nfaulty? How little difference in the work to be done does an error in\nthat estimate make? Knock off or add on 50,000 and is the work to be\ndone seriously affected? It is true that in some calculations an error\nof that magnitude might mislead us somewhat, but hardly enough to\nvitiate our whole view of the situation, especially if we carefully\ncheck our conclusions by the results of other tables given later.\n\nAt the first glance these figures produce the impression that very\nlittle has been done. In the beginning, and that was many years ago,\nthere were over 32 million non-Christians; there are over 32 million\nto-day. But let us look at proportions and see what a different\nimpression is produced.\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------\n Population. : Total       : Total Non-  : Proportion\n             : Christians. : Christians. : of Christians to\n             :             :             : Non-Christians.\n-----------------------------------------------------------\n 32,571,000  :  534,238    : 32,036,762  :    1 to 60\n-----------------------------------------------------------\n\nOne Christian to every sixty non-Christians gives us a totally different\nimpression. We begin to feel that if only the Christians awoke to their\nduty they could influence the whole population profoundly. That is\nprecisely the effect produced upon the Christians by a missionary survey\nundertaken with them, and understood by them; they begin to see the\nimmensity of the work to be done, they begin to see that it can be done.\n\nThere should properly then here be two tables parallel to the first two.\nThus:--\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n      | Number of      | Number of      |               |\n      | Occupied       | Unoccupied     | Proportion of |Remarks\nArea. | Cities, Towns, | Cities, Towns, | Occupied to   |and\n      | Villages.      | Villages.      | Unoccupied.   |Conclusions.\n------|----------------|----------------|---------------|------------\n      |                |                |               |\n______|________________|________________|_______________|____________\n\n----------------------------------------------------------------------\nTotal       | Total       | Total Non-  | Proportion of  | Remarks\nPopulation. | Christian   | Christian   | Christian to   | and\n            | Population. | Population. | Non-Christian. |Conclusions.\n------------|-------------|-------------|----------------|------------\n            |             |             |                |\n____________|_____________|_____________|________________|____________\n\nObserve what light is thrown upon a district by the mere juxtaposition\nof those few facts. I think those two tables alone should suffice to\nprove that a survey which regarded only a very few factors might be of\nimmense service, if those who used it kept clearly before them its\npartial character and did not allow themselves to treat it as complete.\n\nBut, unfortunately, these first facts which we have desired are, like\nother facts of importance, procured only with difficulty and toil. In\norder to fill up the preceding tables the missionary surveyor must be\nable to state what is the area and what the population in the station\ndistrict. But some could not supply that information. Its acquisition\nmight involve a journey of many months given up to careful examination\nand inquiry. It is no small demand to make. In many cases a reasoned\nestimate is indeed the only possible statement; but as we have already\nargued careful estimates are invaluable, and where a census does not\nexist they give us for the time something to work upon.\n\nWhere the physical survey can be undertaken it is most illuminating\nwork, illuminating both to the missionaries and to their native helpers,\nwho often gain an entirely new view of their work and its possibilities\nfrom such personal examination. Testimony to the value of this\nexperience is growing daily in weight and volume.\n\nThis physical survey would naturally result in the production of a map\nof the area in which the cities, towns, and villages in the station\ndistrict were marked with notes on their character from the missionary\npoint of view. In this map all places where Christians resided, where\nthere were Christian congregations, churches, preaching places, schools,\nhospitals, dispensaries, etc., would be marked. It would be a pictorial\npresentation of the facts so far as they were capable of expression in\nmap form.\n\nBut whether in map form or in statistical form, the area and the\npopulation for which the mission is working must be expressed either by\nexact figures or by estimates if we are to trace progress.\n\nIf these tables were kept over a number of years, the missionaries on\nthe spot and directors and inquirers at home would be able to see what\nprogress was being made towards fulfilling the obligation implied by the\ndefinition of the station area or district, and what that obligation\ninvolved.\n\nII. When we know the work to be done we turn to the consideration of the\nforce available. This force consists of permanent and more or less\ntemporary members. Some will in all human probability remain in the\nplace till they die; they are of it, they belong to it; others will\nprobably depart elsewhere; they are not of the place; they speak of home\nas far away; they are liable to removal; sickness which does not kill\nthem takes them away; the call of friends or business carries them back\nto their own land; they are strangers all their days in the mission\ndistrict. Nevertheless, they are generally the moving, active force;\nupon them progress seems to depend. It is strange, but it is true\ngenerally: the permanent is the passive element, the impermanent is the\nactive. Here we simply state the fact to excuse or condemn the placing\nof the missionary force first in our tables. First it is to-day.\n\nWe need then a table of the foreign missionary force. In its form it\nwill be a mere statement of proportions. The proportions are essential\nin order to make comparison between one area and another possible; and\ncomparison is the sweet savour of survey. We cannot compare the work of\nthree men labouring among an unstated population with the work of two\nother men working in an unstated population; the moment that the\nproportions are worked out the cases can be compared. But some men\ndetest this purely quantitative comparison. They insist, and rightly,\nthat there is no true equality in the comparison. One man differs from\nanother man and his work differs from the work of the other man: over\nlarge areas it is often the work of one man among many which really\nsaves the situation. It is quite true. In the last resort survey becomes\nsurvey of personalities. But in a survey of the kind which we propose,\nsurvey of personalities is impossible and most undesirable.\n\nThe survey proposed cannot deal with personalities, but that does not\ninvalidate the importance of the information asked for. Such forms\nreceived from many different stations would certainly throw light on the\nserious question of reinforcement. It is of course obvious that\nreinforcements could not be allotted rightly on such slight evidence as\nthe proportion of missionaries to the population of a district. The\nquestion is not whether reinforcements could be allotted on this factor\nalone; but whether they could be allotted rightly in ignorance of it.\nTaken in conjunction with the preceding and following tables, this table\nwould reveal something that we may call _need_ in a purely quantitative\nexpression, and comparative need should certainly influence the\nallotment of reinforcements. Though the statement of need in this table\nis indeed utterly insufficient by itself, it is nevertheless true that\nno statement of comparative need which ignored the proportions here set\nout would be satisfactory. This quantitative expression is not\nsufficient; but no statement is sufficient without it, and, as often, so\nhere, it is the proportion rather than the actual figures which make\ncomparison possible:--\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n         |        |   Total     |Proportion |Proportion | Remarks\nDistrict.|Popula- |  Foreign    |    to     | of Women  |   and\n         | tion.  |Missionaries.|Population.|   to      |Conclusions.\n         |        |             |           |Population.|\n---------|--------|-------------|-----------|-----------|------------\n         |        |             |           |           |\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nWe turn now to the permanent Christian force in the district. We want to\nknow what is the force. We ask, therefore, that the total Christian\nconstituency may be accepted as the first expression of the native\nforce. The progress of the Gospel is most seriously affected by the\nwhole number of those who in any sense call themselves Christians. They\nare the force in the place which influences the heathen for or against\nit. It is of the utmost importance that they should be reckoned first,\nand treated first, as the force which above all others works slowly,\nquietly, imperceptibly, but mightily. The whole body of those who\nprofess and call themselves Christians should be put in the very first\nplace.\n\nThen the communicants (or full members) are commonly the body to which\nall turn for voluntary zealous effort. The communicants are the strength\nof the Church. We compare them next with the work to be done. Then the\npaid workers. Then the voluntary unpaid workers, recognised as such.\n\nThe difficulty of calculating the unpaid voluntary workers is indeed\nvery great. We know of no definition which would serve to give any\nuniformity to returns made by different missions. We recognise that\ndifferent missions would make the returns on different bases. We\nearnestly desire a common definition, which all might accept. But under\nexisting circumstances it seems impossible to find one. Nevertheless,\nwithout some statement of the number of voluntary workers, we are, as we\nshall see, in grave danger of misjudging the situation and wronging our\nmissionaries and the native Christians. For the time then we suggest\nthat it would be far better to accept the returns given to us by the\nmissionaries on their own basis, asking them to append a note to the\nreturn explaining how they calculated their voluntary force. We should\nthen have the following table:--\n\n_The Native Force_.\n\n_(a) The Christian Constituency_.\n\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\nDistrict. |Population. |Christian     |Proportion to  |Remarks and\n          |            |Constituency  |Non-Christian  |Conclusions.\n          |            |              |Population.    |\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n          |            |              |               |\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n_(b) The Communicants or Full Members_.\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\nDistrict. | Population. | Communicants. | Proportion to | Remarks and\n          |             |               | Non-Christian | Conclusions\n          |             |               | Population.   |\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n          |             |               |               |\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n_(c) The Paid Workers._\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\nDistrict. | Population. | Paid Workers. | Proportion to | Remarks and\n          |             |               | Non-Christian | Conclusions\n          |             |               | Population.   |\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n          |             |               |               |\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n_(d) The Unpaid Workers._\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------------\nDistrict. | Population. | Unpaid   | Proportion to | Remarks and\n          |             | Workers. | Non-Christian | Conclusions.\n          |             |          | Population.   |\n-----------------------------------------------------------------\n          |             |          |               |\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nHere again it is the proportions which are illuminating and enable\ncomparisons of different areas to be made. The bare figures of the\nnumber of Christians and communicants and workers by themselves would\ntell us very little; only when we have them related to a common factor\ndo we get any real light.\n\nLet us now sum up our inquiry thus far.\n\n+-------------------------------------------------------+-----+\nWork to be Done: Non-Christian Population.              |     |\n+-------------------------------------------------------+-----+\nUntouched, Unoccupied Villages.                         |     |\n+-------------------------------------------------------+-----+\nForeign Force Compared with Work to be Done.            |     |\n+-------------------------------------------------------+-----+\nNative Force Compared with Work to be Done.                   |\n+-------------------------------------------------------+-----+\n    Christian Constituency.                             |     |\n+-------------------------------------------------------+-----+\n    Communicants.                                       |     |\n+-------------------------------------------------------+-----+\n    Paid Workers.                                       |     |\n+-------------------------------------------------------+-----+\n    Unpaid Voluntary Workers.                           |     |\n+-------------------------------------------------------+-----+\n\nIf these tables were kept over a series of years, the progress of the\nforce in relation to the work to be done would be most interestingly\nrevealed.\n\nBut in estimating the Christian force in the district we need to know\nmore than its number; we need to know so much of its character as\nstatistical tables can show.\n\nOne Christian to every 129 heathen may mean much or little. It might\nmean that the day when the Christian force would be the controlling\nforce in the area was close at hand. That would depend largely upon the\ncapacity of the Christians, their education, their zeal. The tables\nwhich we now suggest are designed to reveal, so far as tables can\nreveal, the truth in these matters.\n\nWe begin then with the proportion of communicants in the Christian\nconstituency. If we take the last table and, instead of considering the\nproportion of the communicants to the non-Christian population, consider\nthe proportion of communicants to the Christian constituency, we gain a\nvery different view. We gain then an idea of the character of the\nChristians. Instead of an idea of the size of the force at work we\nreceive an impression of the quality of the force. Even one who lays\nlittle stress on the value and necessity of sacraments would not deny\nthat he would expect more from a Church of 1000 in which 500 were\ncommunicants than he would from a Church of 1000 of which only 100 were\ncommunicants. He might deny that his expectation was based upon any\nfaith in the virtue of sacraments, but he would acknowledge the fact\nthat in our experience the Church which possesses large numbers of\ncommunicants is generally stronger than the Church which possesses a\nsmall number. The comparison of the number of communicants in relation\nto the number of the total Christian constituency does properly produce\nan impression of the strength of the Christian body.\n\nIf we can fill up the table\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\nDistrict.| Total.       | Communicants | Proportion of | Remarks and\n         | Christian    | or Full      | Communicants  | Conclusions\n         | Constituency.| Members.     | to Christian  |\n         |              |              | Constituency. |\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n         |              |              |               |\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nwe gain an impression of the strength of the Church. But it is important\nto observe that it is only in relation to the earlier tables, which set\nout the force in relation to the work to be done, that this impression\nof strength is of immediate importance to us. We are dealing with a\nmissionary survey, a survey concerned with the propagation of the\nGospel. The mere strength of the Church, unrelated to any work in which\nthe strength is to be employed, is a very different matter. We might\ntake pleasure in the sight of it. We might congratulate ourselves and\nthe missionaries on the beauty of the strength revealed, but not until\nit is related to work to be done does strength appear in its true glory.\nWe find in nearly all missionary statistics the number of communicants\nand converts set forth, and we often wonder what for. It cannot be that\nwe may glory in our conquests and say: See how many converts and\ncommunicants we have made! But, unrelated to any task to be done, that\nis all that appears. Therefore we have instituted this comparison here,\nin close relation to the earlier tables, that we may know what is the\nforce on the spot at work in the area defined.\n\nNext, the proportion of Paid Workers in proportion to the number of the\nChristian constituency and the communicants is a most illuminating\nfactor. By itself it is a difficult factor to appreciate rightly.\nSuppose we find, as we do sometimes find, that one out of every ten\ncommunicants is a paid worker. That may imply that the proportion of\nrice Christians is very high, or it may imply a high standard of zeal,\nvery many of the converts being able and willing to devote themselves to\nChristian work and at the same time too poor to be able to support\nthemselves without pay. This proportion, therefore, should be carefully\nchecked by a table which shows the proportion of unpaid workers and\nanother which shows the standard of wealth. But commonly we are given\nthe number of paid workers, and given neither the number of unpaid\nvoluntary workers, nor the standard of wealth, and therefore the danger\nof reading amiss the number of paid workers is great. We have already\nexplained the difficulty of obtaining exact figures, or even estimates,\nof the number of voluntary unpaid workers, but a mere glance at the\nproportion of paid workers to communicants should be enough to persuade\nany man who desires to judge our work fairly of the necessity for such a\ntable as we now suggest.\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\nDistrict.| Paid     | Proportion      | Proportion of | Remarks and\n         | Workers. | of Paid Workers | Paid Workers  | Conclusions\n         |          | to Christian    | to            |\n         |          | Constituency.   | Communicants. |\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n         |          |                 |               |\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\nDistrict.| Unpaid   |Proportion       |Proportion of   | Remarks and\n         | Workers. |of Unpaid Workers|Unpaid Workers  | Conclusions\n         |          |to Christian     |to              |\n         |          |Constituency.    |Communicants.   |\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n         |          |                 |                |\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n         |               | Proportion of Christian |\n         |               | Constituency. According |\n         |               | to Local Standard.      |\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\nDistrict.| Christian     | Well   | Poor | In      |  Remarks and\n         | Constituency. | to do. |      | Poverty |  Conclusions\n         |               |        |      |         |\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n         |               |        |      |         |\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nThere is indeed a way of judging the zeal of native Christians for the\npropagation of the Gospel very popular among missionaries, the way of\ntabulating and comparing the amount which they subscribe for missionary\nwork. Obviously this method is the form most natural to us, but it is\none of the worst conceivable. When a Christian congregation lives\nsurrounded by heathen, for it to learn to satisfy the divine spirit of\nmissions by putting money into a box, is most dangerous. The zeal of\nChristians for the spread of the Gospel ought always to be expressed\nfirst in active personal service. We should prefer to omit any question\nas to the amount subscribed for missionary work far off. We believe it\nto be a most delusive and deluding test. It deceives the giver, it\ndeceives the inquirer. We should prefer to inquire the number of hearers\nor inquirers brought to the Church by the undirected effort of the\nChurch members, or the number of Church members who go out to teach or\npreach in their neighbourhood, or perhaps best of all, the number of\nlittle Christian congregations which as a body are actively engaged in\nevangelising their neighbours. But we admit missionary contributions as\nan additional question\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\nChristian    |Inquirers  |Congregations| Amount         | Remarks and\nConstituency.|brought in |Evangelising | Subscribed     | Conclusions\n             |by Native  |their        | for Missionary |\n             |Christians.|Neighbours.  | Purposes.      |\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n             |           |             |                |\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nThat a Church must be instructed and instruct its children all are\nagreed: where men differ is with respect to the manner of the teaching.\nOn the one side are those who would safeguard the faith by committing\nthe teaching of it to a small body of carefully trained men, the clergy,\nwhilst the majority of the Christians, the laity, remain unlearned and\naccept what is taught by the trained official teachers: on the other\nside are those who would boldly commit the faith to all, opening to all\nthe door of learning. The one party would preserve the faith in the\nhands of a select few, the other would put the Bible into every man's\nhands. It is an old controversy; but we suppose nearly all those for\nwhom we write are of the second party, men who would gladly see every\nChristian able to read the Bible and to base his religious life upon it.\nWe stand for the open Bible; we believe that the Christian Church in\nevery country will progress and develop strongly if it is based on a\nwidespread knowledge of Holy Writ, and we are prepared to believe that a\ncapacity to read the Bible is a sure sign of health in any Christian\nChurch. The test of literacy commonly adopted in our missions is the\ncapacity to read the Holy Gospels: we accept that gladly and\nconfidently.\n\nFurthermore, the influence of the Christian Church in the country will\nlargely depend upon the extent to which the Christians are better able\nto read and understand literary expression than their heathen\nneighbours.\n\nWe want then to know the literacy of the Christian community as compared\nwith the literacy of the non-Christian population from which it springs,\nand, if possible, a little more than that--what proportion of the\nChristians have had a sufficient education to enable them not only to\nsatisfy the very slight demands of a literary test, but to have some\nwider knowledge with which to improve their own position and to\nenlighten others.\n\nThe table which results is as follows:--\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\nNon-Chris-|Propor- |Total     |Propor- |Proportion    | Remarks and\ntian      |tion of |Christian |tion of |of Christians | Conclusions.\nPopula-   |Liter-  |Consti-   |Liter-  |of Higher     |\n tion.    |ates.   |tuency.   |ates.   |Education.    |\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n          |        |          |        |              |\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIn this table we touch one of the points on which exact figures are\noften inaccessible and an estimate must be made. An estimate which is\nrecognised as an estimate is not misleading, and, if it is carefully\nmade and based on evidence understood, is generally most useful, only\nestimates carelessly made and mistaken for precise and accurate\nstatements of fact are misleading.\n\nThese tables would, we suggest, suffice to give us a fairly clear idea\nof the strength of the force at work, especially if they are taken in\nconjunction with the tables which we suggest under the heading of the\nNative Church in Chapter VIII. where we deal particularly with\norganisation.\n\nWe ought now to be able to form some idea of the work to be done and of\nthe force to do it. We know in quantitative terms the work to be done,\nwe know the relative force of missionaries, we know the relative\nstrength of the native Christian constituency, its communicants, its\nworkers, its education, its wealth, in relation to the work to be done.\n\nWe have now to consider how the force is directed, along what lines it\nis applied, and how its efforts are co-ordinated.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nTHE EMPHASIS LAID UPON DIFFERENT TYPES OF WORK.\n\n\nWhen we know the area and the force at work in it, we must next consider\nhow this force is applied. We need to know in what proportion it works\namongst men and women, how far different classes of the population are\nreached by it, and what emphasis is placed upon different forms of work,\nevangelistic, medical, and educational. We propose then four tables\nwhich will help us to understand these things.\n\nFirst, we inquire into the relative strength of the force in relation to\nwork among men and women. In the foreign missionary force we distinguish\nmen, wives, and single women; in the native force we distinguish only\nmen and women; because marriage generally affects the character of the\nforeigner's work more than it affects the character of the work done by\nthe native Christians who live in their own homes among their own\npeople.\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------\n                       |     |        |  Single    |\n                       |     |        |  Women and |  Remarks and\n                       | Men |   Wives|  Widows    |  Conclusions\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\nForeign missionaries.  |     |        |            |\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n                       |            Women\nChristian constituency |     |                     |\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\nCommunicants.          |     |                     |\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\nNative workers (paid)  |     |                     |\n--------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nSince it is generally agreed that men in the main appeal to men, and\nwomen to women, that table should tell us roughly what is the force at\nwork in relation to men and women; and any mistake in that supposition\nwill be checked by the statistics for the Christian constituency, which\nserve a double purpose. The statistics of the Christian constituency\nshow us not only an important part of the Christian force at work in\nrelation to the men and women of the non-Christian population; but in\nrelation to the foreigners and the native workers they also help us to\nsee how far the idea that men appeal to men and women to women, is in\nfact a good working rule.\n\nNext it is desirable to know to what classes the mission especially\nappeals. Here we shall probably have to accept estimates, sometimes\nrough estimates, for part at least of the information desirable; in some\ncases the table may be impossible; in some it may be most useful. The\ntable which we suggest is:--\n\n----------------------------------------------------------------------\nIn the Population of Station District--\n_____________________________________________________________________\nPer Cent.|Per Cent.|Per Cent.     |Per Cent.| Per Cent.| Remarks\nStudents.|Officials|Agricultural  |Traders. |Labourers,| and\n         |         |Small Holders.|         |Craftsmen.| Conclusions.\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n         |         |              |         |          |\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\nIn the Christian Constituency--\n\n_____________________________________________________________________\nPer Cent.|Per Cent.|Per Cent.     |Per Cent.| Per Cent.| Remarks\nStudents.|Officials|Agricultural  |Traders. |Labourers,| and\n         |         |Small Holders.|         |Craftsmen.| Conclusions.\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n         |         |              |         |          |\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIf that table could be filled up it would show at a glance what class of\nthe people was reached most easily and fully, and whether any were\nunduly neglected.\n\nThen, in many station areas there are divergencies of race and\nreligion, and it is important to know how far the mission is reaching\neach of these. In some areas, for instance, large numbers of converts\nare made from the pagan population whilst a Moslem population in the\narea is practically untouched; in some nearly all the converts are made\nfrom one caste out of many. That is no reason for adverse criticism of\nthe mission: it may be, and often is, a reason for striking harder at\nthe point on which the work is now most successful; but it is a fact\nwhich throws great light on the nature of the work done and upon the\ncharacter of the Church which is rising in the area, and therefore\ncannot be ignored. We append then a table to reveal this:--\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------\n                         | Area of Races, Castes, |  Remarks and\n                         |      Religions, etc.   |  Conclusions\n                         |                        |\nProportion of Population |                        |\n--------------------------------------------------------------------\nProportion of Christian  |                        |\nConstituency derived from|                        |\n--------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nWe cannot possibly supply the table complete for all areas in the world.\nWe suggest that such a table kept up to date would reveal not only\nfacts useful to illustrate the progress of the Christian faith, but also\nto show the progress of aggressive non-Christian religions such as\nMohammedanism.\n\nThen we want to know what is the emphasis put on different forms of\nmissionary work, evangelistic, medical, educational. Here we come to a\ndifficulty. Medical missionaries, thank God, do evangelistic work, and\nso do educational missionaries, and one day we shall learn that the\nevangelistic missionary, technically so called, is doing a most\nimportant educational work, and often truly medical, healing work. The\ndivision is a technical one and missionary-hearted men begin to resent\nit; they are all evangelic in their work, if not technically\nevangelistic, and the division seems unreal, unnatural, untrue. It would\nbe a sad day for our missions if medical and educational missionaries\nceased to be at heart evangelists, and were content to leave\nevangelistic work to others. Nevertheless, the technical distinction is\na real one and must be expressed. Some men express their evangelistic\nfervour naturally and providentially in medical form, others in\nscholastic, others in teaching, preaching, and organising of the\nconverts and the hearers. But how shall we divide them? The best plan\nseems to be to put each man into that category in which he spends most\nof his time, and in cases of doubt to use fractions, e.g. a doctor may\nbe as keen an evangelist and may preach and strive to convert his\npatients as eagerly as his colleague who is called an evangelistic\nmissionary. An evangelistic missionary is perhaps a doctor by training\nor experience, and heals the sick as eagerly as his colleague who is\ncalled a medical missionary. Each is unwilling to be catalogued in one\ncolumn only. He feels, and feels rightly, that that single figure belies\nthe facts. The evangelistic missionary may be the only doctor in the\nwhole area who really understands the use of western drugs and\nimplements, the doctor may be the only evangelist in the whole area who\nreally knows how to preach the Gospel in language which the people can\nunderstand. Clearly, in such cases the only possible thing to do is to\nuse a fraction, though the inner truth might be more easily expressed by\nfigures which represented that one man as two or three.\n\nThe table then is as follows:--\n\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\nMissionaries. | Paid   | Amount of| Amount of | Total     | Remarks\n              | Native | Foreign  | Native    | Funds     | and\n              | Workers| Funds    | Funds     | including | Con-\n              |        | Spent    | Spent     | Government| clusions\n              |        | on: [1]  | on: [2]   | Grants.   |\n--------------------------------------------------------------------\nEvangelistic  |        |          |           |           |\n--------------------------------------------------------------------\nMedical.      |        |          |           |           |\n--------------------------------------------------------------------\nEducational   |        |          |           |           |\n--------------------------------------------------------------------\nOther Forms   |        |          |           |           |\nof Work.      |        |          |           |           |\n--------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n[Footnote 1: All funds derived from foreigners except Government grants.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Including fees and contributions.]\n\nIt will be observed that this table is designed, like all the others, to\nserve primarily one single purpose. Since that purpose is to show the\nrelative weight thrown by the mission and the Christians into different\nforms of evangelistic expression, all missionaries, all native workers,\nall funds mainly occupied in each form are lumped together. There is no\nneed at this stage to distinguish doctors from nurses, or Bible-women\nfrom pastors or priests.\n\nFrom these tables we should hope to gain a general idea of the direction\nof the force at work.\n\nWe thrust in here an inquiry concerning a form of work upon which many\nmissions lay great stress. It is exceedingly difficult to classify. It\nis not certainly evangelistic work, though it is commonly organised by\nevangelistic workers; it is not educational in the sense that\neducational missionaries accept it as a definitely recognised part of\ntheir work, though educational methods are employed and it often has a\ndistinctly educational purpose. It is sometimes a form of Sunday service\nalmost akin to a Church service. It is often a form of children's school\nwhere the religious teaching given, or neglected, during the week in the\nday school is supplemented: it is sometimes a form of elementary school\nfor adults, Christian, or inquirers: it is a form of Bible school for\nadult Christian workers. It is a method of propaganda for the conversion\nof heathen children or adults. It is a form of work where untrained\nChristian voluntary workers find opportunity for expressing their\nreligious zeal; it is a form of work in which experts in certain types\nof elementary religious teaching revel. It is educational work carried\non by those who are not technically educationalists: it is evangelistic\nwork carried on by those who are not technically evangelists.\n\nWhat sort of information then are we to seek concerning it? It is so\nimportant that it cannot be omitted; it is so widespread that it almost\ndemands special consideration; it is so protean that tables designed to\nreveal all its aspects and values would be with difficulty designed, and\ntediously minute. From the point of view of this survey it would be\nfutile to ask, as most of the societies ask, simply for the number of\nSunday schools, the number of teachers, and the number of scholars. From\nthose bare numbers we can gain no information which really enlightens\nus. We want to know what the Sunday schools exist for, and whether they\nare accomplishing the object of their existence. But we cannot define,\nnor even enumerate all the objects. We therefore arbitrarily select\nthree which are directly related to the establishment of a native\nChurch, and make one table serve. We inquire: (1) How they are related\nto the Christian constituency; from this we hope to learn the extent to\nwhich Sunday schools are a part of the Church life. (2) How the teachers\nare related to the communicants (or full members); from this we hope to\nlearn the extent to which the voluntary effort of the communicants finds\nexpression in this work. (3) How the scholars are related to baptisms\nand confirmations (or admission as full members); from this we hope to\nlearn to what extent the Sunday-schools are a recruiting ground for the\nChurch.\n\nThe table then is as follows:--\n\n+-------------------------------------------------------+-----+\nDistrict                                                |     |\n+-------------------------------------------------------+-----+\nNumber of Sunday Schools.                               |     |\n+-------------------------------------------------------+-----+\nProportion of Sunday Schools to Christian Constituency. |     |\n+-------------------------------------------------------+-----+\nSunday School Teachers.                                 |     |\n+-------------------------------------------------------+-----+\nProportion of Communicants.                             |     |\n+-------------------------------------------------------+-----+\nSunday School Scholars. (M./F.)                         |     |\n+-------------------------------------------------------+-----+\nProportion of Sunday School Scholars                    |     |\nBaptised in the Year.                                   |     |\n+-------------------------------------------------------+-----+\nProportion of Scholars Confirmed                        |     |\nor Admitted Full Members in the Year.                   |     |\n+-------------------------------------------------------+-----+\nRemarks and Conclusions.                                |     |\n+-------------------------------------------------------+-----+\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nMEDICAL WORK IN THE STATION DISTRICT.\n\n\nThus far of the force in its general aspect. When we turn to closer\nconsideration of the medical and educational work we meet with a\ndifficulty. Medical and educational work, as we have already pointed\nout, often, if not generally, have a definitely evangelistic character,\nbut each, nevertheless, appears to be designed to meet a special need of\nthe Church and people. There is a strong tendency in thought, and often\nin speech, to emphasise this special need and to make it a distinct,\nseparate need. Herein lies a danger. Medical missions are sometimes\nurged upon our attention as though they were founded to meet a medical\nneed of the people, as if it were the recognised and accepted duty of\nmissionary societies and of missionaries to supplant the native medical\npractice by western scientific methods as certainly and fully as it is\ntheir recognised and accepted duty to supplant native religion by the\nfaith of Christ. But that we for our part emphatically deny. The one may\nbe a philanthropic duty; the other certainly is a religious duty.\nConsequently we deny that there is a medical need which it is the duty\nof missionaries to supply in the sense in which we affirm that there is\na religious need which it is the duty of missionaries to supply. Medical\nmissions are, and ought to be, evangelistic in their aim, mere\nhandmaids[1] of evangelism. Similarly we deny a separate and distinct\neducational need which it is the duty of missionary societies to supply.\nThe missionary societies ought not to take upon themselves the supply of\nevery need. We think the Christian Church is misled when it allows the\nmedical need of a country to be presented as a distinct need which it is\nthe duty of missionaries to meet, and when it allows the ignorance of a\ncountry to be presented as a distinct need which it is the duty of\nmissionaries to meet. From such a presentation educational missions\nbecome detached, medical missions become detached, each designed to meet\na distinct and separate need of the people.\n\n[Footnote 1: If any reader experiences a revulsion at this expression,\nhe will know at once what we mean when we say that a distinction has\nbeen drawn between evangelistic, medical, and educational missions as\nthough they were three co-equal and separate things. They are not\nco-equal and they ought not to be separate. Education does not\nnecessarily reveal Christ, medical science does not necessarily reveal\nChrist, only as education and medicine assist the revelation of Christ\nare they proper subjects for Christian missionary enterprise, that is,\nonly when they are clearly and unmistakably subordinate to an\nevangelistic purpose. Of course we do not undervalue medical and\neducational efficiency: efficiency should increase evangelistic power.]\n\nOne result of the sharp distinction which is drawn between medical and\neducational and evangelistic work is that in some countries there are\ndistinct medical and educational associations which collect information\nabout the state of medical and educational missions in the country,\ndealing with these missionary activities most prominently, if not\nwholly, from the point of view of medical and educational efficiency.\nThese associations issue _questionnaires_ and publish reports often more\nfull, detailed, and carefully compiled than any evangelistic reports.\nConsequently it is peculiarly dangerous for a layman unacquainted with\nthe working of these associations to trespass upon their preserves.\nThese departmental surveys should be treated separately by experts.\nNevertheless, since we are dealing with the work of the station in its\narea, and this work includes often medical and educational work, we\ncannot pass over it with no more than the general treatment which we\nhave hitherto given. We need to know what is the medical and what the\neducational work carried on at the station, when these are viewed, as\nthey are viewed, separately, as distinct expressions of missionary zeal.\n\nDealing first with medical missions we suppose that the question might\nbe put in this form, What are the medical missionary resources available\nin the district in relation to the need which it is proposed to meet?\n\nHere again there arises the difficulty that there is no common agreement\nas to the purpose of the medical work of the missionary societies. What\nare the doctors there for? What does the hospital exist to do? Who can\ntell? So diverse are the ideas of different men on this subject, so\nlittle thought out, that a man of unusual experience told us that he had\nmet few missionary doctors who could answer the question: \"On the basis\nof what facts ought the question of the establishment of a hospital to\nbe decided?\" Few could tell him whether in sending doctors the\nmissionary societies ought to consider the duty of caring for the\nhealth of their missionaries first or last. Few could tell him whether\nthe care of the health of the children in schools and institutions was\nthe first duty, or the last, or any duty at all, of the medical\nmissionary. Yet obviously, those two points if they were once admitted\nwould influence largely the location of doctors and hospitals. Again, we\nhear it argued that missionary societies ought to establish medical\nschools, hospitals, and institutions of the finest possible type in\norder to show how the thing really ought to be done, to demonstrate the\nvery best example of western medical work, and to train natives to a\nwestern efficiency. That would not only influence the location of\ndoctors and hospitals, it would also affect the character of the\nbuildings and would demand a special type of medical missionary. Or\nagain, we hear it argued that medical missions are the point of the\nmissionary sword; but if it is the point of the sword then it ought to\nbe in front of the blade. That, too, would direct the location of the\ndoctors and hospitals. It would also affect the character of the\nbuilding unless the missionary sword is to become an immovable object,\nwhich having once cleft a rock remains fast in the breach until a\nGod-sent hero, like King Arthur, appears to pull it out and set it to\nwork again. We cannot state all the different aims. They are not simple\nand formulated; they are complex and confused. Very often the\nestablishment of a medical mission turns upon no more thorough\nexamination of the facts of the situation than the conviction of a\ncapable missionary that there is need for medical work in his district,\nand that he must supply it if he can, and that he must persevere in\nappeals till he can supply it. When a man asks: \"On the basis of what\nfacts ought this or that to be done in the mission field?\" he has got a\nlong way into the complexity of the problem, and the need for survey, if\na society is to act with wisdom, is already apparent to him. But most\nmen in the past have acted simply, without much argument: they said,\n\"Here is a need; I can supply it,\" and the societies were the feeders of\nsuch men. Naturally. So one hospital and a doctor was the point of a\nsword which in twenty years' time was stuck fast in the rock; and then\nthe hospital was enlarged and became a medical school under the fervent\ndirection of a doctor who was a natural teacher; and then it became an\ninstitution, and then part of a college. And in all this there may have\nbeen no definite policy, any more than there was any definite policy in\nthe guidance of its twin brother, which, instead of changing its\ncharacter, remained what it had always been, the point of a sword, only\nburied in a rock, competing feebly with a Government institution. When\none writes of mixed motives, and mixed policies, and mixed methods, it\nis natural to use mixed metaphors.\n\nBut to return to our point. It is not easy to say what some hospitals\nare there for. If we knew, we could at least formulate tables to set out\nthe progress which they have made towards the object proposed. That\nwould be reasonable survey as we have defined it. To collect all\npossible information concerning all the things which the doctor or\nhospital might do, or may be doing, unrelated to any end, is to collect\na mass of information which we cannot use; and that we have declined to\ndo. What course then can we pursue? We propose first to accept the\nnotion that the medical mission is there to supply a medical need of the\npeople, and to consider how far it does that; and then to look at the\nmedical work at the station as definitely designed to assist the\nevangelisation of the people, as evangelistic in its purpose. We have,\ntherefore, designed a double set of tables to serve these two purposes.\n\nFirst, tables to show the medical work in relation to the presumed need\nof the district for western medicine.\n\nHere, as before for evangelistic work, so now for medical, we have\nexpressed the relation between the medical work and the district in\nterms both of area and population in order that each table may be a\ncheck upon the other. Thus:--\n\n(i) In terms of area.\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------\n         |     |Number of|           |          |         |\n         |     |Qualified|Number of  |Number of |Number of|Number of\n         |     |Medicals.|Assistants.|Hospitals.| Nurses. |Dispens-\n         |     |         |           |          |         |aries.\nDistrict.|Area.|---------|-----------|----------|---------|---------\n         |     | M. | F. | M.  | F.  |For | For | M. | F. |\n         |     |    |    |     |     |men |women|    |    |\n---------|-----|----|----|-----|-----|----|-----|----|----|---------\n         |     |    |    |     |     |    |     |    |    |\n         |     |    |    |     |     |    |     |    |    |\n         |     |    |    |     |     |    |     |    |    |\n--------------------------------------------------------------------\n         |     |    |    |     |     |    |     |    |    |\n_________|_____|____|____|_____|_____|____|_____|____|____|__________\n\n\n(ii) In terms of population.\n\n----------------------------------------------\n                   District.    |Population. |\n---------------------------------------------|\nProportion of   |               |            |\nMedicals to     |               |            |\nPopulation.     |               |            |\n----------------------------------------------\nProportion of   |               |            |\nAssistants to   |               |            |\nPopulation.     |               |            |\n----------------------------------------------\nProportion of   |               |            |\nNurses to       |               |            |\nPopulation.     |               |            |\n----------------------------------------------\nProportion of   |               |            |\nBeds to         |               |            |\nPopulation.     |               |            |\n----------------------------------------------\nProportion of   |               |            |\nDispensaries to |               |            |\nPopulation.     |               |            |\n----------------------------------------------\n\nIt will be observed that in this second table the items are not\nidentical with those in the preceding table. In the place of hospitals\nwe have beds; because in relation to the area the thing of importance is\nthe number of the hospitals; but in relation to population the thing of\nimportance is the number of beds available. Two hospitals in a single\narea are probably not in the same place and imply more widespread\ninfluence; but if each has twenty beds, in proportion to population it\nis of no importance whether the forty beds are in one place or two:\nforty in-patients fill the beds.\n\nBut in medical work, when we are considering the need of the district,\nanother factor of importance often enters. The medicals of the mission\nare often not the only men meeting that need. There are often others,\nGovernment officials, or private practitioners, who, from the point of\nview of medical practice, are doing the same work. The medical need of a\ndistrict where the missionary doctor is the only exponent of western\nmedicine is not the same as that of the district where he is competing\nwith Government or private doctors fully trained as he is. Consequently\nit is essential in order to understand the position that we should know\nwhat other, non-missionary, medical assistance is available, and we\nneed the following table:--\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n        |Hospitals.|Qualified|Assistants.|Nurses.|Dispensaries.|Beds.\n        |          |Practi-  |           |       |             |\n                    tioners. |           |       |             |\n--------|----------|---------|-----------|-------|-------------|---\n        |          |         |           |       |             |\nMission-|          |         |           |       |             |\n     ary|   ____   |  ____   |   ____    | ____  |    ____     | ___\n--------------------------------------------------------------------\n        |          |         |           |       |             |\n   Non- |          |         |           |       |             |\nMission-|          |         |           |       |             |\n     ary|   ____   |  ____   |   ____    | ____  |    ____     | ___\n        |          |         |           |       |             |\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIf any surveyor finds it difficult to fill in such a table, he must make\nan estimate, but he ought to realise that a table of the kind is a\nnecessary part of any appeal for increased support; for support cannot\nbe reasonably given to his work _on the ground of this medical need_\nunless these facts are known. Of course that does not mean that support\nought to be given or withheld solely on the statistics so provided.\nThere may be a thousand reasons for strengthening and enlarging work\nwhere this table would suggest less need; but no support should be given\nin ignorance of these facts.\n\nThen we need tables to reveal, as far as such tables can reveal\nanything, the extent of the medical mission work done in the year.\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------\nDistrict|Area|Popul-|Hospital   |Dispensary,|Total|Propor-  |Remarks\n        |    |ation |Patients in|Patients in|Pat- |tion of  |and\n        |    |      |Year       |Year       |ients|Patients |Conclu-\n        |    |      |           |           |     |to Popul-|sions\n        |    |      |           |           |     |ation    |\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n        |    |      |           |           |     |         |\n        |    |      |M.|F.|Child|M.|F.|Child|     |         |\n        |    |      |  |  |     |  |  |     |     |         |\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n        |    |      |  |  |     |  |  |     |     |         |\n________|____|______|__|__|_____|__|__|_____|_____|_________|________\n\n\nTurning then from the medical need to be met, we proposed to inquire\ninto the medical work as an evangelistic agency. This inquiry is hard to\nformulate; but we suggest that the three tables appended, taken in\nconjunction with the preceding, would throw certain light on this\nquestion, and would help towards a true understanding.\n\nFirst, we inquire into the relative extent to which the medical workers\nmake use of the assistance of evangelistic workers. This table would\n_not_ reveal the evangelistic influence of the hospital. On the one\nhand, there is sometimes a tendency for the medical men and women to do\nmedical work exclusively, and to leave all religious work to the\nevangelistic workers, and to give way to the temptation to imagine that\nif evangelistic workers read or preach in the waiting-room and visit the\npatients, the medicals can be satisfied that they have done their duty\nas medical missionaries. On the other hand, a medical who does his\nmedical work in the Spirit, who speaks to and prays with his patients,\nexercises an evangelistic influence wider and deeper than that of many\nof the evangelistic workers directly so called, and in such a case the\nfact that the evangelistic workers are apparently lacking in the\nhospital does not at all show that the medical work is not a strong\nevangelistic force. But any danger of misguidance which might arise if\nthis table stood alone must be counteracted by the other tables; for the\nthree can be taken together. And when this allowance has been made the\ntable is useful with the others, and lights one side of the question\nbefore us.\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n                         |  Hospitals   |   Dispensaries\n                         |              |  (Where these\n                         |              |   are not attached to\n                         |              |   hospitals)\n-------------------------+--------------+----------------------------\nNumber of Medicals       |              |\non Staff.[1]             |              |\n-------------------------+--------------+----------------------------\nProportion to Patients.  |              |\n-------------------------+--------------+----------------------------\nNumber of Evangelistic   |              |\nWorkers on Staff.[1]     |              |\n-------------------------+--------------+----------------------------\nProportion to Patients.  |              |\n-------------------------+--------------+----------------------------\nRemarks and Conclusions. |              |\n-------------------------+--------------+----------------------------\n\n[Footnote 1: By \"on staff\" we mean regularly attached to, or regularly\nvisiting.]\n\nWhen we have seen the extent to which the medicals use the evangelistic\nworkers in their institutions, we need to know the extent to which the\nmedicals assist the evangelistic workers outside the institutions. We\nput this in the form of a table designed to reveal the extent to which\nthe medicals assist in evangelistic tours, helping the evangelistic\nworkers on tour, either by healing the sick on the spot, or by sending\nthem to the hospitals, or by preaching, or in all these ways.\n\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\nNumber of |Number of   |Number of |Number of    |Number of |Remarks\nEvange-   |Evangelistic|Medicals  |Days spent by|Days spent|and\nlistic    |Workers     |Assisting.|Evangelistic |by        |Conclu-\nTours.    |Assisting.  |          |Workers.     |Medicals. |sions.\n----------|------------|----------|-------------|----------|-------\n          |            |          |             |          |\n          |            |          |             |          |\n          |            |          |             |          |\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n          |            |          |             |          |\n__________|____________|__________|_____________|__________|_______\n\n\nFinally, we inquire how far the direct evangelistic influence of the\nhospitals and dispensaries can be traced. We might at first suppose that\nthis could be done by asking the number of inquirers enrolled as a\ndirect consequence of attendance at hospitals and dispensaries; but it\nis not surprising that patients are willing to enrol their names as\ninquirers simply to please the doctors or nurses, without any intention\nof pursuing the matter further when they leave the hospital; and\nconsequently such a question by itself might be very misleading. We\ntherefore add two further questions, the first, what number of\ncommunicants trace their conversion to their visits to hospitals or\ndispensaries, the second, what number of places have been opened to\nChristian teachers and preachers by the influence of doctors and\npatients. Some missionary doctors are much interested in this inquiry,\nand we all might well be interested in it. The answers would be a most\nimportant contribution to our study, and might go far to justify medical\nmissions as an evangelistic agency.\n\n+-------------------------------------------------------+-----+\nNumber of Inquirers Enrolled in the Year as a Direct    |     |\nConsequence of Attendance at Hospitals and Dispensaries.|     |\n+-------------------------------------------------------+-----+\nProportion of Total Inquirers.                          |     |\n+-------------------------------------------------------+-----+\nEnrolled in the Year.                                   |     |\n+-------------------------------------------------------+-----+\nNumber of Communicants Derived from Attendance          |     |\nat Hospitals and Dispensaries in the Year.              |     |\n+-------------------------------------------------------+-----+\nProportion of Communicants Enrolled in the Year.        |     |\n+-------------------------------------------------------+-----+\nNumber of Places Opened to Christian Teachers through   |     |\nthe Influence of Doctors or Patients in the Year.       |     |\n+-------------------------------------------------------+-----+\nProportion of Total Places Opened in the Year.          |     |\n+-------------------------------------------------------+-----+\nConclusions and Remarks.                                |     |\n+-------------------------------------------------------+-----+\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nEDUCATIONAL WORK IN THE STATION DISTRICT.\n\n\nThe difficulty of providing tables for the survey of educational work is\nas great as that of finding tables for medical work, and for the same\nreasons. There is the same separateness, the same diversity of immediate\naim, the same alteration of character, the same uncertainty of policy.\n\nEducational missions have been designed to convert the young whilst they\nwere yet pliable, to influence the growing generation in order to\nprepare for a great advance of Christianity later, to Christianise\nsociety, to educate young Christians in a Christian atmosphere, to\nprepare leaders for the Christian Church, to elevate an ignorant and\nilliterate Christian Church. All these various objects have been set\nbefore us as the reasons for the establishment of schools, both\nseparately, each in different circumstances, and unitedly, all at the\nsame time, as though one school could fulfil all these different\npurposes without any confusion. At one and the same moment Christian\nchildren were to be educated in a Christian atmosphere, and\nnon-Christian children in large numbers were admitted, and non-Christian\nteachers employed. At the same time non-Christian children were to be\nconverted and not converted, but filled with Christian ideas.\n\nAll these aims and objects are confusedly set forth, each as its turn\ncomes round, as the immediate aim of our educational missions; but the\nattempt to draw tables for a survey which shall embrace impartially all\nthese objects is enough to satisfy the inquirer that they are not easily\ncombined into one. We propose, therefore, in this bewildering maze of\nmixed purposes and ideas, to follow the line which seemed possible in\nthe case of medical missions--to accept the idea that there is an\neducational need of the people which it is the business of the\neducational mission to meet so far as it can; and then to add a further\ninquiry concerning the direct evangelistic influence of the educational\nmission, and its relation to the evangelistic and medical work.\n\nBut in educational mission survey there is an added difficulty which\narises from the fact that scholastic education is divided into many\ngrades, and this division has no common standard in different countries,\nsometimes not even in the same country. We, then, who are seeking light\nnot from one country only but from all, are compelled to simplify these\ngrade distinctions as much as possible, and to accept the local\ndefinitions. This does not really invalidate comparisons between\ndifferent areas so seriously as we might at the first glance be tempted\nto expect. There is in every country a grade which is primary; there is\na secondary, or middle, or high school; there is a normal, or college,\nor arts course. The primary in one country may run into higher primary\nand be at its best far in advance of the primary in another country; and\nso far the two are incomparable; but, nevertheless, this primary grade\nis the lowest grade in each country, and if the inquiry is, what number\nof pupils are taught in this local first grade, then the comparison is\nadmissible. Similarly of the second grade and the third. If the inquiry\nis understood to imply no more than it states, and no conclusion is\ndrawn as to the relative stage or merits of the education in the two\ncountries in relation to one another, it may justly be argued that the\nprimary pupils in one country stand in relation to the illiterate and\nmore highly educated pupils in their own country in a similar position\nto that in which the primary pupils in another country stand to the\nilliterate and more highly educated pupils in their own country; though\nthe primary pupils in the one may be far more advanced than the primary\npupils in the other. On this basis a possible comparison can be made.\n\nBut since colleges and normal schools generally serve a larger area than\nthe station district, these are reserved for provincial survey, and the\npresent tables deal with nothing above the secondary, or middle, or high\nschool. In the station district area the matter of chief importance is\nthe extent to which the need of the district for primary and secondary\neducation is met, and the proportion in which the needs of the many and\nthe few are met.\n\nOf course where the surveyor has before him more elaborate tables\nprepared for some board, he can serve all purposes best by keeping those\ntables carefully and sending copies of them to those who may be\ninterested. Our hasty division into primary and higher than primary is\nonly designed to save trouble in those districts where no elaborate\ndistinctions and definitions have been made. If it is desirable for\npurposes of comparison to reduce tables from different parts of the\nworld to a common basis, so long as the tables supplied from any part do\nnot contain _less_ than the tables here suggested, the comparison can\neasily be made, for what it is worth.\n\nWe begin then with the educational work done in the station district as\ndesigned to meet a distinct educational need. The first tables,\ntherefore, correspond to the first evangelistic and medical tables and\nset forth the quantitative extent of the educational work in relation to\nthe area and to the population.\n\n_______________________________________________________________\n         |      |                 |  Number of   |\n         |      |    Number of    | Secondary or | Remarks and\nDistrict.| Area.| Primary Schools.|  Middle or   | Conclusions.\n         |      |                 | High Schools.|\n_________|______|_________________|______________|_____________\n         |      |                 |              |\n         |      |                 |              |\n_________|______|_________________|______________|_____________\n---------|------|-----------------|--------------|--------------\n\n_________________________________________________________________\n         |        |          | Propor-|          | Propor-|\n         |        |  Number  |  tion  |  Number  |  tion  |\n         | Popula-|    of    |   to   |    of    |   to   | Re-\nDistrict.|  tion. |  Primary | Popula-|  Higher  | Popula-|marks.\n         |        | Teachers.|  tion. | Teachers.|  tion. |\n_________|________|__________|________|__________|________|______\n         |        |          |        |          |        |\n_________|________|__________|________|__________|________|_______\n\n\nHere it will be noted that whereas in the area it is the number of\nschools which is considered, in relation to population it is the number\nof teachers, because in the area the point of importance is the\naccessibility of the schools; whilst in relation to the population it is\nthe number of teachers which reveals to what extent the population is\nserved.\n\nThen similar reasons to those which led us to take into account the\nnon-missionary medical assistance in the area force us to consider the\nnon-missionary education. If we are to consider scholastic education as\na need of the people at all, we must acknowledge that the presence of\nGovernment or private schools makes a great difference to the situation,\nand if an appeal for medical missions ought to be affected by the\npresence or absence of non-missionary medical assistance, equally ought\nan appeal for educational missions in any area to be affected by the\npresence or absence of non-missionary educational facilities.\n\nIt may be true that if the aim of educational missions were defined as\nthe provision of educational facilities under Christian influence, the\npresence of non-Christian educational facilities, in proportion to their\nmagnitude, might be a challenge to Christians to increase theirs. On\nthis basis the mission would deliberately compete with Government\nschools where Government schools were strongest. But if the mission is\ndesigned to supply a liberal education for Christians, the presence of\nGovernment schools does not necessarily induce competition. We might\nwell ponder the question put by a Christian convert in India, when\ndiscussing the use of educational missions by the missionary societies:\n\"Hindus,\" he said, \"are not deterred from sending their children to\nChristian schools by the fear that they will cease to be Hindus, and do\nthe societies think so little of our religion that they are afraid that\nour children would cease to be Christians if they attended a Government\nschool?\" Whatever answer we give to that question, in either case the\nexistence of non-Christian schools is a serious and important factor in\nthe situation.\n\nWe therefore inquire into the non-missionary educational work done in\nthe area. We are well aware that in many cases the surveyor will find it\ndifficult to supply the required information, and may be driven to make\nan estimate; but the information ought to be provided for any true and\njust administration of educational mission funds, and estimates must be\nhere regarded as at the best a poor substitute, though under existing\ncircumstances perhaps a necessary one.\n\n_____________________________________________________________________\n          |       |        |\n          |       |        |Propor- | Higher |      | Propor- |\n          |Primary|        |tion of |   or   |Teach-| tion of |Re-\n          |Schools|Teachers|Teachers| Second-| ers. | Teachers|marks.\n          |       |        |to Popu-|   ary  |      | to Popu-|\n          |       |        |lation. |Schools.|      | lation. |\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\nMissionary|   --  |   --   |   --   |    --  |  --  |   --    |  --\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n  Non-    |       |        |        |        |      |         |\nMissionary|   --  |   --   |   --   |   --   |  --  |    --   |  --\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nThen we need to consider the extent to which the educational efforts of\nthe mission are used to meet the needs of the better educated and of the\nmore ignorant. This will be revealed by the average attendance in the\ndifferent classes of schools.\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\nTotal   |        |        |Propor-|         |       | Propor-| Re-\nScholars|        |        |tion of|         |       | tion of|marks\n  in    |Primary |Scholars|Total  |Secondary| Scho- |  Total |  and\nMission |Schools.|        |  Scho-| Schools.|  lars.| Scho-  |Conclu-\nSchools.|        |        |lars.  |         |       | lars.  | sions.\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n        |        |        |       |         |       |        |\n________|________|________|_______|_________|_______|________|_______\n\nThen we must inquire into the proportion in which the education given in\nthe schools is given to boys and to girls. This is peculiarly important\nin considering the influence of school education upon the rising\ngeneration of Christians, since well-taught girls make intelligent and\nhelpful wives and mothers, and this tends enormously to the advancement\nof the Christian community. And the same truth applies to the\nnon-Christian population.\n\n                 |    Mission     |     Mission       |Remarks and\n                 |Primary Schools.| Secondary Schools.|  Conclusions.\n-----------------+----------------+----------------------------------\n                 | Boys. | Girls. | Boys. | Girls.    |\n-----------------+-------+--------+-------------------+--------------\nChristian or     |       |        |       |           |\nFrom             |       |        |       |           |\nChristian homes. |       |        |       |           |\n-----------------+-------+--------+-------+-----------+--------------\nNon-Christian    |       |        |       |           |\n-----------------+-------+--------+-------+-----------+\n\nHere we divided Christians from non-Christians, and thus the table\nserves a double purpose. It tells us the division of the scholars by sex\nand also by faith. It throws light upon the condition of the Christian\ncommunity and upon the extent to which mission school education is given\nto Christians and non-Christians.\n\nOne other point must be considered in connection with mission schools\nbecause it throws great light upon the character of the schools and\ntheir purpose. It is the extent to which the educational mission\nreceives Government support. If there is any doubt as to the dominant\naim and purpose of a school, the fact that it receives Government aid\nreveals at once that in the eyes of the Government it stands for the\ngeneral enlightenment of the population rather than for any direct\nevangelisation. The dominant aim of the Government is general\nenlightenment, and the Government gives no grant without some sort of\ncontrol. If then a school receives a Government grant the dominant idea\nof general enlightenment will certainly exercise great influence over\nits direction. Consequently, if we know what proportion of the schools\nin any mission receive a Government grant, we have at least some\nguidance as to the extent to which the mission accepts the aim of\ngeneral enlightenment. We have also some assurance that the schools\nreach the Government standard of efficiency in the teaching of secular\nsubjects.\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\nPrimary | Proportion     | Higher   | Proportion | Remarks\nSchools | Receiving      | Schools. | Receiving  | and\n        | Government     |          | Government | Conclusions.\n        | Grant, if any. |          | Grant.     |\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n        |                |          |            |\n________|________________|__________|____________|___________________\n\nHitherto we have dealt only with schools in which the pupils are\nprobably for the most part children; but in some countries the mission\nmakes a great effort to enlighten the illiterate adults, especially the\nilliterate adult Christians, and thus, as in China, missionaries\npropagate simplified systems of writing the language, or in other\ncountries have reduced to writing, languages which possessed no script.\n\nWe have already set out the reason why this appeals especially to\nProtestant missionaries. The reading of the Bible is a keystone in their\nevangelistic system, and with them Christianity and reading go hand in\nhand. We must then make room in our survey for a movement so profound,\nso widespread, and so vitally important, and a movement of this\ncharacter deserves and demands a separate table. It cannot be confounded\nwith the establishment of ordinary primary schools. It is essential that\nwe should inquire what education is given to the illiterate adults of\nthe area; and we must inquire in what proportion this teaching is given\nto Christians and non-Christians, because this proportion is very\nsignificant. The teaching of reading to the illiterate is by some\nmissionaries viewed as a means preparatory to the preaching of the\ngospel, a gift to be given as widely as possible, in the belief that\nthe more who can read, the better will be the hearing given to the\npreachers of Christ; by others the teaching is given rather to\nilliterate inquirers and converts, and it is given to them as a\ndefinitely Christian gift for the edification of the individual and of\nthe Church.\n\nBy the one this teaching would be classed with the general work of\nChristian educational missions for the whole community, the meeting of\nthe general intellectual need of the district; by the other it would be\nclassed as a part of the work done by the educational mission for the\nenlightenment of the Church, the meeting of a need of the Church. By the\none it would be classed with the tables which deal with the relation of\nthe educational to the evangelistic work; by the other with the tables\nwhich deal with the educational work viewed as meeting a special need.\nThe table suggested is:--\n\n--------------------------------------------------------+------|\nPopulation.                                             |      |\n--------------------------------------------------------+------|\nIlliterate Population.                                  |      |\n--------------------------------------------------------+------|\nNumber of Teachers of Illiterate Adults.                |      |\n--------------------------------------------------------+------|\nNumber of Illiterate Adult Scholars.                           |\n--------------------------------------------------------+------|\n  Christian.                                            |      |\n--------------------------------------------------------+------|\n  Non-Christian                                         |      |\n--------------------------------------------------------+------|\nProportion of Illiterate Population.                    |\n--------------------------------------------------------+------|\nProportion of Teachers to Illiterate Population.        |      |\n--------------------------------------------------------+------|\nRemarks and Conclusions.                                |      |\n--------------------------------------------------------+------|\n\nThis table leads us naturally to consider the educational work done in\nthe station area from an evangelistic point of view. We must inquire\nthen into the extent to which evangelistic missionaries assist in the\nschools, and educational missionaries assist in evangelistic work, and\nthe evangelistic results so far as they can be traced of the work in\nschools.\n\nWe ask first the extent to which educationalists employ the services of\nevangelistic workers in their schools and institutions. As we pointed\nout in dealing with the relation between medical and evangelistic work,\nso here we would insist that this particular table is not by itself a\ngood guide. There is a serious danger in an institution, whether medical\nor educational, of dividing the work in this way. We have already\nasserted our conviction that medical missionaries should be\nevangelistic, and educational missionaries evangelistic also. But when\nevangelistic workers distinctly so called are on the staff of hospitals\nor schools, there is a danger lest the medicals and the educationalists\nshould consider themselves absolved from personal effort by the\noccasional presence of an evangelist. \"Let him do the religious\npreaching, and let me do the secular teaching. Preaching is his job,\nteaching is mine.\" Thus a division is created which reacts seriously\nupon the work of both. The pupils learn to distinguish the one work from\nthe other, as separate and distinct departments. They prefer the one,\nthey are bored by the other. No man can serve two masters; and if the\nreligious teaching is plainly in the hands of one teacher and the\nsecular teaching plainly in the hands of the other, they will tend to\nthink that they can hold to the one and despise the other. This we say\nis a danger, but it is not an unavoidable danger. Only we must not judge\nthat an institution is doing good evangelistic work because evangelistic\nservices are held in it. The table is as follows:--\n\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\nSchools. | Number of Schools | Proportion of Schools | Remarks and\n         | Regularly Visited | Visited by            | Conclusions.\n         | by Evangelists.   | Evangelists.          |\n         |                   |                       |\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n         |                   |                       |\n_________|___________________|_______________________|____________\n\nThen there is a most important work which the educational evangelist\ndoes, or might do, outside the school. Perhaps we ought to explain this;\nfor many supporters of missions are unfamiliar with the idea. They think\nof the work of educational missionaries as necessarily bound up with\nschools and institutions. A teacher without a school, or outside a\nschool, seems to them rather like a gunner without a gun. If an\neducational missionary goes on an evangelistic tour it is, they think,\nas an evangelist that he goes, not as an educationalist. Yet, if we\nunderstood the work of an evangelistic educationalist, we should not\nthink it strange to meet an educational missionary on tour, doing\nevangelistic educational work. Evangelistic work is educational to the\ncore, and it leads to educational results. No evangelistic work amongst\nan illiterate, or a literate, people can be really complete, if it does\nnot lead at once to the organisation of education amongst the converts\nand hearers. The illiterate must be taught to read the Gospels, and it\ndemands an expert in the teaching of illiterates to direct their\nstudies; the illiterate and the literate converts alike must be taught\nto transform that education which they all give daily to their children,\nwhether in the home or in a school, into Christian education, and this\ntoo demands the attention of a skilled educationalist. This work is\ninvaluable and most exciting and interesting work, and must produce\nresults which, for the establishment of the Church, are almost\nincalculably important. As then for the medical missionaries, so for\nthe educationalists we ask:--\n\n------------+------------+---------------+-------------+------------\nEvangelistic| Number of  |   Number of   |  Number of  |Conclusions\n   Tours.   |Evangelistic|Educationalists|Days Spent by|and Remarks.\n            |  Workers.  |  Assisting.   | Evangelists |\n            |            |               |  on Tour.   |\n------------+------------+---------------+-------------+------------\n            |            |               |             |\n------------+------------+---------------+-------------+------------\n\nWhen we turn to the immediate evangelistic results of the education\ngiven in the station district, we labour under difficulties even greater\nthan those which we met when we tried to formulate tables to reveal the\nextent to which medical missions were effective as an evangelistic\nagency.\n\nThe difficulty lies in the fact that the educational missionaries who\nset before themselves as the aim of their work a far distant goal to be\nattained by the cumulative effect of Christian influence brought to bear\nupon generation after generation of children who do not themselves\nbecome Christians, naturally resent a table which seems to demand a\npresent, immediate, result in the tabulation of baptisms, and we fear\nthat the other tables will hardly reconcile them, because we are afraid\nthat few educational missionaries have yet learned to understand what a\nvast and important and absorbingly interesting work the education of the\nconverts outside the schools affords. Consequently we shiver when we\nthink of the reception which these tables are likely to receive at the\nhands of some of our friends in foreign countries, and our ears tingle\nin anticipation.\n\nNevertheless, if we are to be told, and to act on the hearing, that\nChristian schools are founded because it is easier to convert the young\nthan the old, and the twig can be bent while the tree resists till it\nbreaks, we must inquire how far this saying is justified by experience.\nA survey which neglected the factors which throw light upon it would be\na partial and unjust one.\n\nHence we ask first--\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n         | Scholars | Baptism  | Baptism | Confirmation | Remarks\n         |          |    of    |    of   | or Admission |   and\n         |          | Scholars | Parents |   as Full    | Conclusions\n         |          |          |         |   Members    |\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\nPrimary  |          |          |         |              |\nSchools  |          |          |         |              |\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\nSecondary|          |          |         |              |\nSchools  |          |          |         |              |\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nand secondly--\n\n----------------------------------------------------------------\nNumber of Places Opened to |                     | Remarks\nChristian Teachers by the  | Proportion of Total | and\nInfluence of Scholars.     |   Places Occupied.  | Conclusions.\n----------------------------------------------------------------\n                           |                     |\n___________________________|_____________________|______________\n\nThese two tables will give us some idea of the direct influence of the\neducational mission as an evangelistic force.\n\nSome are anxious to know what support the educational and medical work\ncall forth from the natives for whom these are set in hand. They want\nthis information, we suppose, as a help towards an understanding of the\ninfluence exercised by these different forms of work. If the natives\nsupport them generously then they have obviously been impressed by them\nfavourably. And perhaps the extent of native support may suggest the\nmeasure to which our work as medical and educational missionaries is\napproaching a successful end.\n\nWe therefore include a table identical for medical and educational\nworkers:--\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n            | Total      | Total         | Total Native | Volunteers\n            | Expense    | Foreign       | Contribution | for\n            | of Work in | Contribution. | Fees and     | Training.\n            | Station    |               | Donations.   |\n            | Area.      |               |              |\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\nMedical     | ----       | ----          | ----         | ----\n------------|------------|---------------|--------------|------------\nEducational | ----       | ----          | ----         | ----\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nCO-OPERATION BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT ELEMENTS IN THE MISSION.\n\n\nWe have now surveyed the evangelistic, medical, and educational work in\nthe station district, viewed separately. It remains to unify the\nresults, that we may get, if possible, a definite conception of the\nwhole. The effectiveness of the mission machinery largely depends upon\nthe relation of these parts to one another. The mission ought not to be\nthree separate things but one thing; for the impression produced upon\nthe non-Christian population is the result of the combination of all the\nvarious forms in which the one missionary spirit expresses itself. The\nspirit which produces them all is one, and it is that one spirit which\ninfluences and converts the heathen.\n\nNow we already know the proportion in which workers and funds are\ndivided between the three branches (p. 68). We already know something\nof the work done by evangelists in hospitals (p. 83), and by doctors in\nevangelistic tours (p. 84); and of the extent to which the work in the\nhospitals opens up the way for evangelists (p. 85). We already know\nsomething of the work done by evangelists in schools (p. 99), and of the\nevangelistic influence of the educational work (p. 102, 103), and of the\nextent to which educationalists assist in evangelistic tours (p. 101).\n\nIf then we now add tables to show the help given by the medicals in the\nschools and the work done by the educationalists in the hospitals we\nshall be able to gain a fairly complete idea of the co-operation between\nthe three branches.\n\nBut it is just at this point, the relation between the medical and\neducational work, that we shall probably find most difficulty. This\nrelationship has not been carefully thought out in the past, and\nco-operation between medicals and educationalists is, we fancy, somewhat\nrare. Few men could tell us exactly what policy is followed, or ought to\nbe followed. This is partly due to that confusion of purpose of which we\nspoke in the first chapter, a confusion which obscures and confounds\nour medical and educational missions. If both medical and educational\nmissions had had one common dominant purpose, the relation between them\nwould have been more easily seen; but since they were separated in\nthought, each having its own particular and separate objects to pursue,\nthey naturally worked along parallel lines and consequently did not\nmeet. If they had had one common dominant object they would have met.\nBut generally speaking there is no clear understanding whether the\nmedical mission has any definite relation to the educational mission, or\nthe educational mission to the medical.\n\nOn the medical side, it is not clearly understood whether it is the\nfirst duty, or the last duty, of medicals to attend to the children whom\nwe gather together in such large numbers, whether the medicals ought to\ninspect all the children, whether they ought to be at hand to treat\nchildren who are obviously sick, whether these considerations ought to\ninfluence the location of the hospital, or of the place of residence of\nthe medical missionaries, or whether this work, if they really gave much\ntime to it, should be considered as withdrawing them from their _proper_\nwork. Consequently, the health of the children in mission schools has\noften suffered, and the work of the school been hindered. In one school\nsomething approaching to a revolution was produced by the constant care\nand attention of a doctor. Phthisis, which had been a continual source\nof trouble and weakness, was reduced considerably, and the whole work\nand tone of the school improved enormously. If medical missionaries and\neducational missionaries always realised that they were engaged in a\ncommon work, this experience would be almost universal.\n\nIn our tables we cannot possibly enter into any details. The work of\nmedicals in schools cannot be exactly stated, it varies greatly in\nextent and character; but it would, we suppose, always include attention\nto the health of the children and consultation with the teachers, both\nabout the welfare of the school as a whole and of the care of individual\npupils. It might also include lectures in hygiene and kindred topics,\nsanitation of buildings, and other assistance too varied to specify.\n\nThe table can only include visits and inspection of pupils.\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------------\n Total       | Number     | Total     |  Number    | Remarks\n Number      | Regularly  | Number    | Regularly  | and\n of Schools. | Visited by | of        | Inspected. | Conclusions.\n             | Medicals.  | Scholars. |            |\n-----------------------------------------------------------------\n             |            |           |            |\n             |            |           |            |\n-----------------------------------------------------------------\n\nThe relation of the educational mission to the medical has not been\nthought out any more carefully. There is in hospitals an opportunity of\nextraordinary importance, a field of great fruitfulness which is largely\nneglected. If the hospital is a missionary hospital, founded to heal the\nsouls as well as the bodies of men, ought not the patients in them to be\ntaught as well as medically treated? Have they any claim upon the care\nof educational missionaries? Have the educational missionaries any duty\nin hospitals? Very few, we think, have given much attention to these\nquestions: no society, so far as we know, has followed any definite\npolicy in regard to them. A single instance will reveal how important\nthey may be. A doctor who was deeply interested in the teaching of\nChinese illiterates took steps to have the illiterate convalescents in\nhis hospital taught to read. The average time which these patients spent\nin the hospital was three weeks, and in that time they could learn to\nread the Gospels in simplified script fluently. They thus left the\nhospital not only healed in body, but with a new interest in life, and a\nconsiderable knowledge of Christian truth, and a power to advance in it,\nand a power also to instruct others. In a hospital for Chinese coolies\nin France this doctor taught one patient to read the Gospel. The patient\nwas then removed to another hospital where he taught no less than forty\nof his fellow-patients to read. If such results can be obtained, it\nwould be well to consider whether we are making full use of the\nopportunities afforded by the gathering of large numbers of patients\ninto hospitals all over the world. Illiterates are not the only people\nwho might profit by Christian teaching, classes for literates might be\nequally valuable. Large numbers might leave our hospitals with a\nconsiderable knowledge of Christian truth, and a new interest in life,\nwith power to advance and to teach others, if they were systematically\ntaught. In one missionary hospital regular courses were given on\nChristian Evidences, and courses on the education of children might well\nbe given to parents in hospitals.\n\nHere again a table cannot reveal the type and character of the work\ndone: it can only tabulate visits. The work would include the teaching\nof illiterates to read, and instructing convalescents of higher\neducation either in classes or individually.\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n Total      | Number           | Total     | Number   | Remarks\n Number of  | Regularly        | Number of | of       | and\n Hospitals. | Visited by       | Patients. | Scholars | Conclusions.\n            | Educationalists. |           | Taught.  |\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n            |                  |           |          |\n            |                  |           |          |\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nWe might now sum up this branch of our inquiry thus:--\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n       | Foreign | Native |Assisting|Assisting|Assisting|Remarks\n       | Mission | Assist | in      |in       |in       |   and\n       | -aries. | ants.  | Evangel-|Hosp-    |Schools. |Conclusions.\n       |         |        |   istic |itals.   |         |\n       |         |        | Tours.  |         |         |\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\nEvange-|         |        |         |         |         |\nlistic |  ----   |  ----  |  ----   |  ----   |  ----   |  ----\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\nMedical|  ----   |  ----  |  ----   |  ----   |  ----   |  ----\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\nEduca  |         |        |         |         |         |\n-tional|  ----   |  ----  |  ----   |  ----   |  ----   |  ----\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nThen we shall surely have some idea of the extent to which the whole\nforce works together towards one end.\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nTHE NATIVE CHURCH.\n\n\nIn the Introduction we pointed out that the end for which the work\nsurveyed is undertaken ought to govern the survey of the work. Now we\nare constantly told that the end for which the station is founded is the\nestablishment of a Christian Church in the district so strongly that if\nthe station with its foreign staff disappeared, the Church would remain\nand bring up each generation in the Christian Faith.\n\nThis proposal sets before us a real end for the mission station. It\nsuggests a point at which the station will have done its work; the\nmission would then have no more place in those parts. The station has\nthus an end, not only in the sense that it has an object at which it\naims, but a point at which it ceases. But this end is not simply a point\nin the far distant future; it is a condition, or state of the Church in\nthe district, into which it must be growing. Then the growth of the\nnative Church is more important than the growth of the mission, and all\nthings should be directed primarily to that end, so that as the native\nChurch waxed the mission should wane, and thus the end should be reached\nnaturally and easily and not by a catastrophe. If that is the end, then\nthe survey of the station and its district cannot fail to take the form\nof an inquiry how far progress in this direction has been made.\n\nSince our ideas of missionary work are wrapped up with the establishment\nof mission stations and consequently with the purchase of land and\nbuildings, since we rely almost wholly upon paid workers for the\nprosecution of the work, since we employ most expensive methods of\npropaganda, such as the establishment of great medical and educational\ninstitutions, since our societies at home are almost wholly absorbed in\nthe effort to procure funds to pay for all these things, it is not\nsurprising that money takes a supremely important position in our\nthought of all missionary work. Consequently, when we think of the\ngrowth of the native Church in power to carry on the work which we have\nbegun we naturally think first of self-support.\n\nSelf-support is now one of the most common missionary catchwords. We\nhear it on every platform at home; we hear it in the mouths of large\nnumbers of our converts abroad. There exist in the mission field large\nnumbers of what are called \"self-supporting churches\". Our missionaries\noften set this self-support before their converts as a status of honour,\nand offer them encouragements of various kinds to induce them to become\nself-supporting as soon as possible. At home, if we ask concerning the\nprogress of the native Church, they often answer us by telling us the\nnumbers of these self-supporting churches.\n\nWhat then is meant by a self-supporting Church? We might naturally\nsuppose that a self-supporting Church was a Church which was independent\nof external support; we might suppose that it could maintain itself\nwithout any assistance from mission funds; we might suppose that, when a\nChurch became self-supporting, the mission, so far as finance was\nconcerned, could withdraw and move to some fresh place. That is\nsometimes the case, but very rarely. We know, for instance, a case where\nfourteen Christians in a small town provided their own chapel and its\nfurnishing and upkeep, and all subsidiary expenses without any\nassistance. They had no paid ministers and therefore no salaries to\npay. They were from the very beginning entirely self-supporting, and the\nmissionary could, and did, leave them and go to others who needed him\nmore. But in this case there was no mission compound, no elaborate\nsystem of mission education, and no mission fund from which the chapel\ncould be built and a pastor provided, before the converts were ready to\nprovide these things for themselves.\n\nMost commonly the mission does all these things, and then self-support\ndoes not necessarily imply independence of foreign support. We have met\nnative Christians who assured us in one breath that they were members of\na self-supporting Church and that their Church did not receive its fair\nshare of mission funds. Self-support does not necessarily mean\nindependence of external pecuniary aid.\n\nWhat then does the status of a self-supporting Church imply? Nothing\ncertain, but just what the society, or the missionary, chooses. Take a\ncase. In a newly opened outstation the converts subscribed $5 Mexican, a\nhead, per annum. The missionary in charge of the district estimated that\n$500 per annum would pay the rent and upkeep of the chapel, and the\nsalary of the pastor. Therefore he calculated that when the membership\nof the chapel reached 100, the congregation would be self-supporting.\nBut if a school were founded and fees paid, then the day of self-support\nwould be very far off.\n\nHence it is obvious that self-support is an arbitrary standard fixed on\nno certain grounds; and progress towards self-support is simply a\nprogress towards a line which the foreigner prescribes. Just as each\nfather among us here in England, according to his class and standard of\nliving, fixes a standard for his son, saying, \"When he earns so much he\nwill be able to maintain himself,\" so the society, or the individual\nmissionary, fixes the standard for converts. In this case, the foreigner\ninsisted on the salary for the pastor, he created the building, its\nornaments and expenses; and where this is done the day of self-support\nmust be more or less delayed. More or less, for what one man considers\nabundant another thinks hardly decent, simply because each has learnt in\na different school different ideas of what is necessary or desirable.\nConsequently one man makes the day of self-support easy of attainment,\nanother loudly proclaims that his people are so poor that they cannot\npossibly be expected to provide for themselves.\n\nFurthermore, we must observe that in the first case the converts\narrived speedily at self-support because the foreign missionary never\nfor a moment allowed them to be anything else, whilst in the second the\nmissionary provided what he thought necessary until such time as the\nChurch was sufficiently wealthy to pay for it. The one Church decided\nfor itself what it needed, and what it needed it took the necessary\nsteps to supply: the other accepted what was given to it and was asked\nto subscribe more and more to pay for it. But when the provision is\nfirst made largely from some more or less mysterious foreign source, the\nconverts will never subscribe to a fund so organised as they will to a\nfund which they raise and administer themselves to supply what they\nthemselves want, and cannot have unless they provide the necessary money\nto get it. Self-support then, as the word is most commonly used, means\nanything but genuine self-support, and does not represent the power of\nthe people to supply their needs. It means only the subscription of\nmoney sufficient to pay for certain things which are more or less\narbitrarily fixed by the missionary or his society.\n\nNeither is it any sure evidence of the zeal and liberality of the Church\nwhich is called self-supporting. The existence of self-supporting\nchurches is indeed sometimes used as an argument to show that the Church\nis growing in this Christian virtue. But this is largely deceptive. The\nexistence of self-supporting churches does not necessarily prove\nChristian liberality. Take the case which we quoted above where the\nChristians subscribed $5 a head. It was said that when they numbered 100\nmembers they would be self-supporting. But, if they still subscribed $5\na head, there would be no more liberality in the Church of 100, which\nwas self-supporting, than in the Church of ten, which was not\nself-supporting. There might be more, if the ninety members added were\nvery poor; there might be less if one wealthy man joined the Church.\nSince the status of a self-supporting Church is one of honour and\nprivilege, the members might even be tempted to admit an unworthy member\nwho was well off in the hope that his subscriptions might aid them to\nattain that glorious position without much self-denial or effort on\ntheir own part.\n\nMoreover, the collection of money is a highly developed art. It is\nextraordinary what pressure men can bring to bear upon converts to\ninduce them to subscribe, so that the contribution is in many cases\nlittle different from the payment of a tax. It is truly amazing to read\nhow many forms of appeals and fees can be invented to collect money from\nmore or less unwilling givers.[1] We cannot then accept the existence of\nself-supporting churches as an evidence of liberality, nor base our\ncalculation on the sum subscribed for the upkeep of such churches.\n\n[Footnote 1: This is a list of the means employed to raise money by one\nmissionary in order to assist the people in his district to arrive at\nself-support:--\n\n(1) Sunday collections. (2) Share of first fruits (crop seasons). (3)\nMonthly membership family assessment. (4) Special missionary or harvest\nthanksgiving (twice a year). (5) Pinch of rice at every meal as\nthanksgiving (women's share). (6) Box in houses for prayer meetings,\netc. (7) Church box. (8) Dedication of special pepper or cocoa-nut trees\nfor church repair. (9) Bible society collections. (10) Hospital\ncollection. (11) Baptism offerings. (12) Marriage offerings. (13) Lord's\nSupper offerings. (14) Special gifts for church building or equipment.\n\nIt is not surprising that he adds that he is told that some of the new\nconverts have gone back because they see the regularity and frequency of\ngiving.]\n\nNevertheless, seeing that self-supporting churches are widely\nrecognised, let us begin with these and seek to find out what\ninformation a table of inquiry might supply. We should ask first for\nthe number of self-supporting churches in relation to (_a_) the number\nof communicants (or full members) in the district, and (_b_) the number\nof Christian Churches organised, but not self-supporting. By an\norganised Church we understand a body of Christians in any place who\nhold regular religious services, and may send delegates to any council\nwhich may exist for the whole station district.\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\nCommunicants.|Proportion of  |Organised|Proportion of   |Remarks\n             |Communicants   |Churches.|Organised       |and\n             |connected with |         |Churches        |Conclusions.\n             |Self-supporting|         |Self-supporting.|\n             |Churches.      |         |                |\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n             |               |         |                |\n_____________|_______________|_________|________________|____________\n\nFrom this we should learn briefly, and as a starting-point, the\nproportion of the self-supporting churches, and that might help us to\nunderstand the progress made towards self-support as it is understood in\nthe district, and enable us to compare it with that of other districts.\nBut this by itself would not be of any great value in assisting us to\nunderstand what progress had been made towards the establishment of a\nChurch which could stand alone, if the station with its foreign staff\nwere withdrawn. No Church which does not advance can stand, and the mere\nattainment of this arbitrary standard does not necessarily prove\ncapacity to advance or to stand. The effort to attain it sometimes leads\nthe converts to concentrate their attention upon themselves. They set\nself-support before their eyes as an end to be attained for their own\nsake. It has consequently sometimes happened that native churches,\nestablished on this self-supporting basis, have become self-absorbed,\nself-seeking. They have so looked on their own things that they have\ntended to lose sight of the things of others. They have become, like\nmany little Christian communities at home, so entangled in the effort to\nmaintain their own dignity, their own services, their own progress in\noutward prosperity, that they have forgotten the real purpose of their\nexistence, and, instead of becoming centres of light and attraction and\nactive zeal for the spread of the gospel, have degenerated into\nself-contained units indulging a self-satisfied pride in the glorious\nposition to which they have attained as self-supporting churches. The\nhistory of some churches on the West Coast of Africa and in South India\nsuggests the need for such a warning, and urges us to pursue the\ninquiry further.\n\nWe should inquire, then, what number of inquirers, adherents, hearers,\ncatechumens, etc., are seeking entrance into the Church in connection\nwith the self-supporting churches as compared with the total number of\nsuch inquirers, adherents, etc., in the district and compared with the\nnumber of communicants in connection with those churches.\n\n---------------------------------------------------------|-----|\nIn District (excluding Self-supporting Churches).              |\n---------------------------------------------------------|-----|\n  Communicants.                                          |     |\n---------------------------------------------------------|-----|\n  Inquirers and Adherents.                               |     |\n---------------------------------------------------------|-----|\n  Proportion of Inquirers to Communicants.               |     |\n---------------------------------------------------------|-----|\nIn Self-supporting Churches.                                   |\n---------------------------------------------------------|-----|\n  Communicants.                                          |     |\n---------------------------------------------------------|-----|\n  Inquirers and Adherents.                               |     |\n---------------------------------------------------------|-----|\n  Proportion of Inquirers to Communicants.               |     |\n---------------------------------------------------------|-----|\nRemarks and Conclusions.                                 |     |\n---------------------------------------------------------|-----|\n\nSuch a table should, we think, prove illuminating as revealing the\ninfluence and zeal of the members of the self-supporting churches.\n\nA further light on this subject might be gained by comparing the number\nof unpaid workers connected with the self-supporting churches with the\nnumber of such workers in the whole district, excluding the\nself-supporting churches.\n\n---------------------------------------------------------|-----|\nIn District (excluding Self-supporting Churches).              |\n---------------------------------------------------------|-----|\n  Communicants.                                          |     |\n---------------------------------------------------------|-----|\n  Unpaid Workers.                                        |     |\n---------------------------------------------------------|-----|\n  Proportion of Unpaid Workers to Communicants.          |     |\n---------------------------------------------------------|-----|\nIn Self-supporting Churches.                                   |\n---------------------------------------------------------|-----|\n  Communicants.                                          |     |\n---------------------------------------------------------|-----|\n  Unpaid Workers.                                        |     |\n---------------------------------------------------------|-----|\n  Proportion of Unpaid Workers to Communicants.          |     |\n---------------------------------------------------------|-----|\nRemarks and Conclusions.                                 |     |\n---------------------------------------------------------|-----|\n\nThis would supplement the previous table and tend to correct any\nmistakes to which it might give rise.\n\nThus far of the missions which recognise self-supporting churches. As\nfor the mission districts in which no such distinctions have been made,\nall that I think we need to do is to recall the tables which we made\nwhen considering the native force (p. 54 _sqq_.), and to supplement them\nwith tables designed to reveal (1) the power of the Christians to\nconduct their own religious services independently of the foreigner; (2)\ntheir power to direct their own Church government; (3) their power to\nsupply the material needs of their organisation according to the ideas\nwhich they have received and hold.\n\nWith regard to the first question, all that we need to know is what\nproportion of the Christians are in a position to carry on their own\nreligious life independently of foreign help. In the Anglican Communion\nthat involves the presence of a duly ordained priest: in some societies\nwhich deny the necessity of ordination, yet give a position not unlike\nthat of the priest to their ordained men, it would involve the presence\nof a pastor. Others deny the necessity or advantage of any ordained\nministers. Under these circumstances we cannot use accepted\necclesiastical terms; but by capacity for conducting their own religious\nservices we must certainly at least mean capacity to perform all\nnecessary religious rites, and that, for Anglicans at any rate, must\ninclude Baptism and Holy Communion. Suppose then that we accepted the\n\"organised churches\" as a basis and inquired what proportion of these\norganised churches could, and did, perform _all_ necessary religious\nrites, we should indeed omit the floating and isolated members of the\nunorganised Christian community which in some districts might be very\nlarge, but we should nevertheless, we hope, get a definite and common\nbasis which would really give us some light on this difficult but\nimportant problem, and if we added a question as to the proportion of\nthe Christian constituency connected with these organised churches we\nshould have some check upon a serious misunderstanding.\n\n---------------------------------------------------------|-----|\nNumber of Organised Churches.                            |     |\n---------------------------------------------------------|-----|\nProportion of Christian Constituency                     |     |\nConnected with these.                                    |     |\n---------------------------------------------------------|-----|\nNumber of Churches Capable of Performing _all_      |     |\nNecessary Religious Rites without External Assistance.   |     |\n---------------------------------------------------------|-----|\nProportion of these to Number of Organised Churches.     |     |\n---------------------------------------------------------|-----|\nRemarks and Conclusions.                                 |     |\n---------------------------------------------------------|-----|\n\nThe second question is, How far the Church in the district can direct\nits own life and order its own government. The difficulty here arises\nfrom the very diverse forms of Church government which have been taught\nto the natives by their foreign teachers, some of them late and\ndifficult representative systems, not easily grasped even by educated\nmen. Is there then any general question which will suffice to throw\nlight on this problem, where the people are in the midst of the process\nof learning an unfamiliar form of government?\n\nWere very simple and almost universal ideas always followed, as for\ninstance in episcopacy, which naturally adapts itself to the simplest\nand most common conceptions and experiences of men, in that the bishop\nis closely related in idea to the father of the family, or the head man\nof a village, or the governor of a province, or a chief of a tribe, or\nan autocratic emperor, or a constitutional monarch, according to the\nnotions and experience of the people--so that a bishop is as easily\nunderstood by a nomad family, or a village community, as by a democratic\nnation, according to its stage of development, and if native bishops\nwere universal, as they are not, the problem would be comparatively\nsimple. Indeed then we need scarcely ask the question at all. Either\npatriarchal episcopacy, or monarchical episcopacy, or constitutional\nepiscopacy all men can understand, whether the bishop is elected by his\npeople, or appointed by his predecessor, or by his fellows, or both\nelected by his people and confirmed by his fellows--such things all men\ncan understand and maintain, each the form suited to their own stage.\nBut constitutional episcopacy when the people are at the patriarchal\nstage of development, or republicanism when the people are at the\nmonarchical stage, they cannot understand, until they have learnt to\nunderstand it by long and slow experience. But many of the systems\nintroduced by us are the latest and most advanced systems. How then can\nwe discover to what extent the Christians have mastered them? We can\nfind no question which solves this problem. We can only suggest the bare\nquestions, what proportion of the people take a proper and active part\nin the system of Church government under which they live; and what\nproportion of the congregations take an active part as congregations in\nthat system of Church government.\n\n---------------------------------------------------------|-----|\nNumber of Christians who take any part in Church         |     |\nGovernment by Vote or Voice.                             |     |\n---------------------------------------------------------|-----|\nProportion of Total Christian Constituency               |     |\n---------------------------------------------------------|-----|\nNumber of Congregations who take a share as              |     |\nCongregations in Church Government.                      |     |\n---------------------------------------------------------|-----|\nProportion of Christian Congregations.                   |     |\n---------------------------------------------------------|-----|\nRemarks and Conclusions.                                 |     |\n---------------------------------------------------------|-----|\n\nBy the first question we understand the number of Christians who vote or\nspeak or act in any way, either personally or by electing\nrepresentatives, in the direction of the common action of the whole\nChristian community viewed as a unity; by the second question we\nunderstand the number of congregations which are represented at any\ncouncil higher than the council of their own congregation.\n\nWe think these questions most unsatisfactory, but we can devise no\nothers. We have no doubt that, if all the foreigners disappeared\nsuddenly, the native Christians would either perish or would speedily\nadopt a form of Church government which they understood. The whole\nnecessity for these questions arises from the fact that we have foisted\nupon them foreign systems and are uncertain to what extent they have\nreally grasped them. The consequence is that when we think of a Church\ncapable of standing alone we are in doubt. We do not feel certain that\nthe converts could carry on their government; and some of us think a\nchange in the form of Church government as serious a matter as the\nchange from Paganism to Christianity: it is an excommunicating matter.\nInevitably then in an inquiry such as ours we must try to discover how\nfar the people are advanced in the understanding of the organisation\nwhich they have been taught. Until they are quite sound in this faith\nand fully trained in this system, whether it is a circuit or a\npresbytery or a democratic episcopacy, or a papacy, they cannot possibly\nstand alone. Who would dare to suggest such a revolutionary idea! Why,\nthey might adopt a native governmental system--something which they\nunderstood at once, quite easily, and then where should we be? We know\nhow to administer the system in which we were brought up: it is better\nthat they should learn that.\n\nFinally we make an inquiry concerning the power of the Christians to\nsupply the material needs of their religious organisation. We want to\nknow to what extent they are really dependent on foreign funds, and to\nwhat extent they can stand alone financially.\n\nIt is tempting to imagine that we can discover this by a mere\ncalculation of the total expenditure on all work carried on in the\ndistrict and comparing this either with the number of Christians and\ntheir relative wealth or poverty, or simply with the contribution which\nthey actually make, concluding that the difference between their\ncontribution, or their estimated power to give, and the cost of the work\ncarried on in the area is the difference between their power to supply\ntheir needs and their real needs. But foreign funds are largely spent\nupon things which, however excellent they may be in themselves, are not\nreally _necessary_ for the religious life of the Christians, such as\nmissionaries' salaries, high schools, colleges, medical institutions,\nand expensive buildings. Consequently to know the total expenditure in\nthe area is not to know the necessary expenditure. The native Church\nmight maintain its life and conquer the whole district without spending\nin actual money a tithe of that which we spend on providing the people\nwith medicine and education and buildings and foreign missionaries.\n\nYet the question cannot be avoided. Missionaries all over the world\ncarefully count every penny which the converts subscribe, and search\ndiligently for some new method of doubling it, in order to lead their\nconverts towards the goal of self-support. What that goal is we do not\nknow. We cannot tell how far the Christians can supply their own needs,\nif we do not know what the needs really are. And that we do not know. In\na certain very real sense Christians can always provide what is\nnecessary for their religious life. They could all always be\nself-supporting, if we did not invent needs and insist upon them; and\nwhat we insist upon depends entirely upon the school in which we were\nbrought up. The standard set, as we have already explained, is purely\narbitrary.\n\nUnder these circumstances how can we express the position of the native\nChurch with any approximation to truth? We can only suggest that these\narbitrary standards should be accepted, and ask that they should be\ndefined in every case. We should ask the missionaries, or the societies,\nto estimate the amount required to supply that minimum upon which they\ninsist. If we did that, remembering always that the estimate made must\nbe doubtful and arbitrary, and that the native contribution, whilst\ncomparatively large funds are regularly supplied from a foreign source,\nwill never represent the power of the Christian community to supply its\nown needs, we should at least have some standard by which we might\nestimate the position of the Christian Church in the country, and its\nprogress. We suggest then that three items should be included in the\ntable: (1) the total expense of carrying on all the work in the station\ndistrict, whether the funds were provided from foreign or native\nsources; (2) the amount estimated to cover the necessary expenses of the\nnative Christian Church; and (3) the amount subscribed by the native\nChristian community. We think these three items taken together would\nhelp us to understand the situation.\n\n---------------------------------------------------------|-----|\nTotal Expense of Church and Mission in the Area          |     |\nper Head of Christian Constituency.                      |     |\n---------------------------------------------------------|-----|\nAmount Estimated to Cover all Necessary Expenses of the  |     |\nNative Christian Constituency per Head.                  |     |\n---------------------------------------------------------|-----|\nAmount Subscribed for all Purposes by the Native         |     |\nChristian Constituency per Head.                         |     |\n---------------------------------------------------------|-----|\nRemarks and Conclusions.                                 |     |\n---------------------------------------------------------|-----|\n\nWe have now, we hope, some light on the question how far we are really\nsucceeding in attaining a purpose which we hear constantly proclaimed,\nas if it were indeed a governing object of our work, the creation of an\nindependent native Church.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nSURVEY OF DISTRICTS WHERE TWO OR MORE SOCIETIES ARE AT WORK AND SURVEY\nOF MISSIONS WITH NO DEFINED DISTRICTS.\n\n\nI. Districts in which Two or more Societies are at Work.\n\nHitherto we have taken for granted that only one missionary society is\nat work in the district and that the survey is therefore simple; but in\nmany mission station districts some other society is also at work.\nOccasionally the district of one station overlaps part of the district\nof a station of another society. In many districts Roman Catholics are\nat work, and certain forms of their work cannot be ignored, and no form\nof their work ought to be ignored in surveying the district.\n\nIf two missions sent by different societies are at work in the _same_\ndistrict then, it would be an immense advantage if the survey of the\ndistrict could be made a joint production. Union for study is often\npossible, when union in work is impossible, and the common understanding\nof the situation is most useful.\n\nBut if that is impossible, then each society must survey the whole\ndistrict, and, what an immense amount of labour would be wasted in the\npreliminary survey, the physical toil of travelling over the country to\nsee the villages and towns, which must be seen to be known, and must be\nknown to reveal the secret of the task which the mission is founded to\nfulfil, that labour is known only to one who has undertaken such a task,\nand will soon be known to anyone who starts out conscientiously to\nsurvey any district. But it is helpful and illuminating labour, and it\nwould be far better that the heads of two missions should survey the\nwhole of the same district separately than that neither should survey\nany of it. If both feel that in any real sense that is \"_their\ndistrict_,\" then they ought both to survey it all; for to call a\ndistrict _mine_ which I have not even surveyed and do not know even by\nsight is absurd; but it would lighten their labour and help their mutual\nunderstanding if they surveyed it together.\n\nIf a part of the district overlaps part of another mission district,\nthat part should be surveyed together if possible, or if that is not\npossible, by each separately.\n\nIn this survey the work of no Christian society, however remote\necclesiastically or theologically from the surveyor's point of view,\nshould be omitted. Ignorance of the work done by others is the worst\npossible form of separation. There is a sense in which it is true that\nthe more remote the ecclesiastical position of another is from our own,\nthe more near we are to definite opposition, the more important it is\nthat we should know what his work is. We may find in it so much to\nadmire that our annoyance at what seem to us his ecclesiastical\nabsurdities may be softened. If we survey the district together we shall\nperhaps find there is room for both, even if we each start with the\npersuasion that there is no room for the other anywhere in the world.\n\nOn no account must we fail to consider another's work. In educational or\nmedical work we must recognise that a school or a hospital which exists,\nby whomsoever created, in the district makes a difference to the\nsituation. To deal with the district as if that school or hospital did\nnot exist is to deal with an imaginary district, not with the real one;\nand no one supposes that there is any advantage in dealing with things\nthat are what they are as if they were something else.\n\nWe have observed a certain tendency to recognise this truth in the\nmatter of education and medicine, and to introduce into survey proposals\na note, when the educational and medical tables were reached, to remind\nthe surveyor that the educational and medical work of some society of\nwhich he is afraid, or from which he thinks himself widely separated, as\nextreme Protestants from Roman Catholics, must not be ignored; but in\nthe evangelistic and Church tables no such note is inserted. This is, we\nsuppose, a tacit acceptance of the idea that the opposite party's\nevangelical and church building work can be ignored with trifling\nloss--that to ignore it does not much matter. But if a man is surveying\nwhat he calls habitually \"his\" district, he is surveying it presumably\nto get at the facts, and one of the most important facts which he needs\nto know is how far the preaching of Christ has extended and where\nChristian churches have been established. Unless then he is prepared to\ndeny the name of Christ to the opposite party (and that is a very\nserious thing to do), he cannot ignore their churches. The people claim\nto be Christians and declare that they believe in Christ. If the\nsurveyor without further inquiry rejects them because they belong to a\nsociety which he does not like, that may be an exhibition of\necclesiastical zeal, but it is not the science of surveying.\n\nWhatever he may think of them, as a surveyor he has no right to ignore\nthem. He is surveying \"his district\". There are in it so many persons of\nvarious religious belief, amongst them his own converts and these\nChristians of the opposite party. He perhaps refuses to recognise the\nlatter as Christians; but they are undoubtedly neither Moslems nor\nConfucianists, nor Buddhists, nor Hindoos, nor do they belong to any of\nthe non-Christian religions. He cannot ignore them. He must take count\nof them. Therefore if in a district the Protestant and the Roman\nCatholic cannot survey together, the Protestant who does survey must\ncarefully consider the facts before his face, and endeavour to find out\nwhat the facts really are as well as he possibly can. The facts are that\nRoman Catholics are working in what he calls \"his district\"; the facts\nare that there are churches here, and here, and here, and people who\ncall themselves Christians so many, and that the heathen population is\nby so many less. And there are so many mission priests, and they win\nconverts, and the converts won by them cease to be heathen, for they are\nsometimes persecuted by their heathen neighbours, even as his own\nconverts are persecuted.\n\nHappily all leading surveyors are realising these obvious facts and are\nnow taking these things into serious account; but it is still necessary\nto insist on their importance.\n\nIn these tables, when other missions are at work in the district, all\nthat is necessary is to add one column of the work of the other missions\nso far as it is known, or can be ascertained. We are well aware that\nthat easy phrase covers in many cases great practical difficulty. Here\nis one of the places where estimates may be inevitable. If they are\ninevitable, they should be estimates, not guesses, and a note should be\nmade of the process by which they were reached. The difference between\nan estimate and a guess is that an estimate is the result of a definite\ntrain of reasoned calculation and a guess is not. For an estimate\nreasons can be given, for a guess none other than--it occurred to me.\n\n\nII. The Mission which has no Defined District.\n\nWe believe that the vast majority of missions accept a territorial\ndistrict; but there are missions where the station district has not and\ncannot be defined.\n\nThe idea of the mission is not territorial. The object proposed is not\nto cover any area with mission stations, nor to establish in every town\nand village a church or chapel, but to create at a centre a Church of\nliving sons trained and educated by many years, perhaps generations, of\ncare to become the centre of a movement which may cover the whole\ncountry; or it may be to influence movements which arise in the\nreligious, political, or social life of the people, and to direct these\ninto Christian channels. In such cases a territorial foundation is\nimpossible. The mission exists in the midst of a people and influences\nthe people; it makes converts, it establishes them in the faith, it\ncares for them in mind and body, it prepares them to set the moral and\nreligious standard for any Church of the future. It is not concerned\ndirectly with the widest possible preaching of the Gospel. When the\nnative Christians whom it is painfully and slowly educating and training\ncome to maturity they will spread the Gospel throughout the length and\nbreadth of the land. It is not, we are told, the business of the Foreign\nMission to preach the Gospel in every village of a defined area nor to\nmake itself responsible for such preaching directly: it should give to\nconverts in every country the highest and best and fullest teaching of\nChristian civilisation, in order that by so doing it may show to all the\npeople of the country an example, by which they may be attracted and\ninfluenced. If we take the widest expression of such mission activity we\nfind that to estimate the true value of such work we should be compelled\nto survey not only the mission and its activities but the social, moral,\nmaterial, and spiritual state of the people among whom the mission was\nplanted, and seek for signs of a change which we could trace with some\ncertainty to the influence of the mission. That would be a stupendous\nand most intricate undertaking. Where innumerable forces are at work\nsuch as are implied in the impact of western civilisation upon the\npeoples of the East, or of Africa, it would be extremely difficult to\nstate the exact impression made by the mission, even if we could survey\nthe whole state of the people at regular and definite periods. We do\nnot for a moment doubt that all Christian missions do exercise an\ninfluence of this wide and far-reaching character, and from time to time\nwe can see results which clearly spring from it, but we cannot think it\nwise to set out this vague influence as the primary purpose of a\nmission. We believe that the Christian missions which aim directly and\nprimarily at the conversion of men and the establishment of a living\nnative Church produce this fruit by the way.\n\nIf, however, we take the narrower expressions in the statement of aim\nwhich we have set out above, we find in it the purpose of establishing a\nChurch, but the establishment is viewed as the result of a long and\nelaborate training and cultivation of a comparatively small body of\nChristians, rather than as the immediate result of widespread work. In\nsuch a case we ought to be able to trace progress and to place these\nmissions in a common scheme.\n\nThe early tables of work to be done and of the force in relation to that\nwork on a territorial basis certainly fail. The leaders of the mission\nhave not the information and do not want it, but they could almost\ncertainly provide the facts concerning the force at work contained in\nthe tables without the proportions for the district, and they would\nperhaps be able to fill up most of the other tables omitting proportions\nto area and population.\n\nNow if they did that we should be able to see the force at work and the\ntype of work in which the mission was strongest and weakest, and the\nrelation of the different types of work to each other, though it is\nprobable that the tables dealing with the native Church as distinct from\nthe Mission would not be filled up. With that information we could\nalmost certainly define more or less exactly the place of the mission in\na large area such as the province, or the country; for in dealing with\nthe province or the country we must necessarily mass figures, and we\nhave there a known, or estimated, area and population, to use as a basis\nfor calculation of proportions and comparison, and we are aiming at\nplacing each mission in a larger whole and trying to see what part each\ntakes in the performance of a great work which is world wide in its\nscope. If the missions then which decline a territorial basis for their\nwork would fill up those tables which reveal the nature of their work\nand the force engaged in it we should be able to advance to the next\nstage. This is what we meant when at an earlier stage we remarked that\nwe had drawn our tables to serve a definite purpose, but that we had not\nignored the case of the man whose idea of the purpose of a mission\ndiffered from our own.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nSURVEY OF THE WORK IN A PROVINCE.\n\n\nIn few parts of the world is a mission station really an isolated unit.\nIn most of the countries to which we go there are many stations of many\ndifferent missions, all aiming more or less definitely at the\nestablishment of a native Church, whatever their conception of the\nChurch may be. In the vast majority of cases these stations have some\nrelationship to one another. The definition of districts for the mission\nstations is commonly recognised, and in planning new work directors of\nmissions frequently allow themselves to be influenced, in some way and\nin some degree, by the position of existing mission stations. There are\nalso in some parts of the world bodies composed of leading members of\nmany of the missions that work in the country, who meet to consider the\nprogress of the Christian faith in the province or the country as a\nwhole, and deliberately plan their work with some consideration of the\nposition and character of the work done by the others. Now in all this\nthere is a manifest approach to the idea that mission work in the\ncountry or province is a common work, and that the various missions\nengaged in it are not antagonists, but allies. It is certainly true that\nwe are far from having reached the stage of a common direction and a\nreal unification of work Rivalry and antagonism are still rampant, but\nthe recognition of the fact that we must consider the position and\ncharacter of other missions in directing our own is a most important\nadvance; and it implies that we ought, in some measure at least, to be\nable to express the work of any mission station in relation to all the\nmission work done in the province or country, and to understand, at any\nrate in some degree, what place it takes in the mission work in the\nprovince viewed as a whole. It is true that a great many missionaries\nwould refuse to admit that the recognition of other stations in the\nplanting of our own is an acknowledgment of the unity of our work; but\nwhether they acknowledge it, or whether they do not, it is so, and we\nfor our part recognise it with thankfulness and look forward to a day\nwhen missions will not only recognise others by avoiding them, but by\nplanning missions deliberately to assist each other. For that seems to\nus the necessary conclusion. The moment we recognise a station as a\nChristian mission station which we must not disturb, we have gone a long\nway towards recognising it as a mission station which our own must not\nonly not disturb, but must complement; and when we know that one mission\nmust complement another we are really not far removed from establishing\nour missions with common consultation each to supply what is lacking to\nthe other.\n\nHolding this view, we desire to discover what place each mission station\noccupies when we take a wider view and survey the province or country.\nHere we shall be able to adjust many apparent inequalities in the\nmission stations viewed by themselves. From our previous survey of the\nmission stations one by one we may have got the impression that some of\nthem as mission stations designed for work in a district were very\nill-balanced. The medical work, or institutional work of some kind, may\nhave seemed to be out of all proportion to the other forms of the work,\nand this impression may remain when we view the province. But on the\nother hand it may be seriously modified; because when we review the\nwork of the province as a whole, we may find that the institutional work\nof the province as a whole is out of proportion to the evangelistic\nwork, and in that case we should think the disproportion at the station\nmore serious. On the other hand we might find the institutional work in\nthe province inadequate, and in that case the emphasis which seemed\nundue in the one place, and may really be improper in that one place,\nnevertheless, in view of the situation in the whole province, may be\nshown to be reasonable in relation to the whole province. How then can\nwe gather together the returns from all the stations so as to present a\nview of the work in the province? For that is the first thing. We cannot\nput the station into its proper place in the province until we have a\nview of the work in the province treated as a unity.\n\nIn provinces, large cities and towns, which are not reckoned as part of\nany mission station district, have to be taken into account. These large\ncities, capitals of provinces, countries, or empires, need special\nconsideration, and must often be surveyed separately. They are centres\nin which many societies have their head-quarters, and many missionaries\nlive, yet the work done in them is not always so impressive or\nextensive as the numbers of missionaries might suggest: occasionally the\nmissionaries are all congregated in one quarter of the city, and large\nportions are practically untouched. In them, too, are sometimes large\ncity congregations, self-supporting indeed and self-governing, but\nsucking into themselves all the more vigorous elements of the Christian\ncommunity and employing them within a somewhat narrow circle. The\nproblem of the evangelisation of these cities is a very serious one.\n\nWe suggest that these great cities might be treated either as one\ndistrict or as several, and that they ought to be surveyed\nsystematically by a body representative of all the missions in each\ncity. If a proper survey were made and the facts tabulated, the\nstatistical tables would be similar to those for the station district,\nand we could use them to complete a survey of the work done in the\nprovince treated as a unity.\n\nBut to view the work in the province as a unity we do not need all the\ndetail of the station districts, indeed we should only find the\nmultiplication of detail confusing. To gain a general view of work in a\nlarge area such as a province or a small country we must first of all\nselect those features which are common to all the parts and vitally\nimportant. We venture to suggest that the important features to be\nrepresented are five. (1) The work to be done in the whole area. (2) The\nstrength of the whole force at work in relation to the work to be done.\n(3) The extent to which emphasis is laid on various forms of work. (4)\nThe extent to which different classes, races, and religions in the area\nare reached. (5) The extent to which the Church has attained to\nself-support.\n\n1. If the mission stations and their allotted districts covered the\nwhole country, we should need to do no more than add together the\nreturns obtained from the station statistics which we have already drawn\nup. But in most countries there are large unoccupied areas of the size\nand population of which we are more or less ignorant. What we have is,\neither a census return for the whole province, or an estimate of its\narea and population. In dealing with the whole province then we must\ntreat the station returns of towns and villages occupied and of the\nnumbers of the Christian constituency as work done; and then we must\nfind out the relation of these to the whole area and population. This\nwould have to be done probably first on a large scale map which would\nshow the density of the population in different parts of the area, and\nwould show the stations and the strength of the Christian constituency\nin relation to the area and population. These facts could then be\nexpressed in a table, and we should gain at once an idea of the extent\nto which the missions were in a position to reach the population. The\ntable would be exceedingly simple and give us no more than the barest\nidea of the work to be done in its vaguest expression.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------\n          |        |              | Christian Con- | Non-Christian\nProvince. |  Area. |  Population. |    stituency.  |  Population.\n------------------------------------------------------------------\n          |        |              |                |\n__________|________|______________|________________|____________\n\nIf, in addition to this, there was either a census return or a credible\nestimate of the cities, towns, and villages, in the area, a table could\nbe drawn of the cities, towns, and villages occupied, in the sense that\nthere were Christians resident in them, and the work could be expressed\nin that form also, which would greatly assist the understanding of the\nother.\n\n________________________________________________________________\n         |                          |\n         |       Occupied.          |       Unoccupied.\nProvince.|__________________________|___________________________\n         |       |       |          |        |       |\n         |Cities.| Towns.| Villages.| Cities.| Towns.| Villages.\n_________|_______|_______|__________|________|_______|__________\n         |       |       |          |        |       |\n_________|_______|_______|__________|________|_______|__________\n\nWe ought here to repeat that we do not imagine for a moment that the\nForeign Missions are to occupy all the villages or even all the cities\nand towns. We believe that a careful statement of work to be done in\nthis form would very speedily force us to realise, with a clearness and\npower never before experienced, the truth which we often repeat, that\nthe conversion of the country must be the work of native Christians.\n\n2. The force at work in relation to the work to be done. Here again it\nwould not be sufficient to add together the figures returned from the\nstations, because in a large area like a province or a small country\nthere are often many missionaries not at mission stations but at some\nlarge centre engaged in work for the whole province rather than for any\nparticular mission district; as, for instance, translators or\njournalists; men engaged in hostels or Y.M.C.A. work; or in large\ninstitutions, such as training colleges, medical or educational or\nindustrial; or in some special form of Christian philanthropy, such as\nwork amongst lepers, blind, deaf and dumb, and other infirm or defective\npersons; or men engaged in assisting the missionaries all over the\ncountry as directors, or forwarding agents; and all these must be taken\ninto account in considering the foreign force in the province. Including\nall these we should get a table for the foreign force similar to that\nwhich we had for the station, and that force we could relate directly to\nthe work to be done.\n\n____________________________________________________________________\n       |       |       |      |       |       |      |       |\n       |       |       |      |       |       |      |       | Re-\n       |       |       |      |       |       |      |       |marks\nPopu-  | Total |Propor-|      |Propor-|       |Single|Propor-| and\nlation.|Foreign|tion to| Men. |tion to| Wives.|Women.|tion to| Con-\n       | Force.| Popu- |      | Popu- |       |      | Popu- | clu-\n       |       |lation.|      |lation.|       |      |lation.|sions.\n_______|_______|_______|______|_______|_______|______|_______|______\n       |       |       |      |       |       |      |       |\n_______|_______|_______|______|_______|_______|______|_______|______\n\nWe cannot sacrifice the proportions, because the life is in them.\nComparison of conditions in different areas can only be made on\nproportions. The mere statement of the figures with the suggestion that\nanyone can work out the proportions would reveal a singular ignorance of\nhuman nature.\n\nFor the native force all that we need for the present purpose is a\ntable that will show us the Christian constituency, communicants, and\nworkers in the whole province in proportion to one another. Here also we\nmust include many workers and some congregations in large towns which\nthe station district survey may have omitted.\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n            |Total.| Proportion| Proportion    |Proportion   |Remarks\n            |      |of         |of Christian   |of           |and\n            |      |Population.| Constituency. |Communicants.|Conclu-\n            |      |           |               |             | sions.\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\nChristian   |      |           |               |             |\nconstituency| ---- |  ----     |               |             |\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\nCommunicants| ---- |  ----     |  ----         |             |\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\nPaid workers| ---- |  ----     |  ----         |   ----      |\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\nUnpaid      |      |           |               |             |\n Workers    | ---- |  ----     |  ----         |   ----      |\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n3. It is important to consider carefully the proportions in which the\nforce is engaged in different forms of work since, as we have already\nexplained, these different forms are often, if not generally, treated as\ndistinct and separate methods of propaganda, and men want to know what\nis the effectiveness of each. They ask, what are the fruits of medical\nand educational work, and they expect an answer in terms of additions to\nthe Church. If the dominant object of missions is the establishment of a\nnative Church this is indeed not unnatural; but, as we have already\nsaid, many educational and medical missionaries might resent this\ndemand, for they have other ideas of the nature and purpose of their\nwork. Nevertheless, since this native Church is constantly presented to\nus as the dominant purpose of all our efforts, it is only right that we\nshould make the inquiry here, as we did in the earlier chapters, and ask\nhow the force in the field is divided. It seems almost absurd that we\nshould have no idea in what proportion medicals, educationalists, and\nevangelists should be employed in any field. In some countries medical\nwork is by far the most effective, if not the only possible form of\npropaganda; in some fields the evangelists can work effectively almost\nalone, and medical institutions are not the same necessity, and their\nestablishment does not produce great results in the building of the\nChurch when compared with the work of evangelists and educationalists.\nIn some places their aid was at first apparently necessary to success,\nbut as time went on that first desperate importance ceased. We have not\nso large a medical force that we can afford to use it for any but the\nmost important and necessary purposes; yet, if the establishment of a\nnative Church is the dominant purpose, large numbers of medicals are\ndoing work which is (from this point of view only) of second-rate\nimportance, whilst work which only they could do is left undone, and\ncries aloud for their assistance. Similarly, if the establishment of a\nnative Church is really the dominant object, educationalists are often\nwrongly directed and placed. They are not producing fruit in this regard\n(of course in this regard only) in anything like the abundance which\nthey might produce if they were free to attack the real questions of the\neducation of the native Church. In many centres they are doing splendid\nwork for the enlightenment of the people, but close beside them are\nlarge bodies of Christians who from the point of view of the\nestablishment of a native Church need their help much more.\n\nWe ought then to know in each province how the force is divided and what\nis the fruit of the labours of each class of missionaries viewed from\nthe standpoint of the building up of the native Church.\n\nNow if we know the proportions of the workers in each class in each\ncountry, and if we could have a table which told us with any degree of\naccuracy the numbers of the inquirers, communicants, and places opened\nby the labours of each class, we should surely have some facts from\nwhich we might gain light on this most practical question, in what\nproportion the work of each class of workers was most effective in each\ncountry as an evangelistic and church-building agency. We propose then\ntwo tables (see opposite page).\n\n(i)\n\n_____________________________________________________________________\n            |         |  Paid   |Amount of| Amount of     | Remarks\n            | Mission-|  Native | Foreign |  Native       | and Con-\n            | aries   | Workers.| Funds.  |Contributions. | clusions.\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\nEvangelistic|   --    |   --    |    --   |     --        |\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\nMedical     |   --    |   --    |    --   |      --       |\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\nEducational |   --    |   --    |    --   |      --       |\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\nOther forms |         |         |         |               |\n  of work.  |   --    |   --    |    --   |      --       |\n_____________________________________________________________________\n\n(ii)\n\n_____________________________________________________________________\n            | Inquirers |              |  Places Opened   |   Remarks\n            |  Derived  | Communicants | Directly Through | and Con-\n            |   From    | Derived from |  Influence of    | clusions.\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\nEvangelistic|    --     |      --      |        --        |\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\nMedical     |    --     |      --      |        --        |\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\nEducational |    --     |      --      |        --        |\n_____________________________________________________________________\n\nIf we desire to know the influence of our medical and educational work\nupon the native Church we ought certainly to have a table which, for the\nschools at least, would show us what proportion of the pupils who passed\nthrough the schools became valuable members of the Church. But every one\nwho has had any scholastic experience, and has tried to follow the\nafter-history of his pupils, knows that that is not easy, even in\nexternal and material affairs, and when the inquiry is concerned with\ninternal convictions and religious influence that difficulty is\ninsuperable. A few specially endowed and devoted educationalists could\nindeed tell the after-history of a considerable number of their pupils,\nand ideally all schools ought to have a record of the history of pupils\nfor at least a few years after leaving the school; but there would\nalways be a percentage of loss; in many cases that percentage would be\nvery high, and we doubt whether many schools have any record at all.\nUnder these circumstances to put into an inquiry such as that which we\npropose a question concerning the after-life of scholars or patients\nseems almost impossible. Yet we cannot be content. There are mission\nschools which go on year after year educating boys for a business\ncareer, and generation after generation of boys pass through the school,\nlarge sums of mission money are expended on them, and the results _from\na missionary point of view_ are shrouded in Cimmerian gloom; or the\ngeneral darkness is relieved by one or two exceptional pupils who,\nbecause they do very well, appear to justify the existence of the\ninstitution in which they were educated, though they would probably have\nbeen as valuable Christians if they had been educated in any other\nschool. In this way a very low average is often concealed. If a school\nis judged by a few exceptionally good scholars, it should also be judged\nby a few exceptionally bad ones. It is indeed of serious importance that\nthe missionary value of some of our medical and educational, especially\nthe educational, institutions should be carefully examined and tested by\nan appeal to indisputable facts. It is generally supposed that education\nin mission schools must necessarily produce a strong, enlightened, and\nzealous Christian community. That it produces a large number of\nChristians intellectually enlightened is certain: that they are zealous\nevangelists is not as certain. We want a statistical table to reveal the\nmissionary value, not the commercial value, of the education given. But\nwhat table can we draw? The preceding table which sets forth inquirers\nand communicants is clearly insufficient though it is better than\nnothing. Until every school keeps a careful record of the after-history\nof at least a large number of its pupils it seems impossible to get any\nclear light on the question.\n\n4. With regard to the extent to which different races and classes are\nreached by the missions, we may safely assume that the Christian\nmissions ought to extend their benefits to all classes and races in the\narea, and that there ought to be some proportion between the efforts\nmade in each case. If, and when, the responsible leaders of the missions\ndecided that the time had come to concentrate on one particular kind of\nwork for one particular class, we may be perfectly certain that they\nwould have no difficulty in justifying their action. But in any case\naction should not be taken without consideration of proportions, and,\ntherefore, it is important that the proportions should be known.\n\nBut in dealing with work in the province or small country we cannot\nsimply repeat the table prepared for the mission district. In the\nprovince or country there are often missionaries at work who give\nthemselves up wholly to one class. It is difficult, if not impossible,\nto distinguish every possible form of work; but seeing that very\nconsiderable work is done amongst students, we have thought it well to\nadd one column in which the proportion of the children of different\nclasses who are attending Christian schools or living in Christian\nhostels is set forth:--\n\n_____________________________________________________________________\n                |      | Agri-  |        |          |        |Remarks\nPercentage Stud-|Offi- |cultural|Traders.|Labourers.| Crafts-|and\n    of:    ents.|cials.|Small-  |        |          | men.   |Conclu-\n                |      |Holders.|        |          |        |sions.\n________________|______|________|________|__________|________|_______\nIn\nPopulation   -- |  --  |   --   |   --   |   --     |   --   |\n________________|______|________|________|___________________________\nIn Christian -- |  --  |   --   |   --   |   --     |   --   |\nConstituency    |      |        |        |          |        |\n________________|______|________|________|__________|________|_______\nIn Christian    |      |        |        |          |        |\nschools and     |      |        |        |          |        |\nhostels,     -- |   -- |   --   |   --   |   --     |   --   |\npercentage      |      |        |        |          |        |\nof children     |      |        |        |          |        |\nof              |      |        |        |          |        |\n________________|______|________|________|__________|________|_______\n\nWith respect to work among different races, castes, etc., no addition to\nthe table prepared for the district seems necessary, and we therefore\nrepeat it:--\n\n--------------|-----------------------------------------|------------\n              |  Races, Religious Castes, etc., whatever| Remarks\n              |             they may be.                |  And\n              |                                         |Conclusions.\n--------------|-----------------------------------------|------------\nIn Population |                   ----                  |\n--------------|-----------------------------------------|------------\nIn Christian  |                   ----                  |\nConstituency  |                                         |\n--------------|-----------------------------------------|------------\n\n5. Concerning self-support, one table should, we think, suffice. We\ncannot possibly adopt any estimated necessary expenditure such as we\nproposed in the table for the station district because in the province\nthat estimate would be almost impossible to make. Different missions\nhave different ideas, and their estimates have for themselves some\nreality; but they have no reality for others, and a mere average of the\nestimates given for all the missions of the province would have still\nless reality. It would be an absurd guess, meaning nothing. If we want\nto judge progress in self-support we must have some definite key figure\nby which to judge it. What figure then can we use? The total cost of all\nthe work carried on in the province is an impossible figure.[1] The mere\ncontribution of the native Christians by itself means nothing. That is\nthe figure generally given. The native Christian subscribed $6000 last\nyear, $7000 this year. Here is progress. The progress is an addition of\n$1000. But does that tell us their progress towards self-support unless\nwe know what self-support implies? In the year the Church ought to have\nincreased in numbers, and the $7000 may represent exactly the same\nposition as the $6000 represented last year. Expenses may have\nincreased: the $7000 may be actually further removed from self-support\nthan the $6000 last year. We must have a proportion of which we can\ntrace the variation if we want to see progress. But is there any expense\nwhich we can use to strike the proportion? Suppose then we suggest the\npay of all evangelistic and pastoral workers and provision and upkeep of\nchurches, chapels, and preaching rooms. That would at least give us\nsomething to work by. But it might be difficult to calculate. We would\npropose then, as a secondary item, some easily calculable and known\nexpense, something which every missionary accountant knows, such as the\npay of all native pastors and evangelistic workers, and then compare\nwith these the contributions of the Christians for Church and\nevangelistic work only, excluding all fees for education and medicine.\nThat would, we think, give us a standard which we could apply without\nhaving to consider complications introduced by such things as Government\ngrants to schools or hospitals. We propose then to judge progress in\nself-support thus:--\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n         | Total Cost    | Total        | Total         |\n         | of all        | Salaries of  | Native        |\n         | Evangelistic  | all Paid     | Contribution, |\nProvince.| and           | Native       | excluding     | Remarks and\n         | Pastoral      | Evangelistic | School or     | Conclusions.\n         | Work, Men     | Workers,     | Hospital      |\n         | and Material. | including    | Fees or       |\n         |               | Pastors.     | Donations.    |\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n         |               |              |               |\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n[Footnote 1: In Dr. Eugene Stock's \"History of the C.M.S.,\" vol. ii., p.\n420, we are told that \"In 1863,... 400 families raised 1371 rupees,\nequal then to \u00a3137. These families consisted mainly of labourers earning\n(say) 2s. a week; so that a corresponding sum for 400 families of\nEnglish labourers earning 12s. a week would be \u00a3137 x 6 = \u00a3822, or over\n\u00a32 a year from each family. A few years later, taking the whole of the\nC.M.S. districts in Tinnevelly and reckoning catechumens as well as\nbaptised Christians, their contributions were such that, supposing the\nwhole thirty millions of people in England were poor labourers earning\n12s. a week, and there were no other source of wealth, their\ncorresponding contributions should amount to \u00a36,000,000 per annum.\" Yet\nhe says on the very next page that \"It was not possible for the native\nChurch, liberal as its contributions were, to maintain its pastors and\nmeet its other expenses (he does not say what the _other expenses_ were)\nentirely. The society must necessarily help for a while.... This grant,\nin the first instance, had to be large enough to cover much more than\nhalf the expenditure.\"\n\nIf this was the case in one part of a province, what would happen if we\ntook the whole expense of all work carried on in a whole province or\ncountry and used that as a standard by which to test progress in\nself-support?]\n\nTurning now from the force at work we must consider the force in\ntraining, for this is prophetic. Let us then take first a table which\nshows the proportion in which students are being trained for pastoral\nand evangelistic work, for medical mission work, and for educational\nmission work, in the province or country, regardless of the place at\nwhich they are being trained, whether that place is inside or outside\nthe area under consideration. This ought to show us on what lines we may\nexpect the work to develop in the near future.\n\n_____________________________________________________________________\nTotal    |For Evangel-  |        |       |       |          |\nStudents |istic Work,   |Propor- |For    |Propor-|For Educa-|Remarks\nin       |including the |tion  of|Medical|tion of|tional    |and\nTraining.|Pastorate.    |Total.  |Work.  |Total. |Work.     |Conclu-\n         |              |        |       |       |          |sions\n_________|______________|________|_______|_______|__________|________\n         |              |        |       |       |          |\n_________|______________|________|_______|_______|__________|________\n\nThen we must examine more closely, if we can;--and first of the\n_evangelistic_ workers. The difficulty is to classify, because\necclesiastical nomenclature is so confused that it is almost impossible\nto use any terms which would be widely recognised. The best we can do is\nto distinguish grades of training, beginning from the top thus:--\n\n  1st grade, college or university.\n  2nd \"  high school.\n  3rd \"  regular Bible school.\n  4th \"  intermittent, irregular Bible instruction.\n\nIt will probably be found that the first grade is commonly prepared for,\nand looks forward to, the charge of a settled congregation, or of an\norganised church, and the lower grades do the pioneer work, and it may\nwell suggest itself to thoughtful men whether this is rightly so.\n\nThen, _educationalists_ in training: again we divide by grades\nroughly:--\n\n  1st grade, college or university.\n  2nd  \"  normal school.\n  3rd  \"  high school.\n  4th  \"  teachers of illiterates.\n\nThe college students presumably look forward to work in the high\nschools, or colleges, or normal schools; the normal school pupils to\nwork in normal schools, high schools, and large primary schools; the\nhigh school pupils to work in village schools; and the teachers of\nilliterates to village work, or work among the poor in the towns. Of\n_medicals_ the generally recognised distinctions seem to be, qualified\npractitioners, assistants, and nurses.\n\nFollowing these lines we should obtain simple prophetic tables for each\nof the three branches of work.\n\n(i) Students in Training for _Evangelistic_ Work.\n\n----------------------------------------------------------\n  1st Grade.  |  2nd.        |  3rd.        |  4th.\n College.     | High School. | Regular      | Intermittent.\n              | Bible School | Teaching     |\n------------------------------------------- --------------\n              |              |              |\n              |              |              |\n----------------------------------------------------------\n\n(ii) For _Educational_ Work.\n\n----------------------------------------------------------\n  1st Grade.  |  2nd.   |  3rd.        | Teachers of\n College.     | Normal. | High School. | Illiterates.\n------------------------------------------- --------------\n              |         |              |\n              |         |              |\n----------------------------------------------------------\n\n(iii) For _Medical_ Work.\n\n----------------------------------------------------------------------\n     1st Grade.           |                2nd.               |  3rd.\nTo be Qualified Doctors.  | Assistants, including Dispensers, |Nurses.\n                          |                etc.               |\n----------------------------------------------------------------------\n                          |                                   |\n                          |                                   |\n----------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIf we had those tables for _men and women_ we should see fairly plainly\nhow the work might be expected to develop.\n\nBut here we ought to remember the difficulty which we set forth earlier\nin discussing the missionary influence of our various activities,\nmedical and educational, from a Church building point of view. A great\nmany boys are educated and trained at mission expense to be evangelists,\nmedicals, and teachers in mission employ, who serve indeed for a period\naccording to their contract and then disappear into Government service\nor private practice. It is a serious question whether missionaries can\nbe raised up successfully in this way. \"I will give you training if you\nwill promise to serve the mission,\" is not a very certain way of\nsecuring ready, wholehearted, zealous service of Christ. We have found\nout its uncertainty in many cases at home; we have found it out in\nstill more frequent cases in the mission field. Unless we keep a very\ncareful record of the after-life of those whom we train, and a very\nhonest one, we are apt to ignore the failure, a failure which we cannot\nproperly afford, and consequently we cannot know what we are really\ndoing by our training. We ought to know the truth in this matter, both\nfor our encouragement and our admonition. Happily here, we think, we can\nfind an easy and a valuable test. If we ask what proportion of those\nwhom we train continue in their missionary work after the end of their\nfirst term of service, we shall certainly have some enlightenment; for\nit is true of medicals and educationalists, and of evangelists, though\nin a much less degree, that if any man continues in missionary work\nafter he has fulfilled the letter of his contract, it will generally be\nbecause he has his heart in the work; for missionary work seldom, if\never, offers the emoluments of Government service, or of private\npractice. We ask then--\n\nSURVEY OF WORK IN A PROVINCE\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n                                |Evangelistic | Medical | Educational\n--------------------------------+-------------+---------+------------\nTotal Students                  |             |         |\n--------------------------------+-------------+---------+------------\nTrained at Mission Expense,     |             |         |\nWholly or in Part.              |             |         |\n--------------------------------+-------------+---------+------------\nNumber who Continue in          |             |         |\nMission Work after the end      |             |         |\nof the Term of their Contract.  |             |         |\n--------------------------------+-------------+---------+------------\nProportion of Total Students    |             |         |\nwho so Continue.                |             |         |\n--------------------------------+-------------+---------+------------\nRemarks and Conclusions.        |             |         |\n--------------------------------+-------------+---------+------------\n\nIf the institutions in which the training is actually carried on lie\nwithin the province, then we ought to have tables such as we have for\nthe schools in the station area for these institutions. We need no\nelaborate statistics in this place, because the work of these\ninstitutions should be specially treated in departmental surveys. Here,\nall that we need is to relate the work of the schools or hospitals which\nwere omitted in the station district survey, because they served a\nlarger area than the station area, to the work done in the province or\ncountry. The educational returns from each station area must be added\ntogether and the returns of these larger institutions added to the total\neducational statistics; that will give us the work done in the larger\narea in proportion to population.\n\nBut in the province it is important to consider the relation in which\nthe different grade schools stand to one another; because if the aim of\nthe missionary educational system is the education of the Christian\ncommunity, and the higher schools are designed primarily for Christian\npupils from the lower schools, this relation is of importance. It is\npossible to build an organisation too narrow at the base and too heavy\nat the top, and then to fill the higher schools with non-Christian\npupils without any definite understanding of the way in which that\npractice is to serve the main purpose of the mission. Then these schools\nstand on a distinct and separate basis from the rest of the mission\nactivities, and the work of Christian missions in the country is split,\npart aiming directly at the establishment of a native Christian Church,\nand part \"aiming at the general improvement of morals, and social,\nreligious, and political enlightenment. Thus we arrive at that chaotic\nstate in which the mission as a whole is not subordinate to any dominant\nidea of the purpose for which it exists, which alone can unify the work\nof all its members. But if the colleges and schools are designed for\nmutual support, and if the higher have any relation to the lower grades,\nthen there must be some proportion between the base and the\nsuperstructure, and that proportion must be known and expressed in any\nsurvey worthy of the name. We include, therefore, the following table:--\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n        |  Mission  |  Proportion  |  Proportion |   Remarks\n        |  Schools, |  to          |  to         |   and\n        |  Number   |  Population. |  High       |   Conclusions.\n        |  of.      |              |  Schools.   |\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\nPrimary |           |              |             |\nSchools |           |              |             |\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\nHigh    |           |              |             |\nSchools |           |              |             |\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\nNormal  |           |              |             |\nSchools |           |              |             |\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\nColleges|           |              |             |\n--------+-----------+--------------+-------------+-------------------\n\nIn the province also we must know the educational facilities afforded by\nnon-missionary agencies, if we are to have any true conception of the\nwork of the educational missions. We must therefore add a table for\nthese schools.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------\n                  |  Non-       |  Proportion  |   Remarks. |\n                  |  Missionary |  to          |            |\n                  |  Schools,   |  Population. |            |\n                  |  Number of. |              |            |\n-------------------------------------------------------------\nPrimary Schools   |             |              |            |\n-------------------------------------------------------------\nHigh Schools.     |             |              |            |\n-------------------------------------------------------------\nNormal School     |             |              |            |\n-------------------------------------------------------------\nColleges.         |             |              |            |\n-------------------------------------------------------------\n\nHere it is not necessary for us to find the proportion between the\nhigher and lower grade schools, because we are not surveying the\nnon-missionary educational work, and their scheme of proportions is not\nour business.\n\nA comparatively slight addition to the tables for medical work in the\nvarious station districts will suffice to give an adequate impression of\nthe medical work done in the whole area. We need not go into details,\nfor the medical work should be, and generally is, reviewed by Medical\nBoards in their reports. For us now, all that is needed is the addition\nof tables, similar to those which we used for hospitals in the station\narea, for hospitals excluded from any station survey.\n\nTwo other subjects ought to be included in this provincial survey,\nnamely, literature and industrial work. First, we must try to find a\ntable which will express the work done by those important missionaries\nwho are engaged in providing Christian literature, both for the\nChristian community and the heathen outside. Here we find once more the\ndifficulty that, whilst a few missionaries are wholly engaged in this\nform of missionary work, much is produced by missionaries who have\nalready been included in the tables as either evangelistic or\neducational or medical missionaries, and we also touch bookselling and\nother kindred commercial questions. With the commercial aspect of this\nwork we cannot deal. The following tables will throw light on the extent\nto which Christian literature is being produced and read:--\n\n(i)\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\nNumber of Missionaries wholly Engaged  |     Proportion of Total\n        in Literary Work.              |         Missionaries.\n---------------------------------------+-----------------------------\n                                       |\n---------------------------------------+-----------------------------\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\nNumber of Vernacular     |   Number of        |  Proportion of Sales\nChristian Books Produced |   Christian Books  |  to Population.\nin the Year.             |   Sold in the Year.|\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n                         | Bibles or |        |  Bibles or |\n                         | Scripture |  Other |  Scripture | Other\n                         | Portions. |  Books.|  Portions. | Books.\n-------------------------+-----------+--------+------------+---------\n                         |           |        |            |\n-------------------------+-----------+--------+------------+---------\n\nIf the business side of literary work is difficult, the whole position\nof industrial missions is still more difficult. In some countries\nindustrial missions seem to be trading ventures with a Christian\nintention, in others industrial missions are really almost entirely\neducational establishments. The best tables which we have ever seen\ndealing with this subject were those drawn by Mr. Sidney Clark in one of\nhis papers, \"From a Layman to a Layman\".[1] All that we can do is to\nsuggest that industrial missions which are in the main clearly and\nunmistakably educational should be included in the educational work, and\nthat the missions with large commercial interests, even if they are\ndoing a valuable educational work for the community, should be treated\nseparately, thus:--\n\n[Footnote 1: Printed for private distribution by Mr. S.J.W. Clark, 3\nTudor Street, Blackfriars, London, E.C. 4.]\n\n_Industrial Missions_,\n\n(a)\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\nProvince. |  Number of   |  Amount of Mission  |  Proportion of\n          |  Industrial  |  Funds Allotted to  |  Total Mission\n          |  Missions.   |     such Work.      |     Funds.\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n          |              |                     |\n__________|______________|_____________________|_____________________\n\n(b)\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n          |  Number of     | Number of Missionaries | Proportion of\nProvince. |  Industrial    | Engaged in such        |    Total\n          |  Institutions. | Institutions.          | Missionaries\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n          |                |                        |\n__________|________________|________________________|________________\n\n(c)\n\n-------------------------------------------------------------\n          |  Number of  |  Number of     |  Proportion of\nProvince. |  Industrial |  Native Agents |  Native Christian\n          |  Missions.  |  Employed.     |  Workers Employed.\n-------------------------------------------------------------\n          |             |                |\n__________|_____________|________________|___________________\n\nIn some missions the proportion of missionaries and native workers so\nemployed would be very small; in others they would be very considerable.\nThere is now a tendency to hand over some of the industrial work as it\ndevelops along commercial lines to Boards of Christian men who are\ninterested in the social and spiritual aspect of the work.\n\nIn the province we must also consider union work, work done in common by\ntwo or more societies,[1] sometimes evangelistic, sometimes medical or\neducational training, sometimes the establishment, or enlargement of an\neducational or medical institution; or sometimes, as in Kwangtung in\nSouth China, several societies unite in a \"Board of Co-operation\". This\nunion of societies for the better and more efficient performance of\ntheir work is a most important development of the last few years:\nimportant both to the workers on the field and to us at home. We ought,\ntherefore, to have a short table to show what is being done.\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n         |      Number of Societies       |             |\nNumber   |        Co-operating in         |Number of    |\nof       |--------------------------------| Societies   |Remarks\nSocieties|Evangelistic|Medical|Educational| Co-operating|  and\nat Work. |    Work.   | Work. |   Work.   | in all Work.|Conclusions.\n---------+------------+-------+-----------+-------------+------------\n         |            |       |           |             |\n---------+------------+-------+-----------+-------------+------------\n\n[Footnote 1: The larger and more important movements towards corporate\nunion, such as those now taking place in S. India, China, and E. Africa,\nlie outside the scope of this survey until their completion affects\ntheir statistical returns. Then the importance of them will speedily\nappear.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nTHE RELATION OF THE STATION TO THE WORLD.\n\n\nWe have now dealt with the survey of the station and of the province or\nsmall country, but the final end of missionary work is the attainment of\na world-wide purpose. The Gospel is for the whole world, not for a\nfragment of it, however big. Missionary work cannot properly be carried\non in any place except by means and methods designed with a view to the\nwhole, and missions can never be properly presented to us at home so\nlong as we are taught to fix our eyes on small areas; because the great\ncharacteristic of missions is their vastness. This is what is so\nuplifting and ennobling in the work. Every little piece of mission work\nought to be directed on principles capable of bearing the weight of the\nwhole. We ought to be able to say, \"The whole world can be converted by\nthese means and on these principles which we are here employing in this\nlittle village\". If the methods and the principles are so narrow that we\ncan build no great world-wide structure on them, we can take little more\ninterest in them than we do in the petty politics of some little parish\nat home.\n\nWe have then yet to demand that we shall be able to put every little\nstation into its proper place in this larger whole, and to see how its\nprinciples and methods are illumined by the vision of the whole, being\nestablished with the design of accomplishing the whole task. We turn\nthen now to this larger view of mission work. The tables which we have\ndrawn for a province or small country would enable us to compare the\nwork in each area with another such area in the larger whole, and to\njudge whether we were unduly neglecting any; where the Church was\nstrongest and where it was least established; where it was more capable\nand where it was less capable of taking over that work which rightly\nbelongs to it, of extending its own boundaries, and of maintaining its\nown life. We should not send hasty missions here or there because some\ninteresting political event attracts the eyes of men to this or that\nparticular country, but on definite missionary principles, acting on a\nclear and reasonable understanding of the missionary situation in the\nworld.\n\nThe commission of Christ is world-wide, the claim of Christ is\nworld-wide, the work of Christ, the Spirit of Christ are all-embracing;\nand the work which missionaries do in His name should be all-embracing\nto. We should conduct all our work, and plan all our work, at home and\nabroad, with our eyes fixed on the final goal, which is for us, so long\nas we are on this earth, coterminous only with the limits of the\nhabitable globe. We cannot be content to approach even the largest areas\nas though our action was limited by them. All our policy in every part\nshould be part of a policy designed for the whole. If it is not designed\nto accomplish the whole it is not adequate for any part.\n\nHow then could we gain a vision of the whole, a whole composed of such\nvast and diverse parts? Obviously we must have for every country in\nwhich any missionary work is carried on some common returns, either\nthose which we venture to suggest or others which some abler minds might\nsuggest; but that they must be common to all, and fundamental in\ncharacter, is obvious; and they must be reduced to proportions on a\ncommon basis, or comparison and combination will be impossible; and\nthey must be as few as possible in order to avoid confusion.\n\nWe suggest, then, that if we had the four tables which follow we should\npossess a reasonable basis, sufficient for our present needs, especially\nsince we suppose they would be supported by the tables for the different\nprovinces, countries, and stations which we have already suggested, and\nthey ought to be supplemented by surveys made by each society of its own\nwork and by departmental surveys of medical, educational, industrial,\nand literary work made for the special direction of each of these\nbranches. But for a first general view of the whole we propose:--\n\n(1) A table showing the force at work in the area in relation to the\npopulation:--\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n                              Proportion to Population.\n--------------------------------------------------------------------\nProvince| Popula-| Total   | Chris-   | Com-      |        |\n or     | tion.  | Foreign | tian     | municants | Paid   | Unpaid\n Country|        | Mission-| Constitu-| or Full   |Workers.| Workers.\n Area.  |        | aries.  | ents.    | Members   |        |\n--------|--------|---------|----------|-----------|--------|---------\n        |        |         |          |           |        |\n________|________|_________|__________|___________|________|_________\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nThat would give us a general view of the force at work in relation to\nthe work to be done and of the proportions between its constituent\nparts. Then (2):--\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n                   | Proportion of Paid     |  Proportion of\n                   | Workers                |  Unpaid Workers\n-------------------|------------------------|------------------------\n           Propor- |                        |\nChristian   tion   |-----------|------------|-------------|----------\nConstitu-    of    |           |    To      |             |To\n ency.     Liter-  |    To     | Christian  | To          |Christian\n            ates.  |   Com-    | Constitu-  | Com-        |Constitu-\n                   | municants.|   ency     |municants.   |ency.\n-------------------|-----------|------------|-------------|----------\n                   |           |            |             |\n-------------------+-----------+------------+-------------+----------\n\nThat would give us an idea of the character and power of the force. (3)\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n             |              |         | Percentage   | Percentage\n             |              | Paid    | of Total     | of Total\n             | Missionaries.| Native  | Foreign Funds| Native\n             |              | Workers.| Employed in. | Contributions\n             |              |         |              | Employed in.\n-------------+--------------+---------+--------------+---------------\nEvangelistic |     --       |    --   |       --     |      --\n----------------------------+---------+--------------+---------------\nMedical      |     --       |    --   |       --     |      --\n----------------------------+---------+--------------+---------------\nEducational  |     --       |    --   |       --     |      --\n----------------------------+---------+--------------+---------------\nOther forms  |     --       |    --   |       --     |      --\nof work      |     --       |    --   |       --     |      --\n-------------+--------------+---------+--------------+---------------\n\nThat would give us relative emphasis on different forms of work.\n\n(4)\n\n-------------+---------------------+--------------+------------------\n             | Total Amount Paid   |              |Relation of Native\nChristian    | to Native Evangel-  | Total Native | Contribution to\nConstituency.| istic Workers In-   | Contribution.|  Pay of Workers.\n             | cluding all Pastors.|              |\n-------------+---------------------+--------------+------------------\n             |                     |              |\n_____________|_____________________|______________|__________________\n\nThat would give us some idea of the extent to which the native\nChristians support the existing work.\n\nNow if we could form some idea of the force at work in relation to the\ncountry in which it is working; and some idea of the character of the\nforce; and some idea of the relative emphasis laid on different forms of\nwork, and some idea of the extent to which the native Christians support\nthe work, we should, we hope, be able to form a reasonable estimate of\nthe extent and progress of our efforts in the world. The whole number of\nforms would not be very large, for there would only be about 150 areas\nfrom which such forms would be required, and these could be combined so\nas to give us a view of the situation in the world such as the mind\ncould grasp.\n\nThis is, we admit, rather a hasty and tentative expression of the way\nin which we might satisfy the present need; but it seems to us that the\ntime is ripe for the consideration of this great subject, and we can\nthink of no better plan than to propose tables, and then to leave others\nto criticise and amend them, or to suggest better ones, or better\nmethods of attaining an object which few would deny to be desirable.\n\nWith proper tables, these or others, we should then be able to trace the\nmeaning and results of each station which we founded and to put it into\nits place in a reasoned scheme of things, and that is the crying need.","title":"Missionary Survey As An Aid To Intelligent Co-Operation In Foreign Missions","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":39242}