========================================================================
  WRITINGS OF ROLAND ALLEN
  by Roland Allen
========================================================================

A collection of theological writings, sermons, and essays by Roland Allen,
compiled for study and devotional reading.

  Chapters: 28

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  TABLE OF CONTENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. MISSIONARY METHODS
    2. Introduction
    3. Strategic Points
    4. Class
    5. Moral and Social Condition
    6. Miracles
    7. Finance
    8. The Substance of St. Paul's Preaching
    9. The Teaching
   10. The Training of Candidates for Baptism and Ordination
   11. Authority and Discipline
   12. Unity
   13. Principles and Spirit
   14. Application
   15. Missionary Survey As An Aid To Intelligent
   16. Preface
   17. THE IMPORTANCE OF A DOMINANT PURPOSE.
   18. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS.
   19. STATION DISTRICT SURVEY.
   20. THE EMPHASIS LAID UPON DIFFERENT TYPES OF WORK.
   21. MEDICAL WORK IN THE STATION DISTRICT.
   22. EDUCATIONAL WORK IN THE STATION DISTRICT.
   23. CO-OPERATION BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT ELEMENTS IN THE MISSION.
   24. THE NATIVE CHURCH.
   25. SURVEY OF DISTRICTS WHERE TWO OR MORE SOCIETIES ARE AT WORK
   26. SURVEY OF THE WORK IN A PROVINCE.
   27. THE RELATION OF THE STATION TO THE WORLD.
   28. - Title/Content

========================================================================
  CHAPTER 1: MISSIONARY METHODS
========================================================================

MISSIONARY METHODS: ST. PAUL'S OR OURS? By Roland Allen In this 13 chapter book
by Allen (Anglican), he presents to us the argument for returning to the NT way
of doing missions. His proposition is highly motivated towards the 3 selfs
(self-supporting, self-propogating, and self-governing). His chapters are
Introduction, strategic points, class, moral and social condition, miracles,
finances, the substance of Paul's preaching, the teaching, the training of
candidates for baptism and ordination, authority and discipline, unity,
principles and spirit, and application. CONTENTS Author's Preface PART I. 1.
Introduction 2. Strategic Points 3. Class 4. Moral and Social Conditions PART
II. The Presentation of the Gospel 5. Miracles 6. Finance 7. The Substance of
St. Paul's Teaching PART III. The Training of Converts 8. The Teaching. 9. The
Training of Candidates for Baptism and Ordination. PART IV. St. Paul's Method of
Dealing Churches with Organized Churches 10. Authority and Discipline. 11. Unity
PART V. Conclusions 12. Principles and Spirit 13. Application.

Author's Preface to The SECOND (1927) EDITION It is now fifteen years since this
book was first published, and it is thought that a new and cheaper edition may
be useful. In these fifteen years I have seen, and I have heard from others,
that action in many parts of the world has been influenced by the study of St.
Paul's missionary methods; and I myself am more convinced than ever that in the
careful examination of his work, above all in the understanding and appreciation
of his principles, we shall find the solution of most of our present
difficulties. We are talking today of indigenous churches. St. Paul's churches
were indigenous churches in the proper sense of the word; and I believe that the
secret of their foundation lay in his recognition of the church as a local
church (as opposed to our 'national churches') and in his profound belief and
trust in the Holy Spirit indwelling his converts and the churches of which they
were members, which enabled him to establish them at once with full authority.
It is not easy for us today so to trust the Holy Ghost. We can more easily
believe in His work in us and through us, than we can believe in His work in and
through our converts: we cannot trust our converts to Him. But that is one of
the most obvious lessons which the study of St. Paul's work teaches us. I
believe that we have still much to learn from his example. In the reviews which
appeared when this book was first published I was surprised and pleased to find
that little fault was found with my statement of the Apostolic practice.
Accepting the statement of the facts as substantially true, critics almost
invariably fixed on two points: (1) that the gulf between us and the people to
whom we go is deeper and wider than that between St. Paul and those to whom he
preached; (2) that he could rely upon converts from the synagogue to preserve
his churches from dangers only too plain to us. The conclusion drawn was that
what was possible for him in his day is impossible for us in ours. To the first
of these criticisms I replied in a book entitled Educational Principles and
Missionary Methods, in which I argued that the greater the gulf the greater was
the value of the apostolic method. That argument is too long to summarize here.
To the second I may say here briefly: (1) That the dangers which we anticipate,
the dangers of lowering a standard of morals, or of a confusion of Christian
doctrine by the introduction of ideas borrowed from heathen philosophy or
superstition, were not less in his day than in ours; (2) that the breach between
the Synagogue and the Christian Church arose so early and was so wide that as a
matter of fact churches were soon being established which certainly were not
'off-shoots of the local synagogue', and yet the apostolic practice was
maintained; (3) that at Corinth, and in Galatia, and in Ephesus, the presence of
Jews or proselytes in the church did not prevent the dangers from arising; if
St. Paul relied upon them, they failed him; (4) that the argument demands that
we should admit that Mosaic teaching is a better foundation for Christian
morality and theology than the teaching of Christ and of the Holy Spirit; (5)
that St. Paul's faith in Christ and in His Holy Spirit would have forced him to
act as he did, under any circumstances. He could not have relied upon any power
either in heathen philosophic, or in Mosaic, teaching to establish his converts,
under any circumstances whatsoever; (6) that if we went to China or to India and
told those people that in morality and intelligence they were so far beneath the
provincial Jews and proselytes of St. Paul's day that he could not have dealt
with them as he did with the provincials of Galatia, they would be insulted, and
we should be saying what we should find it hard to prove. And if anyone answers
me that when we use such speech we are thinking only of people in Africa and
other uncivilized lands, I must reply that we are plainly thinking of all men
everywhere, because we everywhere employ the same method, and everywhere alike
shrink from establishing the Church on the apostolic plan. In the light of
experience gained in the last fifteen years I might have enlarged this book, but
it did not seem wise to add greatly to its bulk. I have therefore contented
myself with making as few corrections and additions as possible, and have
carried the argument further in a book, which is now published as a companion
volume to this, entitled The Spontaneous Expansion of the Church and the Causes
which Hinder it. In that book I have tried to set forth the secret of an
expansion which was a most remarkable characteristic of apostolic churches, and
have examined the hindrances which have prevented us from establishing such
churches. If any of my readers desire to pursue the consideration of missionary
methods further, I can only refer them to that book. June 24, 1927 ROLAND ALLEN,
Beaconsfield


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 2: INTRODUCTION
========================================================================

CHAPTER I Introduction In little more than ten years St. Paul established the
Church in .four provinces of the Empire, Galatia, Macedonia, Achaia and Asia.
Before AD 47 there were no churches in these provinces; in AD 57 St. Paul could
speak as if his work there was done, and could plan extensive tours into the far
west without anxiety lest the churches which he had founded might perish in his
absence for want of his guidance and support. The work of the Apostle during
these ten years can therefore be treated as a unity. Whatever assistance he may
have received from the preaching of others, it is unquestioned that the
establishment of the churches in these provinces was really his work. In the
pages of the New Testament he, and he alone, stands forth as their founder. And
the work which he did was really a completed work. So far as the foundation of
the churches is concerned, it is perfectly clear that the writer of the Acts
intends to represent St. Paul's work as complete. The churches were really
established. Whatever disasters fell upon them in later years, whatever failure
there was, whatever ruin, that failure was not due to any insufficiency or lack
of care and completeness in the Apostle's teaching or organization. When he left
them he left them because his work was fully accomplished. This is truly an
astonishing fact. That churches should be founded so rapidly, so securely, seems
to us today, accustomed to the difficulties, the uncertainties, the failures,
the disastrous relapses of our own missionary work, almost incredible. Many
missionaries in later days have received a larger number of converts than St.
Paul; many have preached over a wider area than he; but none have so established
churches. We have long forgotten that such things could be. We have long
accustomed ourselves to accept it as an axiom of missionary work that converts
in a new country must be submitted to a very long probation and training,
extending over generations before they can be expected to be able to stand
alone. Today if a man ventures to suggest that there may be something in the
methods by which St. Paul attained such wonderful results worthy of our careful
attention, and perhaps of our imitation, he is in danger of being accused of
revolutionary tendencies. Yet this is manifestly not as it should be. It is
impossible but that the account so carefully given by St. Luke of the planting
of the churches in the Four Provinces should have something more than a mere
archaeological and historical interest. Like the rest of the Holy Scriptures it
was 'written for our learning'. It was certainly meant to be something more than
the romantic history of an exceptional man, doing exceptional things under
exceptional circumstances -- a story from which ordinary people of a later age
can get no more instruction for practical missionary work than they receive from
the history of the Cid, or from the exploits of King Arthur. It was really
intended to throw light on the path of those who should come after. But it is
argued that as a matter of fact St. Paul was an exceptional man living in
exceptional times, preaching under exceptional circumstances; that he enjoyed
advantages in his birth, his education, his call, his mission, his relationship
to his hearers, such as have been enjoyed by no other; and that he enjoyed
advantages in the peculiar constitution of society at the moment of his call
such as to render his work quite exceptional. To this I must answer: (1) That
St. Paul's missionary method was not peculiarly St. Paul's, he was not the only
missionary who went about establishing churches in those early days. The method
in its broad outlines was followed by his disciples, and they were not all men
of exceptional genius. It is indeed universal, and outside the Christian Church
has been followed by reformers, religious, political, social, in every age and
under most diverse conditions. It is only because he was a supreme example of
the spirit, and power with which it can be used, that we can properly call the
method St. Paul's. (2) That we possess today an advantage of inestimable
importance in that we have the printing press and the whole of the New Testament
where St. Paul had only the Old Testament in Greek. (3) That however highly we
may estimate St. Paul's personal advantages or the assistance which the
conditions of his age afforded, they cannot be so great as to rob his example of
all value for us. In no other work do we set the great masters wholly on one
side, and teach the students of today that whatever they may copy, they may not
copy them, because they lived in a different age under exceptional circumstances
and were endowed with exceptional genius. It is just because they were endowed
with exceptional genius that we say their work is endowed with a universal
character. Either we must drag down St. Paul from his pedestal as the great
missionary, or else we must acknowledge that there is in his work that quality
of universality. The cause which has created this prejudice against the study of
the Pauline method is not far to seek. It is due to the fact that every
unworthy, idle and slip-shod method of missionary work has been lathered upon
the Apostle. Men have wandered over the world, 'preaching the Word', laying no
solid foundations, establishing nothing permanent, leaving no really instructed
society behind them, and have claimed St. Paul's authority for their
absurdities. They have gone through the world, spending their time in denouncing
ancient religions, in the name of St. Paul. They have wandered from place to
place without any plan or method of any kind, guided in their movements by
straws and shadows, persuaded they were imitating St. Paul on his journey from
Antioch to Troas. Almost every intolerable abuse that has ever been known in the
mission field has claimed some sentence or act of St. Paul as its original. It
is in consequence of this, because in the past we have seen missionary work made
ridiculous or dangerous by the vagaries of illiterate or unbalanced imitators of
the Apostle, that we have allowed ourselves to be carried to the opposite
extreme, and to shut our eyes to the profound teaching and practical wisdom of
the Pauline method. Secondly, people have adopted fragments of St. Paul's method
and have tried to incorporate them into alien systems, and the failure which
resulted has been used as an argument against the Apostle's method. For
instance, people have baptized uninstructed converts and the converts have
fallen away; but St. Paul did not baptize uninstructed converts apart from a
system of mutual responsibility which ensured their instruction. Again, they
have gathered congregations and have left them to fend for themselves, with the
result that the congregations have fallen back into heathenism. But St. Paul did
not gather congregations, he planted churches, and he did not leave a church
until it was fully equipped with orders of ministry, sacraments and tradition.
Or again, they have trusted native helpers with the management of mission funds,
and these helpers have grievously misused them; but St. Paul did not do this. He
had no funds with which to entrust anyone. These people have committed funds in
trust to individual native helpers and have been deceived; but St. Paul left the
church to manage its own finance. These people have made the helpers responsible
to them for honest management; but St. Paul never made any church render an
account of its finances to him. Or again, Europeans have ordained ill-educated
native helpers and have repented of it. But they have first broken the bonds
which should have united those whom they ordained to those to whom they were to
minister, and then have expected them to be ministers of a foreign system of
church organization with which neither the ministers nor their congregations
were familiar. St. Paul did not do this. He ordained ministers of the Church for
the Church, and he instituted no elaborate constitution. When these false and
partial attempts at imitating the Apostle's method have failed, men have
declared that the apostolic method was at fault and was quite unsuited to the
condition and circumstances of present-day missions. The truth is that they have
neither understood nor practised the Apostle's method at all. There is yet
another and a more weighty reason: St. Paul's method is not in harmony with the
modern Western spirit. We modern teachers from the West are by nature and by
training persons of restless activity and boundless self-confidence. We are
accustomed to assume an attitude of superiority towards all Eastern peoples, and
to point to our material progress as the justification of our attitude. We are
accustomed to do things ourselves for ourselves, to find our own way, to rely
upon our own exertions, and we naturally tend to be impatient with others who
are less restless and less self-assertive than we are. We are accustomed by long
usage to an elaborate system of church organization, and a peculiar code of
morality. We cannot imagine any Christianity worthy of the name existing without
the elaborate machinery which we have invented. We naturally expect our converts
to adopt from us not only essentials but accidentals. We desire to impart not
only the Gospel, but the Law and the Customs. With that spirit, St. Paul's
methods do not agree, because they were the natural outcome of quite another
spirit, the spirit which preferred persuasion to authority. St. Paul distrusted
elaborate systems of religious ceremonial, and grasped fundamental principles
with an unhesitating faith in the power of the Holy Ghost to apply them to his
hearers and to work out their appropriate external expressions in them. It was
inevitable that methods which were the natural outcome of the mind of St. Paul
should appear as dangerous to us as they appeared to the Jewish Christians of
his own day. The mere fact that they can be made to bear a shallow resemblance
to the methods of no method is sufficient to make the 'apostles of order'
suspicious. In spite of the manifest fact that the Catholic Church was founded
by them, they appear uncatholic to those who live in daily terror of schism. It
seems almost as if we thought it uncatholic to establish the Church too fast.
But that day is passing. In face of the vast proportions of the work to be done,
we are day by day seeking for some new light on the great problem how we may
establish the Catholic Church in the world. In this search, the example of the
Apostle of the Gentiles must be of the first importance to us. He succeeded in
doing what we so far have only tried to do. The facts are unquestionable. In a
very few years, he built the Church on so firm a basis that it could live and
grow in faith and in practice, that it could work out its own problems, and
overcome all dangers and hindrances both from within and without. I propose in
this book to attempt to set forth the methods which he used to produce this
amazing result. I am not writing a book on St. Paul's doctrine. I do not feel it
necessary to argue over again the foundations of the faith. I am a churchman,
and I write as a churchman. I naturally use terms which imply church doctrine.
But the point to which I want to call attention is not the doctrine, which has
been expounded and defended by many, but the Apostle's method. A true
understanding of the method does not depend upon a true interpretation of the
doctrine, but upon a true appreciation of the facts. About the facts there is
very general agreement: about the doctrine there is very little agreement. E.g.
-- It is almost universally agreed that St. Paul taught his converts the rite of
baptism: it is very far from agreed what he meant by baptism. I use about
baptism the terms of the Church of which I am a member; but my argument would be
equally applicable if I used terms which implied a Zwinglian doctrine. Similarly
I use about the orders of the ministry the terms natural to one who believes in
apostolic succession. But the general force of my argument would not be affected
if I used the terms natural to a Presbyterian or a Wesleyan. I suppose that I
should scarcely need to alter more than a word or two, if I believed in 'the
Churches' as firmly as I believe in 'the Church'. I hope, then, that, if I am
happy enough to find readers who do not accept my ecclesiastical position, they
will not allow themselves to be led away into the wilds of a controversy which I
have tried as far as possible to exclude; and will rather seek to consider the
method of the Apostle's work which I set forth than to find fault with the use
of terms or expressions which imply a doctrine which they do not hold. Neither
am I attempting to describe the character of the Apostle or his special
qualifications for the work, or his special preparation for it, still less am I
attempting to write his life. I propose to deal simply with the foundation of
the churches in the four provinces of Galatia, Macedonia, Achaia, Asia, in the
ten years which covered the three missionary journeys. I wish to suggest an
answer to the following questions: I. Was there any antecedent advantage in the
position or character of the cities in which St. Paul founded his churches? We
must inquire: (1) Whether he deliberately selected certain strategic points at
which to establish his churches? (2) Whether his success was due to the
existence of some peculiar class of people to which he made a special appeal?
(3) Whether the social, moral or religious condition of the provinces was so
unlike anything known in modern times, as to render futile any comparison
between his work and ours. II. Was there any peculiar virtue in the way in which
the Apostle presented his gospel? Under this heading we must consider: (1) His
use of miracles; (2) His finance; (3) The substance of his preaching. III. Was
there any peculiar virtue in the teaching which he gave to his converts or in
his method of training his converts for baptism, or for ordination? IV. Was
there any peculiar virtue in his method of dealing with his organized churches?
This will include the means by which (a) discipline was exercised and (b) unity
maintained. I shall try to point out as occasion offers where and how far we now
follow or refuse the Apostle's method. It will, of course, be impossible and
inadvisable to quote particular instances from the mission field. I can only
deal in general terms with tendencies which will, I think, be quite familiar to
any one who is acquainted with the missionary work of the present day. V.
Finally, I shall call attention to certain principles which seem to lie at the
back of all the Apostle's actions and in which I believe we may find the key to
his success, and endeavour to show some at least of the ways in which the
apostolic method might be usefully employed today.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 3: STRATEGIC POINTS
========================================================================

CHAPTER 2 Strategic Points It is quite impossible to maintain that St. Paul
deliberately planned .his journeys beforehand, selected certain strategic points
at which to establish his churches and then actually carried out his designs.
The only argument, which seems to support that theory, is the use of the word
'the work' with regard to his first missionary journey in Acts 13:2, Acts 14:26,
Acts 15:38. In Acts 13:2 it is said, 'The Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas
and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them'. In Acts 14:26 we are told
that the apostles returned to Antioch 'from whence they had been committed to
the grace of God for the work which they had fulfilled'. And in Acts 15:38 St.
Paul complains that Mark 'withdrew from them in Pamphylia and went not with them
to the work'. These words taken together seem naturally to imply (a) that the
apostles started out with a definite plan before them, (b) that they actually
carried out their plans, and (c) that St. Mark's fault lay in the fact that he
had deserted a work which he had undertaken to do. But the difficulties in the
way of that interpretation are very great. If we accept Professor Ramsay's
theory that the churches to which the Epistle to the Galatians was written were
the churches in South Galatia, which St. Paul founded on this journey, then
there can be no dispute that St. Paul did not design to visit them when he
started out from Syria, for in that epistle he distinctly states that he
preached to them because he was either driven to them or detained amongst them
by an infirmity of the flesh. The most natural explanation of the return of John
Mark from Perga is that he turned back because he saw that after the crisis at
Paphos St. Paul was become the real leader of the mission in the place of his
own cousin, Barnabas, and was prepared both to preach outside the synagogue to
Gentiles with greater freedom than he had anticipated, and to admit Gentiles
into fellowship on terms which he was hardly proposing to accept. He saw too
that St. Paul was proposing to penetrate into regions more remote, perhaps more
dangerous, than he had expected. In other words there was at Perga a real change
both in the direction and in the character of the mission. On these grounds it
seems more reasonable to suppose that the words 'the work' are used in a general
sense of the objects of their journey rather than of any defined sphere of
action. But whatever view we take of this first journey, it is perfectly clear
that in the second journey St. Paul was not following any predetermined route.
If he had any definite purpose when he left Antioch it was to go through Cilicia
and South Galatia to Ephesus. It is expressly stated that he tried to preach in
Asia and was forbidden by the Holy Ghost, and that he then attempted to go into
Bithynia and again was forbidden by the Spirit. So he found himself at Troas not
knowing where he was to go, until he was directed by a vision to Macedonia.
Having preached in Philippi, Thessalonica and Beroea he was apparently driven
out of Macedonia and fled to Athens, not, as it seems, with any intention of
establishing himself there as a preacher, but simply as a retreat until
circumstances would allow him to return to Macedonia. When he was expelled from
Athens he went to Corinth, either because that was the most convenient place
from whence to keep in touch with Macedonia, or because he was directed thither
by the Spirit. In all this there is little sign of premeditation or deliberate
design. Only one other place remains at which St. Paul established the church
before his first imprisonment, viz. Ephesus, and it appears from Acts 18:19 that
he touched at that place in the ordinary course of his journey to Jerusalem, and
that, finding the people ready to listen to him, he promised to return again. On
this third journey St. Paul apparently laid his plans and executed them as they
were designed so far as Ephesus, but after that he was so uncertain in his
movements as to lay himself open to an accusation of vacillation. It is during
this journey that we find the first expressed plan for future work. Whilst at
Ephesus, 'Paul purposed in the spirit when he had passed through Macedonia and
Achaia to go to Jerusalem saying: After I have been there, I must also see
Rome'. I cannot help concluding then from this brief review that St. Paul did
not deliberately plan his missionary tours, but nevertheless there are certain
facts in the history of his missionary journeys which demand attention. 1. Both
St. Luke and St. Paul speak constantly of the provinces rather than of the
cities. Thus St. Paul was forbidden to preach the word in Asia, he was called
from Troas not to Philippi, or to Thessalonica, but to Macedonia. Speaking of
the collection for the saints at Jerusalem St. Paul says that he boasted that
Achaia was ready a year ago. The suggestion is that in St. Paul's view the unit
was the province rather than the city. 2. Secondly, his work was confined within
the limits of Roman administration. It is perfectly clear that in preaching in
South Galatia, St. Paul was evangelizing the Roman province next in order to his
native province of Cilicia, in which there were already Christian churches.
Between these two, there lay the territory of Lycaonia Antiochi, and across this
territory St. Paul must have passed when he went from Tarsus to Lystra and
Iconium. Yet we are never told that he made any attempt to preach in that
region. From this fact we must certainly infer that St. Paul did deliberately
consider the strategic value of the provinces and places in which he preached.
The territory of Antiochus -- Lycaonia Antiochi -- was not so important from the
view of the propagation of the Gospel as the region of Lystra. St. Paul
deliberately chose the one before the other. 3. Thirdly, St. Paul's theory of
evangelizing a province was not to preach in every place in it himself, but to
establish centres of Christian life in two or three important places from which
the knowledge might spread into the country round. This is important, not as
showing that he preferred to preach in a capital rather than in a provincial
town or in a village, but because he intended his congregation to become at once
a centre of light. Important cities may be made the graves of a mission as
easily as villages. There is no particular virtue in attacking a centre or
establishing a church in an important place unless the church established in the
important place is a church possessed of sufficient life to be a source of light
to the whole country round. It is not enough for the church to be established in
a place where many are coming and going unless the people who come and go not
only learn the Gospel, but learn it in such a way that they can propagate it. It
has often happened that a mission has been established in an important city, and
the surrounding country has been left untouched so far as the efforts of the
native Christians have been concerned, because the Gospel was preached in such a
form that the native convert who himself received it did not understand how to
spread it, nor realize that it was entrusted to him for that purpose. By
establishing the church in two or three centres St. Paul claimed that he had
evangelized the whole province. Ten years after his first start from Antioch, he
told the Romans that he had 'fully preached the Gospel of Christ from Jerusalem
and round about Illyricum', and that he had 'no more place in these parts'. In
that single sentence we have the explanation and the justification of St. Paul's
establishment of the churches in important centres in a province. When he had
occupied two or three centres he had really and effectually occupied the
province. All the cities, or towns, in which he planted churches were centres of
Roman administration, of Greek civilization, of Jewish influence, or of some
commercial importance. (1) Just as he refused to preach in native states and
passed through large towns in the territory of Antiochus without stopping to
preach, so within the Roman province he passed through native provincial towns
like Misthia or Vasada in order to preach in Lystra and Derbe -- military posts
in which there was a strong Roman element. Professor Ramsay has shown that there
is in the Acts an apparent intention to contrast the conduct meted out to St.
Paul by local provincial authorities with that which he received at the hands of
Roman officials and to present the Romans in the light of protectors of the
Apostle against the persecutions of the Jews. No doubt in selecting as the
sphere of his work the centres of Roman administration, St. Paul was led by the
desire to obtain for himself and for his people the security afforded by a
strong government. He felt that as a Roman citizen he could in the last resort
expect and receive the protection of Roman officials against the fanatical
violence of the Jews; but he did not only seek Roman protection. He found under
the Roman government something more than peace and security of travel. He found
not only toleration and an open field for his preaching, there was also in the
mere presence of Roman officials an influence which materially assisted his
work. The idea of the world-wide empire which they represented, the idea of the
common citizenship of men of many different races in that one empire, the strong
authority of the one law, the one peace, the breaking down of national
exclusiveness, all these things prepared men's minds to receive St. Paul's
teaching of the Kingdom of Christ, and of the common citizenship of all
Christians in it. (2) The centres in which St. Paul established his churches
were all centres of Greek civilization. Even at Lystra, half the inscriptions
which have been discovered are Greek, while the other half are Latin. Everywhere
Roman government went hand in hand with Greek education. This education provided
St. Paul with his medium of communication. There is no evidence of any attempt
to translate the Scriptures into the provincial dialects of Asia Minor. St. Paul
preached in Greek and wrote in Greek, and all his converts who read at all were
expected to read the Scriptures in Greek. For St. Paul, the one language was as
important as the one government. Moreover, the influence of Greek civilization
was an influence which tended to the spread of general education, and
Christianity from the very first was a religion of education. From the first,
Christians were learners. They were expected to be able to give a reason for the
hope that was in them. They were expected to learn something, if only a very
little, of the Old Testament and of the stock proofs that Jesus was the Messiah.
They were expected to know something of the life and teaching of Christ, and
something of Christian doctrine. Before very long it became a common argument of
the Christian apologists that amongst Christians, 'tradesmen, slaves, and old
women knew how to give some account of God and did not believe without
evidence'. It was from the widespread influence of Greek education that they
were able to acquire this, and it was to places where that education was
established that St. Paul naturally turned. (3) Nearly all the places in which
St. Paul established churches were centres of Jewish influence. St. Paul, as a
Jew, was at home in the Jewry. He did not enter these great cities as a mere
stranger. He came as a member of a family, as a member of a powerful and highly
privileged association. Under the Roman Government the Jews enjoyed singular
advantages. Their religion was definitely recognized. They had liberty to
administer their common funds in their own way and to administer their own laws.
They were exempt from the obligation to share in the worship of the Emperor,
they enjoyed freedom from a military service in which it was evident they could
not take part without violating their religion. They had many other privileges
of less importance, but of considerable advantage. When, therefore, St. Paul
took up his residence in the Jewry or entered the synagogue on the Sabbath Day,
he had for the moment a singular opportunity. He had an audience provided for
him which understood the underlying principles of his religion, and was familiar
with the texts on which he based his argument. When he went out into the city,
he went as a member of a community which was associated in the minds of all men
with the idea of a very strict, if unreasonable, observance of religion. Men
would naturally expect from him as a Jew an unbending stiffness towards every
form of idolatry, and the unhesitating maintenance as a part of his religious
system of a strict code of morals. Much as the Greek and Roman world disliked
and spurned the Jew, yet the religion of the Jew was exercising a very wide
influence and no small attractive power over the minds of some of the best and
most thoughtful of the people. (4) St. Paul established his churches at places
which were centres of the world's commerce. They were cities which occupied an
important place as leaders of the provinces. They were foremost in every
movement of policy or thought. They were sometimes almost ludicrously jealous of
one another and strained all their powers in emulous rivalry to maintain their
position as leaders. But they were leaders, and they felt it their duty to lead.
They represented something larger than themselves and they looked out into a
wider world than the little provincial town which was wholly absorbed in its own
petty interests. Thus they were centres of unity, realizing that they had a
responsibility for a world outside themselves. Even the settlers in Lystra and
Derbe on the borders of a province realized that they were pioneers of a
civilization which they were to extend to the barbarous country round. They
lived in a life that was larger than their own. They could not live wholly to
themselves. Nor were these cities only centres of their own provinces. Through
some of them the commerce of the world passed. They were the great marts where
the material and intellectual wealth of the world was exchanged. They were bound
to the whole Empire by great roads of which they were the keys. In their streets
the busiest and most fervent life of the Empire hurried to and fro. How constant
that intercourse was we learn not only from the history of the early churches:
we cannot forget that Phrygian, who in his single life made the journey from
Phrygia to Rome no less than seventy-two times. These places were not only
centres of unity, they were points in the circumference of a larger unity. Thus
at first sight it seems to be a rule which may be unhesitatingly accepted that
St. Paul struck at the centres of Roman administration, the centres of Hellenic
civilization, the centres of Jewish influence, the keys of the great trade
routes. We must not, however, allow ourselves to lay over-much stress on these
characteristics of the places at which St. Paul established his churches. They
were common to a great many towns and cities on the great highways of the
Empire. If the Apostle had gone to Laodicea or to Dyrrachium the same remarks
might have been made about those places. In Macedonia, Beroea was not as
important a place as Pella. St. Paul plainly did not select where he would
preach simply on grounds like these: he was led of the Spirit, and when we speak
of his strategic centres, we must recognize that they were natural centres; but
we must also recognize that for missionary work they were strategic centres
because he made them such. They were not centres at which he must stop, but
centres from which he might begin; not centres into which life drained but
centres from which it spread abroad. We have often heard in modern days of
concentrated missions at great centres. We have often heard of the importance of
seizing strategic points. But there is a difference between our seizing of
strategic centres and St. Paul's. To seize a strategic centre we need not only a
man capable of recognizing it, but a man capable of seizing it. The seizing of
strategic points implied a strategy. It is part of a plan of attack upon the
whole country. Concentrated missions at strategic centres, if they are to win
the province, must be centres of evangelistic life. In great cities are great
prisons as well as great railway stations. Concentrated missions may mean
concentrated essence of control or concentrated essence of liberty: a
concentrated mission may be a great prison or a great market: it may be a safe
in which all the best intellect of the day is shut up, or it may be a mint from
which the coin of new thought is put into circulation. A great many of our best
men are locked up in strategic centres: if once they get in they find it hard to
get out. At many of the strategic points where we have established our
concentrated missions it is noticeable that the church rather resembles a prison
or a safe or a swamp into which the best life of the country round is collected
than a mint or a spring or a railway station from which life flows out into the
country round. We are sometimes so enamoured with the strategic beauty of a
place that we spend our time in fortifying it whilst the opportunity for a great
campaign passes by unheeded or neglected. St. Paul's centres were centres
indeed. He seized strategic points because he had a strategy. The foundation of
churches in them was part of a campaign. In his hands they became the sources of
rivers, mints from which the new coin of the Gospel was spread in every
direction. They were centres from which he could start new work with new power.
But they were this not only because they were naturally fitted for this purpose,
but because his method of work was so designed that centres of intellectual and
commercial activity became centres of Christian activity. St. Paul was less
dependent upon these natural advantages than we generally suppose. We have seen
that he did not start out with any definite design to establish his churches in
this place or in that. He was led as God opened the door; but wherever he was
led he always found a centre, and seizing upon that centre he made it a centre
of Christian life. How he did this we shall see in the following chapters.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 4: CLASS
========================================================================

CHAPTER 3 Class In these days there is a strong and apparently growing tendency
to lay great stress on the importance of directing attention to some particular
class of people in a country which we desire to evangelize. We had a striking
illustration of the wonderful results which may be obtained by a judicious
appeal to an influential class in the history of the 'Natural Foot Society' in
China. The success of that movement was largely due to the fact that the
promoters of the Society did not spend their time in preaching to the ignorant
and conservative rustics of the villages, but began by enlisting the support of
enlightened and well-to-do official and commercial families. As a consequence of
that policy a movement started by a few foreigners became in ten or twelve years
so firmly established in the country that foreign encouragement and support were
no longer necessary. Similarly, it was the appreciation of the value of a
special class for the achievement of certain ends that led to the foundation of
movements like the Student Christian Movement, and the same thought really lies
at the back of nearly all educational missions in the foreign field as well as
of special missions to official classes, whilst at the other end of the scale we
are often told that in India we should concentrate all our efforts on the
upraising of the depressed castes in the belief that the sight of the recovery
and civilization of the most degraded and most despised will exercise an
irresistible attraction over the other sections of society. A common explanation
of the success of St. Paul's preaching in the Four Provinces is that he followed
this method. There was, we are told, in the Four Provinces, a special class of
people specially prepared for the reception and establishment of the Gospel, and
it is used as an argument against the employment of St. Paul's method in modern
days under modern conditions that such a class does not now exist, and that our
converts have none of the special advantages which his enjoyed. It is therefore
important to inquire whether there was any special class to which he did in fact
appeal, and whether the adherents which came to him from any special class were
sufficiently numerous to justify us in rejecting his method, on the ground that
that method was used by him under such peculiar circumstances, and applied by
him only in dealing with converts of such special and peculiar character. Is it
possible to maintain that St. Paul established Christianity in the Four
Provinces by enrolling in its service the gifts and influence of any particular
important class of men? This would scarcely appear to be the case. St. Paul
always began his work by preaching in the synagogue, to Jews and God-fearing
Greeks. But neither Jews nor proselytes provided him with such a class. It very
soon became apparent that Christianity could not take root in Jewish soil. The
Christian spirit was in harmony rather with the freedom of the Greek mind than
with the narrow legality of the Jewish. It was altogether too large to be bound
by the shackles of Judaism. From the very first it was driven out of the nation
in which it was born to find in a strange country not only its own life, but the
life of those to whom it came. St. Paul preached in the synagogue, indeed, but
he was not allowed to preach there very long, nor did many Jews join themselves
to him. It is not necessary here to examine the history of the founding of the
church in the Four Provinces, it is not necessary to examine the epistles of St.
Paul to the churches in the Four Provinces, to show that those churches were
composed almost entirely of Greek converts, for there is almost complete
agreement on this subject. Again and again St. Luke draws a sharp distinction
between the obstinate refusal of the Jews, and the eager readiness of the Greeks
to listen to St. Paul's teaching. Again and again St. Paul refers to his
converts as men who knew idolatry by personal experience. But St. Paul's
attempts to preach to the Jews were not only for the most part unsuccessful,
they also stirred up great difficulties in his way. Not only did they invariably
result in personal violence offered to him and sometimes to his converts, not
only did they involve the sudden suspension of his work, whilst he fled for
refuge from the fury which he had aroused; but they also brought into prominence
a difficulty with which we today are only too familiar. They raised in the most
acute form the question of the Apostle's own authority and the truth of his
message. St. Paul entered the cities as a Jew, and as a teacher of a form of
Judaism. He claimed to be preaching a revelation given to men by the God of
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He came to proclaim that the Messiah of the Jews was
come, and had shown Himself to be not only the Saviour of the Jews, but of all
men. Yet the moment he delivered this message the whole Jewish community rose up
against him, expelled him, and sought to take his life as a blasphemer of God.
Now if with us today the great stumblingblock in the way of our missions is the
practical denial ofChristianity, the indifference of men of our own blood, who
yet call themselves Christians, this violent persecution of St. Paul, by the
religious teachers of his own nation, must have been a far greater
stumblingblock; for it must have appeared to large numbers of people a
sufficient refutation of the truth of his message. If from Jerusalem, and round
about to Illyricum St. Paul had preached the Gospel, from Jerusalem and round
about to Illyricum that Gospel was denied by all the people who were naturally
best qualified to judge. When St. Paul turned to the Gentiles it must have
appeared that he had given up the attempt to convince the Jews, who really knew
this Jesus of Nazareth, and that he was now wandering round the world,
continually getting further from the place where the facts were known, trying to
teach those who did not know something which those who did know rejected with
scorn. This difficulty would have been largely avoided if St. Paul had not begun
his preaching in the synagogue. It was when the Jews saw the multitudes, who had
been worshippers in their synagogues, following the Apostle that 'they were
filled with envy' and went about contradicting and blaspheming. No doubt the
difficulty was necessarily there and could not have been avoided, but by his
preaching in the synagogue St. Paul brought the difficulty at once to a head in
its acutest form. So it was that St. Paul was constrained to advertise publicly
the breach between himself and the Jews, proclaiming in the synagogue his
severance from the Jews. The tendency to do this became more marked as time
passed, until he went so far as to force the attention of all men to the
separation by opening his preaching-room next door to the synagogue. This act of
St. Paul seems at first sight deliberately calculated to stir the passions of
his countrymen, -- and it is difficult to understand why St. Luke should have
called our attention to it so carefully, unless he had seen in it a distinct
advance in the relation between St. Paul and the Jews, between Christianity as
represented by St. Paul and Judaism. In order that Christianity might be fairly
represented to the Greeks, it was necessary for St. Paul to emphasize the truth
that Christianity was not a sect of Judaism, and that its truth or falsehood was
wholly independent of the attitude of Jewish authorities towards it. There may
be thus some reason in the contention that St. Paul preached first in the
synagogue from a sense of religious obligation as much as from any motives of
policy, and this seems to be the natural force of his words in the synagogues of
Antioch and Corinth and his general attitude towards the Jews in the Epistle to
the Romans. The preaching in the synagogue may have been a religious duty; it
was certainly not an unmixed advantage. St. Paul may have felt that he owed a
debt to the Jews, but he can hardly be said to have deliberately aimed at the
conversion of the Jews as a class. Nevertheless, though St. Paul did not make
many Jewish converts in the synagogue, yet it was from the synagogue that he
received a certain number of converts whose adherence must have been of great
importance to the Church. Proselytes and God-fearing Greeks brought into the
Church elements which were of the utmost value for the future life of the body.
They had already an established conviction of the Unity of God and of the folly
of idolatry. They possessed a conviction and experience of the necessity of
morality for true religion. They had an acquaintance with the theory and
practice of public worship and some knowledge of the Old Testament. St. Paul was
already using the Old Testament, not only as a textbook of controversy; he was
also transferring it from the nation to which it naturally belonged to the new
Israel to which it spiritually belonged. Already he was treating the story of
Hagar as an allegory, already he was treating circumcision as a spiritual, not a
carnal, rite, already he was proclaiming Abraham the father of the faithful. All
this, some, at least, of the God-fearing Greeks were prepared to receive and
understand and teach. At the same time it is possible to exaggerate the
influence which these people exercised in the Church. They cannot have been very
numerous, for St. Paul speaks of the majority of Christians in his churches as
having been idolaters. The epistles to the Macedonian churches are the epistles
which demand no acquaintance with the Old Testament for their understanding, and
the moral warnings in those epistles refer to the vices which are common to
heathen surroundings. When, then, we take it for granted, as we so often do,
that the existence of a synagogue and the presence of some God-fearing Greeks in
a city so alter the problem of church building that methods used by St. Paul
under these circumstances cannot possibly be applied to any modern conditions, I
think we are labouring under a delusion. The existence of the synagogue and the
presence of God-fearing Greeks enabled St. Paul to receive into the church a few
people who could read the Old Testament and were acquainted with the Law, a few
people who were before dissatisfied with idolatry or heathen philosophy and were
seeking after a truer and purer teaching. The Jews who joined St. Paul had
enjoyed this knowledge from their infancy, the Greeks who had become proselytes
had enjoyed it for a few years. But this is not enough to justify us in
imagining that the presence of these few people in a church made so vast a
difference, that there can be no comparison between a church in which they were
and a church in which they were not. Outside the synagogue St. Paul does not
seem to have addressed himself to any particular class. He certainly did not
give himself up almost exclusively to preaching to the loafers, the porters, the
ignorant and degraded, the casual labourers in the streets. He does not seem to
have preached at street corners to the idle or curious crowd. It is true that
the lame man at Lystra, who was apparently sitting by the wayside begging, heard
St. Paul speak. It is true that the soothsaying girl at Thessalonica had
apparently heard him, and that we are told that he preached in the Agora at
Athens, but whatever we may say with regard to the lame man at Lystra, it is by
no means clear that the soothsayer at Thessalonica was doing more than repeating
the popular estimate of St. Paul and his preaching. At any rate, it is
particularly stated that he was not preaching at the time, but was on his way to
the place of prayer, where he was accustomed to preach. As for the Agora at
Athens, that was certainly not what we ordinarily mean by the street corner. If
then the fact that the lame man at Lystra heard St. Paul speak necessarily
implies that St. Paul taught in the street, we must conclude that this was an
exception to his general practice, for as a rule St. Paul preached first in the
synagogue and afterwards in the house of some man of good repute. It is curious
how careful St. Luke is to tell us exactly where St. Paul lodged, or in whose
house he taught, e.g. we are told that at Philippi he lodged with Lydia and
preached at the prayer-place. At Thessalonica he lodged with Jason, and
apparently taught in his house; at Corinth he lodged with Aquila, and preached
in the house of Titus Justus; and at Ephesus he preached in the School of
Tyrannus. St. Luke evidently desires us to understand that St. Paul was careful
to provide things honest in the sight of all men, and took thought for what was
honourable and of good report, as well as of what was true, and of what was
pure, and of what was just. On the other hand, St. Paul did not seek
particularly to attract the scholars, the officials, the philosophers. He
certainly did not address himself to them. If he did so once at Athens, he
deliberately refused to take that course at Corinth. He himself says that he did
not receive many converts from those classes. 'From the middle and lower classes
of society,' says Bishop Lightfoot, 'it seems probable that the Church drew her
largest reinforcements.' Similarly, Professor Ramsay declares that 'the classes
where education and work go hand in hand were the first to come under the
influence of the new religion'. This conclusion is supported by St. Paul's
reference to the deep poverty of the churches of Macedonia; and St. Luke by his
careful note of the conversion of 'chief women' at Thessalonica, and of 'women
of honourable estate' at Beroea, seems to suggest that men of rank and
importance were few. Moreover, the frequent references to slavery in the
Epistles show that many of the Christians belonged to that class. I conclude
then that the majority of St. Paul's converts were of the lower commercial and
working classes, labourers, freed-men, and slaves; but that he himself did not
deliberately aim at any class. Moreover, it is difficult to believe that he did
not also attract many people who make the least desirable converts. We are all
familiar with the experience that people who are most ready to receive new
impressions, to follow new ideas, to embrace new creeds, to practise new rites,
are by no means always the most stable and admirable, sober and trustworthy,
high-principled and honest hearted of men. And one form of St. Paul's preaching
was of a kind peculiarly suited to attract many undesirable elements. Miracles
draw a gaping crowd of idle, superstitious, and inquisitive folk. They make
converts of those who are on the look-out for any means of gaining and
exercising an influence over their fellows, people like the sons of Sceva, men
who have a craving for power, without the natural ability which will enable them
to win and exercise it in a natural way. They make converts of the weak-minded
and credulous. That many such did approach St. Paul seems inevitable. If the
churches of Galatia were anything like the churches of Achaia and Macedonia and
Asia there were certainly many members whose ideas of religion and morality were
far from high. St. Paul did not exclude such. But he did not make his first
converts of such. He so taught that no church of his foundation was without a
strong centre of respectable, religious-minded people. These naturally took the
lead and preserved the church from rapid decay. Thus it would appear that St.
Paul made no attempt to seek after any particular class of hearers. He had his
place of preaching and addressed himself to all who would listen, and, just as
in China today, men of different classes came in whilst he was preaching or
called upon him for private conversation. His converts were no better and no
worse than ours in any Eastern land. Not here is the secret of his peculiar
success to be found. We cannot excuse our failure in the East on the ground that
we have no synagogues to preach in, no proselytes to convert. If half our
converts had been Jews or proselytes I think it would have made little
difference. We have had plenty of good and able converts. In this St. Paul had
no advantage over us. But it may be said that if this is true of the civilized
East it is certainly not true of many other parts of the world. If St. Paul's
method of establishing churches is conceivably applicable to civilized peoples,
it is certainly inapplicable to the uncivilized, the savage, the illiterate. To
this, one answer is that we have never tried, and therefore cannot tell, what
may be the power of the Holy Ghost in such cases. But it is at least strange
that we should hitherto have applied exactly the same rule to those whom no one
ventures to call uncivilized and to those whom no one would call civilized. And
further it is true that, where uncivilized men have accepted the Gospel, a very
few years have wrought a most amazing change in their mental and moral outlook.
They are often not incapable of education of the highest order, they are not
destitute of natural ability to lead, they are no mean evangelists. Examples can
be found in the South Seas, in Papua, in New Zealand, in Central, South and West
Africa, and among the low castes of India, in fact, everywhere. Is it true that
the missions to the civilized people of the East are established more quickly or
surely than those amongst the uncivilized? Our difficulty is that we have not
yet tried St. Paul's method anywhere, and have used the same argument to bolster
up our dread of independence everywhere. For such an attitude St. Paul's
practice and the accounts of his work handed down to us lend no authority.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 5: MORAL AND SOCIAL CONDITION
========================================================================

CHAPTER 4 Moral and Social Condition The places at which St. Paul established
his churches were centres of Roman and Greek civilization. Now when we speak of
Graeco-Roman civilization we generally have in mind the lofty teachings of the
great philosophers, and we imagine a world permeated with those teachings. But
as a matter of fact there was in the empire no common standard of civilization.
The great cities were the homes of a bewildering variety of religions, and of an
amazing assortment of people in every stage of civilization or barbarism. Their
inhabitants differed one from another in manners and religion as widely as the
Kaffir differs from the Englishman. Dr. Bigg tells us that the state of the
empire in the first century can only be compared with the state of India since
the conquests of Clive and Warren Hastings. This is a circumstance of the first
importance when we turn to consider the moral surroundings of the churches
founded by St. Paul in the Four Provinces. We are sometimes apt to think that
the social condition of those to whom St. Paul preached may account for his
success in establishing the Church, and the answer comes with irresistible force
that the majority of St. Paul's converts were born and bred in an atmosphere
certainly not better, and in some respects even worse, than that with which we
have to deal today in India or China. There were of course lofty philosophies:
there were profound mysteries: there were simple religious people like some of
those whom Dion Chrysostom met in his wanderings. These are everywhere to be met
in all ages, the people of profound thought or of simple faith; but such people
were not really typical of the religion and morals of the Four Provinces in St.
Paul's day. They were no more typical than Chang Chih Tung was typical of the
Chinese Mandarinate, or Tulsi Dâs typical of the Hindus, or Alfred the Great of
the Saxons of his day. The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius were as far removed
from the religious life of the empire as the doctrines of Seneca were from his
practice. So Friedlander contrasts the evidence afforded by the literature and
the monuments of the early centuries of our era. 'The literature was chiefly the
work of unbelievers or indifferentists, or of those who strove to spiritualize,
purify or transform, the popular beliefs by reflection and interpretation. The
monuments, on the other hand, to a great extent, at least, had their origin in
those classes of society which were little affected by literature and its
prevailing tendencies... thus in the majority of cases they are witnesses of a
positive belief in a system of polytheism, of a faith which is free from doubt
and subtlety alike.' I cannot here, of course, attempt to depict the moral and
social conditions of the provinces, but to a right understanding of St. Paul's
work it is essential that we should remember four elements in the life of the
people. (1) The first of these is the prevalence of belief in demons. 'In times
of distress heathenism turned naturally to devil worship.' 'Not merely idolatry,
but every phase and form of life was ruled by them, they sat on thrones, they
hovered round cradles, the earth was literally a hell.' 'The whole world lieth
in the Evil One.' Not only Barbarians, not only Phrygians, but Romans, Greeks,
and Jews all alike believed this. Not only the uneducated, but the most cultured
were as fully persuaded of this universal power of devils as are the Chinese or
the Gonds today. And the consequences of that belief were then what they are
today -- physical and psychical disease, cruelty, bondage, vice. Men like Pliny
the EIder, who argued that it was the height of impiety to attribute to the gods
adultery and strife and to believe in divinities of theft and crime, believed in
the most horrible forms of magic. Human sacrifice was not unknown and belief in
witchcraft was universal. Educated men believed that any enemy could practise in
secret upon their lives by means of incantations. Plutarch was a good and
learned man but he was quite serious, when, speaking of rites associated with
unlucky and evil days, the devouring of raw flesh, mangling of bodies, fastings
and beatings of the breast, obscene cries at the altars, ragings and ravings, he
said that he did not suppose any god was worshipped with these rites, but that
they were instituted to propitiate and keep off evil demons. To this cause are
to be traced the magic incantations of which so many have recently been found,
and of which the formulae probably filled those magical books (worth 50,000
pieces of silver) which were publicly burnt at Ephesus under the influence of
St. Paul's preaching. From this root spring the leaden tablets, the bits of
bones, the belief in dreams and omens, the magical love-potions, the epitaphs on
children carried away by spiritual beings, in a word, a whole world of abject
superstition. When we read the treatises of the philosophers we think of
religion in the empire as we think of religion in the East when we read the
books of Sir Edwin Arnold or Mrs. Besant. When we hear Dr. Bigg tell us that 'it
is probably not too hard a thing to say that demon worship was the really
operative religion of the vast mass of the people of the empire', we think of
the religion of the empire as we think of the religion of the East when we read
Dr. Copleston's account of Buddhism in Ceylon, or Professor de Groot's
description of the religion of the Chinese. Professor de Groot takes the lowest
possible view of the character of Chinese religion, but whole chapters of his
descriptions of Chinese demonolatry might be incorporated in Dr. Bigg's or Dr.
Friedlander's account of popular religion in the empire without affecting in any
way the general impression which those accounts are calculated to produce upon
our minds. Before conversion every one of St. Paul's hearers was born and bred
in this atmosphere of superstitious terror, and even after conversion the vast
majority of them were still 'used to the idol' and did not cease to believe in
demons. The preaching of St. Paul and the other apostles was not a denial of
this belief; it provided those who accepted it with invincible weapons wherewith
to meet the armies of evil, but it did not deny the existence of those armies.
It was only the constant sense of the presence of the Spirit of Christ, before
whom all spiritual powers must bow, that enabled Christians to banish these
demons from their hearts and from the world in which they lived. Deliverance
came not by denial but by conquest. Incidentally I should like to remark that in
heathen lands it might still perhaps be the wiser course to preach constantly
the supremacy of Christ over all things spiritual and material, than to deny or
deride the very notion of these spirits. Some of our missionaries know, and it
were well for others if they did know, that it is much easier to make a man hide
from us his belief in devils than it is to eradicate the belief from his heart.
By denying their existence or by scoffing at those who believe in them we do not
help our converts to overcome them, but only to conceal their fears from us. By
preaching the supremacy of Christ we give them a real antidote, we take to them
a real Saviour who helps them in their dark hours. (2) The second circumstance
which it is impossible to ignore in considering the work of St. Paul in the Four
Provinces is the moral character of the religious rites. Some of the mysteries
were no doubt capable of a highly moral interpretation. Harnack has collected in
two or three pages the most important elements of the intellectual and religious
tendencies in which the mingling of Hellenism and Orientalism, prepared the way
for the preaching of the Gospel. 'The sharp division between the soul and the
body, and the more or less exclusive importance attached to the spirit; the
sharp division between God and the world, and the recognition that the Godhead
is incomprehensible and indescribable yet great and good; the depreciation of
the material world and of the body; the yearning for redemption from the world,
the flesh and death; the conviction that redemption is dependent on knowledge
and expiation; that life eternal is to be found in return to God, that the means
are at hand and can be sought, that the seeker can be initiated into the secret
knowledge by which the redemption is brought to him.' 'The soul, God, knowledge,
expiation, asceticism, redemption, eternal life, with individualism and with
humanity substituted for nationality -- these were the sublime thoughts which
were living and operative....Wherever vital religion existed it was in this
circle of thought and existence that it drew breath.' And he goes on, 'The
actual number of those who lived within the circle is a matter of no moment
....The history of religion, so far as it is really a history of vital religion,
runs always in a very narrow groove.' But for our present inquiry the number of
those who lived within the circle is a matter of first importance. A few elect
souls understood a spiritual purpose in the mysteries of Ceres or of Isis or of
Cybele; but, to the vast majority, these rites did not suggest profound truths
any more than the dancing and self-mutilation of the wandering priest -- who
made the round of the villages with his little shrine and idol and went through
his performance of penance and expiation whilst a collection was being made on
his behalf -- suggested to the villagers any profound truths concerning sin and
redemption. And the religious rites performed in the temples, both in respect of
the filthy objects of devotion and the indecent concomitants of worship, were
disgusting beyond all words. It is as impossible to quote the legends of the
gods so worshipped, as it is to quote the stories of the Incarnations of
Krishna, whilst the accompanying circumstances of the worship were only less
filthy than the lives of the divinities in whose honour they were performed.
Suffice it to say that the temples of Ephesus and Corinth were no more the homes
of virtue than the temples in Benares or Peking. The language of St. Paul in the
Epistle to the Ephesians exactly describes the condition of the people from whom
his converts came, and amongst whom they lived. It is upon these two conditions,
superstition and uncleanness, that nearly all our arguments for our modern
methods of conducting missionary enterprise in heathen lands today are based,
and it is necessary that we should remind ourselves that, whatever may be the
merits of St. Paul's methods, they do not rest upon social and religious
conditions superior to those under which most of our modern missions are
conducted. (3) But in addition to these there were two evils, the like of which
are not now to be found throughout the world, slavery and the amphitheatre. It
is not necessary here to repeat what is perfectly familiar to all men concerning
the shows in the amphitheatre. What is more important for us is to note the
attitude adopted even by the very best men towards these inhuman spectacles. Dr.
Bigg tells us that there are 'but three passages in which heathen writers
express anything like adequate condemnation' of these shows. And Friedlander
says, 'In all Roman literature there is scarcely one note of the horror of today
at these inhuman delights.' For the most part they were spoken of with absolute
indifference. People like Pliny and Cicero defended them as 'affording a
splendid training for the eye, though perhaps not for the ear, in the endurance
of pain and and as inspiring disdain of death and love of honourable wounds'.
Even Marcus Aurelius was simply bored by them and complains that they were
'always the same'; whilst that model of Pagan virtue, Symmachus, was moved to
bitter complaints by the heartless conduct of some Saxons who committed suicide
in their cells rather than kill one another in public at the show which he had
prepared in honour of his son's praetorship. The extraordinary fascination which
they exercised over the minds even of those who considered themselves far
superior to such temptations is best illustrated by the oft-repeated tale of
Alypius. Alypius was dragged into the theatre by some college friends. '"If you
drag me thither and put me there can you force me to give my eyes or put my mind
to such a show?" he cried. "I shall be absent from it in spirit though present
in body, and thus I shall overcome both you and it." When they had found their
places he shut his eyes tight and forbade his thoughts to dally with such
crimes. Would he could have scaled his ears also! For at some turn in the fight,
the whole people broke into a roar of shouting, and overcome by curiosity,
confident that whatever happened he could despise and forget even though he saw
it, he opened his eyes. Then was he struck with a deadlier wound in his soul
than the Gladiator whom he lusted to behold received in his flesh; and fell more
miserably than the poor wretch over whose fall arose that bellow which pierced
his ears and unlocked his eyes, and laid open his soul to the fatal thrust ....
For, with the sight of blood, he drank in ruthlessness; no longer did he turn
away, but fixed his gaze, and drank the cup of fury, and knew it not; he was
fascinated by the din of battle, and drunk with murderous joy. He was no longer
the Alypius who had come, but one of the crowd to which he had come, and the
hardened accomplice of those who had brought him! Why should I say more? He
gazed, he shouted, he raved, he carried home with him a frenzy which goaded him
to return, not only with those who at first had dragged him thither, but before
them dragging others in his turn.' 'No one,' says Tertullian, 'partakes of such
pleasures without their strong excitements, no one comes under their excitement
without their natural lapses.' These shows had two very disastrous results: (1)
They kept before all people's minds the division of humanity into two classes,
men who had rights and men who had none, which was the great curse of slavery,
and (2) this excitement made all other more reasonable forms of amusement seem
tame. In particular they had a most disastrous influence over the theatre. 'What
with the powerful excitement of the circus and the arena, the stage could only
draw its audience by ignoble means, rough jokes and sensual by-play.' Nothing
was too gross, nothing too indecent, to be displayed in the theatre, nothing too
sacred to be parodied there. The legends of the gods often supplied the subjects
of the most horrible and degrading scenes. 'When Bathyllus, a beautiful boy, was
dancing, Leda, the most impudent actress of mimes, felt like a mere country
novice on seeing such mastership in the art of refined sensuality.' Apuleius
describes a Pyrrhic dance which he saw at a festival at Corinth. There was a
lofty mountain built of wood to resemble Mount Ida, covered with trees from
which a fountain poured down a stream of clear water. A few goats were feeding
on the grass and Paris, a young man dressed in flowing robes and crowned with a
tiara, was tending them. Presently a beautiful boy, representing Mercury, whose
only covering was a mantle thrown over his left shoulder, danced forward,
holding in his hand a golden apple which he gave to Paris. Then a girl appeared
dressed as Juno, having on her head a white diadem and carrying a sceptre. She
was followed by another whom you could guess to be Minerva, for she had on her
head a shining helmet encircled with an olive wreath. She raised her shield and
brandished her spear like the goddess engaged in war. After these came another
whose surpassing beauty and grace of colour proclaimed her to be Venus, and
Venus in her youth. She was quite naked except for a transparent blue gauze
scarf, with which the wind played lovingly. Her two colours, the white of her
limbs and the blue of her scarf, showed that she was descended from the heavens
and had come up from the sea. Juno, accompanied by Castor and Pollux, then
danced with a quiet and unaffected grace and showed by gestures that she was
offering to Paris the sovereignty of Asia if he would give her the prize. Next
Minerva, attended by Terror and Fear, who leaped before her brandishing drawn
swords, rushed forward with tossing head and threatening glance, and showed by
quick animated gestures that she would make him renowned for valour if he would
give her the prize of beauty. Lastly Venus, who was greeted with loud applause,
advanced with a sweet smile and stood in the middle of the stage surrounded by a
throng of little boys so delicate and fair that they looked exactly like cupids
just flown from heaven or from the sea. They had little bows and arrows and they
carried torches before their mistress as if lighting her to the nuptial feast.
Presently the flutes began to breathe soft Lydian airs which thrilled the
audience with delight. But greater still was their delight when Venus began a
slow sensuous dance which, to judge from his description, evidently appealed
strongly to Apuleius. He particularly noted the play of her eyes, at one moment
full of languor, at another flashing with passion. 'Sometimes,' he says, 'she
seemed to dance only with her eyes.' She came before the judge and by movements
of her arms was seen to promise that she would give him a bride of surpassing
beauty like herself. He then gladly gave her the apple which he held in his hand
in token of victory. After the judgment Juno and Minerva, sad and angry, retired
from the stage, showing their indignation by their gestures. But Venus, full of
joy and delight, showed her pleasure by dancing with all her choir. Then from
some secret pipe in the top of the mountain there broke out a fountain of wine
which filled the theatre with fragrance. Finally the whole scene disappeared
into the ground sinking out of sight. After quoting this story Friedlander
proceeds to explain that these classic themes were altogether too refined for
the vast majority. The chief delight of the educated was the pantomime; the
common crowd preferred the boisterous rudeness and crude indecency of the mimes.
The moral influence of those spectacles in the circus, the amphitheatre or the
theatre is more easily imagined than described. And it is not easily imagined.
We instinctively beautify the past. We can hardly believe the descriptions of
its vices. I suppose it is necessary to have lived long in intimate touch with
heathen society to be able to understand at all what these things mean. But in
the world today we can find no parallel to them. There are indeed vile religious
plays, there are representations of divine beings, superhuman chiefly in their
vices; but there are no gladiatorial shows, there are no criminals thrown to
wild beasts. (4) Finally there was slavery, and slavery in St. Paul's days was
very different from any slavery known to us, and that not for the better. It
differed from slavery in America or the West Indies in that the slaves of the
Empire were of the same colour and very often of the same race, with the same
education, as their masters. They were slaves today; tomorrow, if set free, they
might take their place with perfect propriety and ease in the society of their
master and mistress. There was no great barrier of blood, no great gulf of
social habit or thought and cultivation. In this it may, perhaps, be compared
with slavery in China today. In China slaves are of the same colour and race as
their masters, but there they are always of the lowest class and generally
wholly uneducated. They are nearly all girls, and they are not a numerous class.
But in the Empire the males were in a vast majority, and the numbers were
appalling. Not only was the actual multitude of slaves in some of the great
houses amazing, but the number of people living in some of the cities in whose
families there was no servile taint, must have been comparatively small. Corinth
was colonized by Caesar with freed-men. The whole fabric of society in the
cities of the Empire was built upon slavery, and was penetrated through and
through with that peculiar infection of slavery, servility and insolence. It is
true that at this time the condition of slaves in the cities was somewhat
mitigated. They were well educated often, and often kindly treated, but they had
no rights. Women, girls and boys had no protection against their masters: their
master's will was their only law of virtue. And there was nothing between any
slave and the lash, except his master's will. Wealthy gentlemen, who had made
their fortunes and secured their freedom, gave great sums to their physicians to
remove the scars of the lash, or covered themselves with costly ointments to
conceal them from the eyes of their guests. Now consider for a moment the effect
of these conditions on the education of those with whom St. Paul had to do. From
birth the child was in the care of a nurse who was a slave, 'steeped as a matter
of course in the grossest and most horrible superstition'. When he was of age to
go to school, the child was in the care of a pedagogue also a slave, whose
interest it was to pander to his young master's vices, and to conceal his
misdemeanours. He attended a private school kept by a freed-man. There he
received an education which, Dr. Bigg says, was admirably designed. The system
of education adopted in the best of these schools was 'probably much better than
any to be found in our own schools down to the time of Dr. Arnold, but it was
thoroughly pagan. It is true that a great many of the best classical authors
treat the legends of the gods as mere legends, and children in England read the
stories of Jupiter, Venus and Aesculapius with no more sense of reality than
they feel in reading the story of Bluebeard; but the children of St. Paul's day
were in a very different case. They read about Venus in Corinth beneath the
shadow of the Temple of Venus with its 1,000 priestesses, whose deceits and arts
were known to all the city. They read about Aesculapius with the knowledge that
if they fell sick their parents would go to the Temple of Aesculapius to make an
offering for their recovery. They read about Diana in Ephesus, where the
silversmiths sold her shrines, and that impure image which fell down from
Jupiter had its seat. They understood a great deal too much; and the home
influence was then, as ever in heathen lands, far from being what it ought to
be. Even a good teacher could hardly counteract the influence of the nurse, the
pedagogue and the parents, and all teachers were not good teachers. When he left
the grammar school, if he could afford it, the child went to the teacher of
rhetoric, where he learned to speak on any topic under any circumstances with
grace, fluency, and at least an appearance of erudition. There were set problems
and characters which the scholar discussed, and he learned not only to censure
the adulterer, the pander, and the gamester, but to defend them. He learned also
a nice judgment in all things literary. Then he went out into the world with
this education in the history of the gods and the character of men, with the
fear of demons as the one strong religious influence, if there was any strong
religious influence at all; to attend the games, the circus, and the theatre, in
which he found every possible incitement to his animal nature; to visit the
temples on a feast day and to find them the homes of riot; whilst slaves were
ever at his elbow ready to minister to his slightest wish. Every man of any
education (except the Jews) in the churches of St. Paul during these ten years
had attended those schools, read that literature, visited those temples, and
most of them had seen those games -- and every Christian child of the parents
who were St. Paul's first converts passed through that same training. They
received that education or they received none. If the moral atmosphere in Greece
was bad, in Asia Minor it was even worse. The character of the native religion
was such that 'Greek education was pure in comparison, and the Greek moralists,
philosophers and politicians inveighed against the Phrygian religion as the
worst enemy of the Greek ideals of life. Greek society and life were at least
founded on marriage; but the religion of Asia Minor maintained as a central
principle that all organized and settled social life on the basis of marriage
was an outrage on the free, unfettered divine life of nature, the type of which
was found in the favourites of the great goddesses, the wild animals of the
fields and the mountains. The Greek and Roman law which recognized as citizens
only those born from the legitimate marriage of two citizens had no existence in
Phrygian cities.' This is not, of course, a complete account of the social
condition of the provinces in which St. Paul preached; but these elements were
there, and they cannot be ignored if we are rightly to understand the character
of the task which lay before the Apostle. Devil worship, immemorial religious
rites, gladiatorial games, slavery -- these things cannot be set on one side.
How can a man behave properly to his sick friend when he believes that he has a
demon? How can the most lofty philosophic doctrines avail to produce rectitude
when trouble sends a man to pray to a devil? How can a man preserve a true
devotion and a reverent attitude towards the Divine, when the divinities known
to him are described as the basest of creatures? How can a man walk aright when
he and all his world take it for granted that there is a class of men, and that
class the most numerous class, which has no rights of any kind, to whom nothing
can be wrong which their master says is right, who were designed and created
solely to give service and amusement to their owners, whether by their life or
by their death? Professor Harnack tells us that 'it is a mistake to suppose that
any "slave question" occupied the early Church. The primitive Christians looked
on slavery with neither a more friendly nor a more hostile eye than they did
upon the State and legal ties. They never dreamt of working for the abolition of
the State, nor did it occur to them to abolish slavery for human or other
reasons -- not even amongst themselves. Large numbers of the members of the
churches founded by St. Paul were slaves, some of them were slave-owners.
Christian masters are exhorted to clemency, Christian slaves to faithfulness.
The fact that there was no 'slave question' simply emphasizes the universal
acceptance of the conditions. What those conditions have always been wherever
slavery has existed, what those conditions must have been where there was no
colour or customary barrier between master and slave, is only too well known.
Whatever advantages of education, civilization, philosophy, religion, the Empire
possessed, so long as it was defiled by slavery, the games, the temples and the
magicians, it is, I think, impossible to argue that St. Paul's converts had any
exceptional advantages, in the moral character of the society in which they were
brought up, which are not given to our converts today.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 6: MIRACLES
========================================================================

PART II The Presentation of the Gospel 5 Miracles. How far was St. Paul's
success due to his possession of miraculous powers? 6 Finance. How far was his
success due to his financial arrangements? 7 The Substance of St. Paul's
Preaching. How far was his success due to his method of preaching? CHAPTER 5
Miracles Miracles hold an important place in the account of St. Paul's preaching
in the Four Provinces, and, since this is one of the grounds on which is based
the argument that his methods can have little or no bearing upon our work in the
present day, it is necessary that we should examine carefully the nature and
extent of these miracles, and the use which the Apostle himself made of them. We
shall find, I think, that, so far from invalidating any comparison between his
work and ours, St. Paul's use of miracles may throw an interesting light upon
some principles of constant value which should guide us in the practice of many
forms of missionary enterprise common today. Miracles are recorded of St. Paul
in five towns in the Four Provinces. In Iconium we are told that 'the Lord bare
witness unto the word of His grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by
their hands'. At Lystra occurred the healing of a cripple. At Philippi the
expulsion of a spirit of divination, and at Ephesus 'God wrought special
miracles by the hand of Paul insomuch that to the sick were carried away from
his body handkerchiefs or aprons and the diseases departed from them, and the
evil spirits went out'. Finally, at Troas occurred the recovery of Eutychus.
This last miracle manifestly stands in a class quite by itself both in the
nature of the case and in the surroundings in which it was wrought. It was not a
miracle designed to further the proclamation of the Gospel: it was wrought for
the comfort of believers, and it is to be compared rather with the raising of
Dorcas by St. Peter, than with the other miracles recorded of St. Paul. It must
therefore be left out of account in our present inquiry. At Antioch, Derbe,
Thessalonica, Beroea and Corinth no mention is made in the Acts of miracles in
connection with the preaching of the Gospel. Thus it would appear that the
importance of miracles in the work of St. Paul may be easily exaggerated. They
were not a necessary part of his mission preaching: nor was their influence in
attracting converts as great as we often suppose. Professor Ramsay indeed goes
so far as to say that, 'The marvels recorded in Acts are not, as a rule, said to
have been efficacious in spreading the new religion'; and it is true that only
at Ephesus are we told of a great increase of disciples in close connection with
the working of miracles, whilst in one case, at least, the working of a miracle
was the immediate cause of serious obstruction. But, on the other hand, the
general tenor of St. Luke's narrative certainly does not produce the impression
that he considered St. Paul's miracles other than as tending to further the
cause of the Gospel. At Paphos a miracle led to the conversion of an important
man; at Iconium signs and wonders were a witness to the truth of the Gospel; at
Lystra a miracle introduced a great opportunity for expounding the doctrine; at
Ephesus miracles were the means by which a great spiritual victory was won. St.
Luke does not speak of these as though they were not efficacious in spreading
the Gospel. He rather speaks of them as though they were a natural and proper
part of St. Paul's ministry. He certainly does not relate all St. Paul's
miracles; for we know that St. Paul wrought 'signs and wonders and mighty works'
at Corinth (2 Cor. I2. I2). St. Luke tells of some as typical of many. There is,
however, one sense in which the truth underlying Professor Ramsay's words
illustrates a most important principle. These miraculous powers were never used
by the Apostle to induce people to receive teaching. He did not attract people
to listen to him with a view to being healed of disease, or by the promise of
healing. It seems as if St. Luke was careful to avoid producing the impression
that miraculous powers might be used to attract people to accept Christianity
because of the benefits which they might receive from it. We are never told of
the conversion of anybody upon whom St. Paul worked a miracle of healing. It is
indeed true that the lame man at Lystra was apparently converted; but it is
plainly suggested in the story that he was already in some sort a convert before
he was healed. He was what a later age would have called a 'hearer', and his
conversion as a result of the miracle is certainly not asserted. Neither are we
told of the conversion of the soothsaying girl at Phillppi. Bishop Lightfoot,
indeed, and many others, take it for granted that she was converted. Referring
to Lydia, the jailer, and this girl, he speaks of 'the three converts'. This may
be a legitimate inference, but it is certainly not a necessary one. St. Luke
tells us only that she proclaimed the apostles as servants of the Most High God,
and that she was healed. We may think it impossible that such an event should
take place in her life without leading to her conversion. It may have been so;
but St. Luke does not say that it was so. St. Paul did not convert or attempt to
convert people by working miracles upon them. He did not attract people to
Christianity by offering them healing. He did not heal on condition that they
attended to his teaching. In this he was illustrating a principle which guided
the Christian Church in her administration of charity throughout the early
centuries of her history. 'We know,' says Professor Harnack, 'of no cases in
which Christians desired to win, or actually did win adherents by means of the
charities which they dispensed. I cannot help thinking that this is a principle
which we cannot be too careful to observe. There was a day in India when our
missionaries paid a regular fee to scholars to attend our schools in order that
they might receive Christian instruction. The result was not good, and that plan
has been universally abandoned. But we still sometimes offer secular education,
or medical treatment, as an inducement to people to submit themselves, or to
place their children under our religious instruction or influence. This is, in
principle, precisely the same thing as paying them, though in a far less vicious
form. I cannot help thinking that the day is not far distant when we shall
consider the offering of any material inducement as contrary to sound doctrine
as we now consider the money payments of former days. But if St. Paul did not
use his powers of healing as an inducement to people to receive his teaching,
his use of miracles did yet greatly help him in his preaching. And that in four
ways: (1) His miracles attracted hearers. They were addressed rather to the
crowd than to the individual. So it was at Lystra, so it was at the Beautiful
Gate of the Temple, so it must ever have been. The wonderful cures attracted men
to St. Paul. They came to see who it was that had done such a thing. They
naturally were eager to hear what he had to say. So miracles prepared the way
for the preaching. (2) Miracles were universally accepted as proofs of the
Divine approval of the message and work of him through whom they were wrought. A
good illustration of this is to be found in the account given by Tacitus of the
miracle wrought by Vespasian at Alexandria. Two sick men at Alexandria were
directed by the god Serapis to appeal to Vespasian for help. One was blind, the
other had a crippled hand. The one begged Vespasian to anoint his cheeks and
eyes with spittle, the other prayed that he would put his foot upon him.
Vespasian at first laughed at them and put them aside; but at last he was
persuaded to do what they desired. Instantly the hand of the one was restored
and the blind received his sight. 'People,' says Tacitus, 'who were present at
the scene still tell the story though there is now no advantage to be gained by
lying.' And he remarks that these miracles were tokens of divine favour and
affection for Vespasian. Everywhere by all men the same conclusion was drawn
from the power to work wonders. So St. Luke insists that the signs and wonders
wrought by St. Paul at Iconium were a witness given by God to the word of His
grace. So amongst the Jews Christ Himself frequently appealed to His works; so
Nicodemus confessed, 'No man can do these signs that Thou doest except God be
with him'. So the blind man healed by Christ expressed the common belief when he
declared, 'We know that God heareth not sinners', and many hearing of that case
said, 'How can a man that is a sinner do such signs?' And this belief continued
amongst the Christians. A most remarkable testimony of the appeal to miracles is
found in the account of the Council held at Jerusalem to discuss the question of
the admission of Gentiles to the Church. The question was raised whether the
work of Paul and Barnabas was in accordance with the will of God. St. Peter, we
are told, prepared the minds of the assembled multitude by reminding the Council
how he himself (a man of whose orthodoxy there could be no doubt) had been led
by the Holy Ghost to preach to Gentiles, and then Barnabas and Paul rose to
address the Council. Now it had been expressly remarked that throughout their
journey to Jerusalem they had been declaring to the Christians at every place,
'How God had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles', and 'the conversion of
the Gentiles'. But in the Council the point upon which the apostles laid stress
was not this but their miracles. 'All the multitude,' it is said, 'kept silence;
and they hearkened unto Barnabas and Paul rehearsing what signs and wonders God
had wrought among the Gentiles by them'. That the Gentiles had been converted,
that they had embraced the Gospel, that they had suffered persecution, that they
were devoted followers of Jesus Christ, these things might satisfy the apostles;
but for the multitude the one convincing proof of God's approval of their action
was that He had enabled them to work miracles. In exactly the same way when he
wishes to persuade the Galatians of the superiority of the Gospel to the Law,
St. Paul appeals to the evidence of miracles, 'He therefore that supplieth to
you the spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the
law, or by the hearing of faith?'. So too, when he is laying before the
Corinthians the evidence of his apostleship, he appeals to miracles. 'Truly the
signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience by signs and wonders
and mighty works.' For Christian, and Jew, and pagan alike the evidence from
miracles was irresistible. Given the miracle, the approval of the god in whose
name the miracle was done followed as a necessary consequence. (3) Miracles were
illustrations of the character of the new religion. They were sermons in act.
They set forth in unmistakable terms two of its fundamental doctrines, the
doctrine of charity and the doctrine of salvation, of release from the bondage
of sin and the power of the devil. Charity, pity for the weak and the oppressed,
love for men expressed in deed and word, as taught by Christ and His apostles,
and as practised by them, was something quite new in the history of the world.
Christ not only gave men the parable of the Good Samaritan and the oft-repeated
command: He went about doing good. He first inspired men with the spirit of
charity. He first opened their eyes to see in every case of trouble and disease,
not a loathsome thing to be avoided, but an opportunity for the revelation of
grace and lovingkindness. Inspired by that spirit St. Paul uttered his
profoundest teaching on the power of charity. 'Though I speak with the tongues
of men and of angels and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass and
tinkling cymbal.' In that spirit he worked his miracles. Heathen magicians, for
a great price, exercised their powers, uttered their incantations, administered
their potions. St. Paul healed the sick and cast out devils because he was
grieved at the bitter bondage of the oppressed or because he welcomed with the
insight of sympathy the first signs of a faith which could respond to the power
of the Lord. In this respect his miracles were the first steps in the path by
which the early Church became renowned amongst the heathen for its organized
charity, its support of widows and orphans, its tender care for the sick, the
infirm and disabled, its gentle consideration for slaves, its constant help
afforded to prisoners and those afflicted by great calamities. Two centuries
later Tertullian, after recounting the charities of the Christians, could write,
'It is mainly the deeds of a love so noble that lead many to put a brand upon
us'. How great and powerful an assistance this was to the conversion of the
world is known to all men. (4) Similarly, St. Paul's miracles illustrated the
doctrine of release, of salvation. In the world to which the apostles preached
their new message, religion had not been the solace of the weary, the medicine
of the sick, the strength of the sin-laden, the enlightenment of the ignorant:
it was the privilege of the healthy and the instructed. The sick and the
ignorant were excluded. They were under the bondage of evil demons. 'This people
which knoweth not the law are accursed,' was the common doctrine of Jews and
Greeks. The philosophers addressed themselves only to the well-to-do, the
intellectual and the pure. To the mysteries were invited only those who had
clean hands and sound understanding. It was a constant marvel to the heathen
that the Christians called the sick and the sinful. Every one, they say, who is
a sinner, who is devoid of understanding, who is a child, and, to speak
generally, whoever is unfortunate, him will the Kingdom of God receive. Do you
not call him a sinner, then, who is unjust, and a thief, and a homebreaker, and
a poisoner, and a committer of sacrilege, and a robber of the dead? What others
would a man invite, if he were issuing a proclamation for an assembly of
robbers? Nevertheless, there was at this time a growing sense of need. Men were
seeking in religion for healing and salvation. The cult of Aesculapius as 'the
Saviour' was already spreading widely amongst the people and other gods too were
called saviours. 'No one,' says Harnack, 'could be a god any longer unless he
was also a saviour.' Men were prepared to welcome a doctrine of salvation. It
was to this sense of need that the Apostle appealed. 'The loving-kindness of God
our Saviour hath appeared unto all men.' His preaching was 'the power of God
unto salvation to every one that believeth;' his converts were turned 'from
darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God'. Into a world burdened
with sin and misery and death he came in the Spirit of Jesus who went about
doing good and healing all that were oppressed of the devil. His miracles were a
visible sign to the whole world of the nature and purpose of his teaching. They
proclaimed Jesus as the deliverer of the captives, the healer of the sick, the
solace of the weary, the refuge of the oppressed. There can be no doubt that
this power of working marvels, this striking demonstration of the authority of
Jesus over evil spirits, was in the early Church considered to be a most
valuable weapon with which to confute opponents and to convince the hesitating.
'It was as exorcisers,' says Professor Harnack, 'that the Christians went out
into the great world, and exorcism formed one very powerful method of their
mission propaganda.' Every Christian apologist appeals to it as a signal proof
of the superiority of Christianity over heathen religions. The heathen appealed
to miracles, to oracles, to portents, as proofs of the existence of the gods;
Christians appealed to exorcism as proof of the divinity of Christ and of His
superior authority over all the heathen gods and demons. Such powers were highly
valued in the Church and greatly coveted by the faithful. But their importance
can be easily overrated and it is manifest that St. Paul saw this danger and
combated it. He does not give the gift of miracles the highest place amongst the
gifts of the Spirit. He does not speak as if the best of his workers possessed
it. It was not the power of working miracles which was of importance in his
eyes: it was the Spirit which inspired the life. Miraculous power was only one
of many manifestations of the Spirit; above all, best of all, is the spirit of
charity. It was not the manner in which the healing was wrought, by a word
instantly, which was of value in his eyes: it was the demonstration of the
Spirit and of power. Every day we see how it is not the possession of great
powers but rather the spirit in which any power is used which attracts, which
moves, which converts. If we no longer possess his power we still possess the
Spirit which inspired him. We have powers enough whereby to let the Spirit shine
forth. We have powers sufficient to gather hearers; we have powers sufficient to
demonstrate the Divine Presence of the Spirit of God with us; we have powers
sufficient to assure inquirers of the superiority of Christianity to all heathen
religions; we have powers sufficient to illustrate in act the character of our
religion, its salvation and its love, if only we will use our powers to reveal
the Spirit. One day we shall perhaps recover the early faith in miracles.
Meanwhile, we cannot say that the absence of miracles puts an impassable gulf
between the first century and today, or renders the apostolic method
inapplicable to our missions. To say that were to set the form above the spirit.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 7: FINANCE
========================================================================

CHAPTER 6 Finance It may at first sight seem strange to speak of finance as one
of the external accompaniments of the preaching, rather than as part of the
organization of the Church. But it is as it affects St. Paul's approach to his
hearers that finance assumes its real significance and throws its most
interesting light upon our missionary work today. The primary importance of
missionary finance lies in the fact that financial arrangements very seriously
affect the relations between the missionary and those whom he approaches. It is
of comparatively small importance how the missionary is maintained: it is of
comparatively small importance how the finances of the Church are organized:
what is of supreme importance is how these arrangements, whatever they may be,
affect the minds of the people, and so promote, or hinder, the spread of the
Gospel. By modern writers this is often overlooked, and the finance of St.
Paul's journeys is treated as an interesting detail of ancient history, not as
though it had anything to do with his success as a preacher of the Gospel. St.
Paul himself does not so treat it. It is strange how often he refers to it, what
anxiety he shows that his position should not be misunderstood; but he speaks as
if its importance lay wholly in the way in which it might affect those to whom
he preached, never as though it made any personal difference to him. There seem
to have been three rules which guided his practice: (1) That he did not seek
financial help for himself; (2) that he took no financial help to those to whom
he preached; (3) that he did not administer local church funds. 0) He did not
seek financial help. In his first contact with strangers and in his dealings
with the Church he was careful to avoid any appearance of money making. Amongst
the heathen there was a large class of teachers who wandered from town to town
collecting money from those who attended their lectures. There was also a large
class of people who wandered about as mystery-mongers, exhibiting their shows
and collecting money from those who attended them. For these men philosophy and
religion were a trade. St. Paul would not be accounted as one of them. He
refused to receive anything from those who listened to him. Similarly in the
Church there was a class of people who made their living by preaching. St. Paul
did not condemn these; on the contrary, he argued that it was legitimate that
they should do so. Heathen religion, the Jewish law, Christ's directions, all
alike insisted on the right of the minister to receive support. But he himself
did not receive it, and he was careful to explain his reason. He saw that it
would be a hindrance to his work. 'We bear all things,' he says, 'that we may
cause no hindrance to the Gospel of Christ.' He was anxious to show his fatherly
care for his disciples by refusing to burden them with his maintenance. 'As a
nurse cherisheth her children, we were well pleased to impart unto you not the
Gospel of God only, but also our own souls, because ye were become very dear
unto us.' 'For ye remember, brethren, our labour and travail: working night and
day, that we might not burden any of you, we preached unto you the Gospel of
God.' He was anxious to set them an example of quiet work, 'We did not behave
ourselves disorderly among you: neither did we eat any man's bread for nought'.
'But above all he was anxious to avoid any appearance of covetousness,' and
'What I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire
an occasion.' So, too, in his last speech to the Ephesian elders he lays great
stress on the fact that he had not made money by his preaching, but had
supported himself by the labour of his own hands. 'I coveted no man's gold or
apparel. Ye yourselves know that these hands ministered unto my necessities.'
Yet St. Paul did receive gifts from his converts. He speaks of the Philipplans
as having sent once and again unto his necessity, and he tells the Corinthians
that he 'robbed other churches, taking wages of them, that he might minister to
them'. He does not seem to have felt any unwillingness to receive help; he
rather welcomed it. He was not an ascetic. He saw no particular virtue in
suffering privations. The account of his journeys always gives us the impression
that he was poor, never that he was poverty-stricken. He said indeed that he
knew how 'to be in want', 'to be filled, and to be hungry'. But this does not
imply more than that he was in occasional need. Later, he certainly must have
had considerable resources, for he was able to maintain a long and expensive
judicial process, to travel with ministers, to gain a respectful hearing from
provincial governors, and to excite their cupidity. We have no means of knowing
whence he obtained such large supplies; but if he received them from his
converts there would be nothing here contrary to his earlier practice. He
received money; but not from those to whom he was preaching. He refused to do
anything from which it might appear that he came to receive, that his object was
to make money. In this our modern practice is precisely the same. Our
missionaries all receive their supplies from home, and cannot possibly be
thought to seek financial support from their converts. If they ever seem to be
preaching for the sake of their living, that can only be because their attitude
towards the preaching gives some cause or occasion for the charge. (2) Secondly,
St. Paul not only did not receive financial aid from his converts, he did not
take financial support to his converts. That it could be so never seems to have
suggested itself to his mind. Every province, every church, was financially
independent. The Galatians are exhorted to support their teachers. Every church
is instructed to maintain its poor. There is not a hint from beginning to end of
the Acts and Epistles of any one church depending upon another, with the single
exception of the collection for the poor saints at Jerusalem. That collection
had in the mind of St. Paul a very serious and important place, but it had
nothing to do with church finance in the ordinary sense. Its importance lay in
its demonstration of the unity of the church, and in the influence which such a
proof of brotherly charity might have in maintaining the unity of the church.
But it had no more to do with church finance in the ordinary sense of the word
than a collection made in India for Christians suffering from famine in China
would have to do with ordinary Indian Church finance. That one church should
depend upon another for the supply of its ordinary expenses as a church, or even
for a part of them, would have seemed incredible in the Four Provinces. From
this apostolic practice we are now as far removed in action as we are in time.
We have indeed established here and there churches which support their own
financial burdens, but for the most part our missions look to us for very
substantial support, and it is commonly taken for granted that every new station
must do so, at any rate for some considerable time. Our modern practice in
founding a church is to begin by securing land and buildings in the place in
which we wish to propagate the Gospel, to provide houses in which the missionary
can live, and a church, or at least a room, fitted up with all the ornaments of
a Western church, in which the missionary may conduct services, sometimes to
open a school to which we supply the teachers. The larger the establishment and
the more liberally it is supplied with every possible modern convenience, the
better we think it suited to our purpose. Even in the smallest places we are
anxious to secure as speedily as possible land on which to build houses and
churches and schools, and we take it for granted that the acquirement of these
things by the foreign missionary, or by the foreign society, is a step of the
first importance. Since it is obviously impossible that the natives should
supply all these things, even if they are anxious to receive our instruction, it
naturally follows that we must supply them. Hence the opening of a new mission
station has become primarily a financial operation, and we constantly hear our
missionaries lament that they cannot open new stations where they are sorely
needed, because they have not the necessary funds to purchase and equip the
barest missionary establishment. This habit of taking supplies with us is due
chiefly to two causes: first, the amazing wealth of the church at home and the
notion that reverence and devotion depend upon the use of expensive religious
furniture to which our luxury has accustomed us, and, secondly, the prevalence
of the idea that the stability of the church in some way depends upon the
permanence of its buildings. When we have secured a site and buildings we feel
that the mission is firmly planted; we cannot then be easily driven away. A
well-built church seems to imply a well-founded, stable society. So the
externals of religion precede the inculcation of its principles. We must have
the material establishment before we build the spiritual house. As we begin, so
we go on. Hence the frequent appeals to be found in church newspapers for organs
and bells, cassocks, surplices and candlesticks, and such like, for mission
stations in India or in Africa. How can we teach the new converts the majesty of
worship without the materials for dignified ceremonial? Dignified ceremonial is
ceremonial as practised in the best churches at home. The best churches use
these things. The natives cannot supply them. It follows that we must take these
gifts to our converts. Thus, the foundation of a new mission is primarily a
financial operation. But it ought not properly to be a financial operation, and
the moment it is allowed to appear as such, that moment very false and dangerous
elements are introduced into our work. (i) By our eagerness to secure property
for the church we often succeed in raising up many difficulties in the way of
our preaching. We sometimes, especially perhaps in such a country as China,
arouse the opposition of the local authorities who do not desire to give
foreigners a permanent holding in their midst. We occasionally even appeal to
legal support to enforce our right to purchase the property, and thus we begin
our work in a turmoil of strife and excitement which we might have avoided. (ii)
We load our missionaries with secular business, negotiations with contractors,
the superintendence of works, the management of a considerable establishment, to
which is often added anxiety about the supply of funds for providing and
maintaining the establishment. In this way their attention is distracted from
their proper spiritual work, their energy and power is dissipated, and their
first contact with the people whom they desire to evangelize is connected with
contracts and other purely secular concerns. It is sad to think what a large
proportion of the time of many of our missionaries is spent over accounts. It is
sad to sit and watch a stream of Christian visitors calling upon a missionary,
and to observe that in nearly every case the cause which brings them is money.
They are the financial agents of the mission. (iii) But in creating these
missionary establishments we not only overburden our missionaries with secular
business, we misrepresent our purpose in coming to the place. It is of the
utmost importance that the external manifestation of our purpose should
correspond with the inward intention and rightly express it. We live in a world
in which spirit is known through material media. When the Son of God desired to
reveal Himself to us, He took upon Him the form of a servant, and He made a
material body the manifestation to all men of the Eternal God who is Spirit.
That fact must govern all our thought. That is why the religion of Christ, who
is Himself a Sacrament, is sacramental, and all our use of material things is
sacramental. We, in our measure, do what He did. I know nothing of missionary
zeal except as expressed in words and gifts and deeds. We cannot express
ourselves otherwise in this world. Desire must employ words and glances and such
like material vehicles. That is the reason why material apparatus is capable of
spiritual uses. In themselves words and buildings have no power to produce
spiritual results. If we will not preach we cannot convert, but no preaching in
itself can convert. The value of the outward things is derived from the spirit
which animates them and gives them being. They are manifestations of the Spirit
of Christ who desires the salvation of men, working in us. It is the Spirit of
Christ indwelling us who operates through them. Therefore, that external
instrument is best which reveals the Spirit. The Body of Jesus was such an
instrument: the Sacraments ordained by Christ are such. The Sacraments of the
Gospel are not contrary to nature, but they are Divine. A method of working, or
a material instrument, may reveal or conceal, or misrepresent, the Spirit: e.g.
in France the offer of the left hand is an act of cordial goodwill; in India it
is an insult. If then a Frenchman in India were to offer a man his left hand,
his goodwill would be interpreted as illwill. In ignorance we may use unsuitable
expressions, but the moment we become aware that they are unsuitable we can no
longer use them. That is why reformers constantly reject the use of things which
have been long employed as the expressions of a spirit which they do not want to
express. They must alter the form of the sacrament in order to reveal the change
in their point of view. Today in India many of our younger missionaries are
beginning to revolt against the big bungalows used by their predecessors. They
look at them and say, 'That does not quite represent the spirit in which I wish
to approach these people'. If that feeling grows, they must sooner or later
abandon the bungalow. For if we are persuaded that the material vehicle
misrepresents the spirit which we would express, and yet continue to use it, it
checks the spirit in us. If we want to express respect and goodwill we cannot
continue to offer the left hand, when we know that it will certainly be
misunderstood. If we do so, we do violence to our feeling of goodwill, and our
goodwill is checked and injured. Moreover, because we cannot express ourselves,
cannot manifest our real purpose in them, the use of wrong materials repels
those whom we might draw to us. All men everywhere judge the inward spirit by
the external form, and are attracted or repelled by it. They are apt to be much
influenced by the first glance. If, then, the material form really does not
express the true spirit, we cannot be surprised if they are hindered. Now the
purchase of land and the establishment of foreign missions in these
establishments, especially if they are founded in the face of opposition from
the local authorities, naturally suggest the idea of a foreign domination. The
very permanence of the buildings suggests the permanence of the foreign element.
The land is secured, and the buildings are raised, in the first instance by the
powerful influence of foreigners. That naturally raises a question in the native
mind why these people should be so eager to secure a permanent holding in their
midst. They naturally suspect some evil ulterior motive. They suppose that the
foreigner is eager to extend his influence and to establish himself amongst them
at their expense. In China, particularly, the common idea prevalent amongst the
people is that to become a Christian involves submission to foreign domination.
This conception has a most powerful effect in deterring the people from
approaching the missionary or from receiving his teaching with open minds. I
think it is now almost universally admitted that the permanence of foreign rule
in the Church ought not to be our object in propagating the Gospel. But by
taking large supplies with us to provide and support our establishments and
organizations we do in fact build up that which we should be most eager to
destroy. Moreover, we do not want to produce the impression that we design to
introduce an institution, even if it is understood that the institution is to be
naturalized. Christianity is not an institution, but a principle of life. By
importing an institution we tend to obscure the truly spiritual character of our
work. We take the externals first and so we make it easy for new converts to put
the external in the place of the internal. Attendance at a house of prayer may
take the place of prayer. It is easy to mistake the provision of the ornaments
of worship for the duty of worship. The teachers seem to think these things so
important that they must be the really important things. The duty of the
Christian is to learn to attend to these things, and to go through the proper
forms. The heathen naturally looks at religion from that point of view, and when
he sees the externals provided at a cost which seems to him very great, and
things imported which the country cannot provide, he inevitably tends to suppose
that our religion is as his own, and the organization and the institution take
just that place in his thought which was formerly occupied by his own
organization and institutions of religion. But this is precisely what we want to
avoid. Nor is this all. The first glance at these missions financed from abroad
naturally suggests that the religion which they represent is foreign. They are
supported by foreign money, they are often foreign in appearance. Eastern people
almost universally look upon Christianity as a foreign religion, and they do not
want a foreign religion. This is one of the very chiefest and most insidious of
our difficulties. We are not the preachers of a Western religion, and anything
which tends to create or support that misunderstanding is a thing rather to be
avoided than encouraged. By the introduction of Western buildings and Western
religious furniture we can hardly avoid strengthening that misunderstanding. Of
course, if we are prepared to maintain that our Western ornaments are
essentially Catholic and must be adopted everywhere as integral parts of the
Catholic Faith, there is no more to be said: but for my part I am not prepared
to take up that position. (iv.) By importing and using and supplying to the
natives buildings and ornaments which they cannot procure for themselves, we
tend to pauperize the converts. They cannot supply what they think to be
needful, and so they learn to accept the position of passive recipients. By
supplying what they cannot supply we check them in the proper impulse to supply
what they can supply. Foreign subsidies produce abroad all the ill effects of
endowments at home, with the additional disadvantage that they are foreign. The
converts learn to rely upon them instead of making every effort to supply their
own needs. (v.) It is often said that these financial bonds help to maintain
unity. Native congregations have before now been held to their allegiance by
threats of the withdrawal of pecuniary support. But unity so maintained, by an
external bond, is not Christian unity at all. It is simply submission to bondage
for the sake of secular advantage and it will fail the moment that any other and
stronger motive urges in the direction of separation. There is all the
difference in the world between gifts freely made by members of the one body one
to another, as manifestations of the spirit of mutual charity which moves in
them, and gifts or subsidies made with the intention of checking freedom of
action on the part of the recipients. Spiritual forces are more powerful than
external bonds, and external bonds never have preserved, and never will
preserve, unity. The only unity which is worth preserving is the unity of the
Spirit. (vi.) By the establishment of great institutions, the provision of large
parsonages, mission houses, churches, and all the accompaniments of these
things, we tie our missionaries to one place. They cease to be movable
evangelists and become pastors. From time to time they go out on tour, but their
stations are their chief care, and to their stations they are tied. Even if they
find that the station is not well chosen, so much money is invested in it that
they cannot easily move. Even if some new opening of larger importance is before
them they cannot enter into it without serious and difficult financial
adjustments. (vii.) Further, these establishments make it very difficult for any
native to succeed to the place of a European missionary. The Christians gathered
round the station are very conscious of the advantage of having a European in
their midst. He has influence with governors, merchants, masters. He can give
valuable recommendations. He can return home and plead for his people with
societies and charitably-disposed individuals. He can collect money for his
schools and hospitals. In time of need and stress he can afford to expend much.
He is, or is supposed to be, above the common temptations of the people. He is
naturally free from local entanglements. He cannot be accused of seeking to make
places for his relations. His judgment is impartial, his opinion unbiased by any
divisions or jealousies of local society. All these things incline the native
converts to prefer a European to a native as the Head of their station.
Consequently, it is very difficult for any native to succeed him. The native has
none of these advantages. He cannot tap the sources of supply, he cannot
exercise the same charitable liberality, he cannot expect, as a right, the same
confidence. He is liable to attack from all sides. He has not even the prestige
which attaches to a white face. His position is well-nigh impossible. Moreover,
if a native is put in charge of a station, he naturally expects to be paid at
the same rate as his white predecessor. If he is not so paid, he feels
aggrieved. It is useless to explain to him that a native ought to be able to
make one rupee or one dollar go as far as six or seven in the hands of a
European. To him the salary for this work, this post, has been fixed at so much,
and if he occupies the post he should receive so much. But native Christians,
left to themselves, would never have created such a post, and sooner or later
they will abolish it. They are accustomed to other standards, and other methods
of payment, or support, for teachers. Thus by the establishment of these posts
we are creating serious difficulties. We say that we hope the day is not far off
when natives will succeed to our places and carry on the work which we have
begun. But by the creation of these stations we have put off that day. From this
point of view it is plain that the creation of mission stations with large
parsonages and churches is a far more serious difficulty than the establishment
of large schools and hospitals. Great colleges and hospitals can more easily be
treated as extraparochial. They are not bound up with the ordinary life of the
church. Church life can go on without them, or beside them; and special
arrangements made for them do not so nearly touch the community. There must be
difficulties with these; but the difficulties connected with parsonages and
churches, e.g. in India and the Far East, are already pressing. (viii.) Finally,
these endowments will sooner or later become a source of fresh difficulties.
These buildings, etc., are legally held by foreign missionary societies, which
have their headquarters in foreign countries. Sooner or later the native church
will grow strong and will insist on managing its own affairs. Are there then to
be in the future foreign patronage boards holding buildings in trust, and
appointing to posts in the dioceses of native bishops in the territories of
independent States? Some of the foreign missionary societies could, and no doubt
would, hand over the buildings and patronage to the native church, but others
could not, and would not, do that, because they hold the property for the
propagation of the peculiar views held by their subscribers at home, and the
trustees at home could not be sure that the native bishops would continue to
hold those peculiar views whether of doctrine or ritual. Yet it is scarcely
conceivable that native churches will tolerate the interference of foreign
patronage boards, and a grievous strife may arise over the endowments and the
buildings. Of all sources of strife, material possessions are the most prolific.
If there have been in the past difficulties between the committees of missionary
societies at home and bishops and other leaders in the field, whilst those
bishops and leaders were of the same race and speech and habit of thought as the
members of the committees, how much more are we to fear difficulties when the
bishops and other leaders are natives of independent States. We speak much of
the establishment of independent native churches; but the increase of endowments
may not prove to be the best means of attaining that end in the future, any more
than it has proved to be the best means of attaining it in the past. (3)
Thirdly, St. Paul observed the rule that every church should administer its own
funds. He certainly never administered any local funds himself. He did indeed
bear the offering of the church in Antioch to Jerusalem in the time of the
famine; he also, with others, carried the collection of the Four Provinces to
Jerusalem. But in the first instance he was acting as the minister of a church
on a business for which he had been specially appointed by the Church under the
direction of those in authority. In the second, it is extraordinary what pains
he took to make it clear that he was acting simply as the messenger of the
churches, and even so he did not take the responsibility of administering their
charity without associating with himself representatives of all the provinces
which contributed to the fund, and taking every possible precaution to ensure
that his action should not be misunderstood. In both cases, moreover, he was
carrying funds collected by the churches for charitable purposes in a distant
place. He certainly did not receive and administer any funds within their own
borders. The whole argument of 2 Corinthians 11:8-14, and 2 Corinthians
12:14-18, would have broken down if he had been in the habit of so doing. With
us, today, a very different rule obtains. As soon as a congregation is
established, collections are made, and some at least of the money so obtained is
sent to the diocesan or district fund. It is taken out of the place in which it
is collected under the direction, if not in the hands, of the foreigner. If
money is collected for local uses, it is administered under the direction of the
foreigner who feels himself responsible for its proper expenditure, and requires
a most careful account of it, and himself renders an account of its use to his
society at home. In other words, the responsibility for the administration of
funds rests upon the shoulders not of the local church but upon the stranger. Is
it possible for human ingenuity to devise a scheme better calculated to check
the free flow of native liberality, to create misunderstandings, to undermine
the independence of the church, and to accentuate racial distinctions? This
modern practice is based partly upon our distrust of native honesty and partly
upon our fear of congregationalism. But our distrust of native honesty ought not
to exist, and has nothing to do with the case. If the natives administer their
own funds, it is their own funds that they administer. They will administer them
in their own way, and they will be responsible for the administration to those
who supplied them. That they are capable of administering public money the
existence of guilds and societies for mutual benefit is proof. They may not
administer it at all to our satisfaction, but I fail to see what our
satisfaction has to do with the matter. It is not our business. By making it our
business we merely deprive our converts of one of the very best educational
experiences, and break down one of the most powerful agencies for creating a
sense of mutual responsibility. We also load ourselves with a vast burden which
we are ill able, and often ill fitted, to bear. Our fear of congregationalism is
really terror of a bugbear. We have had no experience of congregationalism
except at home, and there is no reason to suppose that the peculiar motives
which lead to congregationalism in England would operate anywhere else. Our fear
of congregationalism is, I shrink from saying it, only another name for our fear
of independence. We think it quite impossible that a native church should be
able to exist without the paternal care of an English overseer. If it were
financially independent it might be tempted to dispense with his services, and
then, we are persuaded, it would at once fall into every error of doctrine and
practice. The congregationalism that we dread is the form of congregationalism
which we know in England. The evils of that have bred in us a terrible fear of
the very mention of congregational responsibility. Our experience at home has
not taught us to dread the suspicion of peculation. We take with us from the
West the fear of the one and the ignorance of the other, and we suppose that the
danger which arises from each is the same abroad as it is at home. Even at home
suspicion of clerical finance exists amongst the laity to a far larger extent
than we sometimes imagine, and it were well if our clergy took greater pains to
avoid it. But the fact remains that we do not really fear it, whilst we do fear
the slightest taint of congregationalism. St. Paul's attitude to these two
dangers was the exact opposite of ours. He was more afraid of a suspicion of
false-dealing than he was of congregationalism. Perhaps in dealing with newly
converted people his judgment on the relative danger of the two evils was more
sound than ours. Perhaps in dealing with Eastern people we should do well to
follow his example.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 8: THE SUBSTANCE OF ST. PAUL'S PREACHING
========================================================================

CHAPTER 7 The Substance of St. Paul's Preaching Of St. Paul's preaching we have
in the Acts three examples, the sermon at Antioch in Pisidia (Acts 13:16-41),
the speech at Lystra (Acts 14:15-17), and the speech at Athens (Acts 17:22-31).
We have also five incidental references to its substance: a description given by
the soothsaying girl at Philippi (Acts 16:17), a summary of his teaching in the
synagogue at Thessalonica (Acts 17:2-3), a note of the points which struck the
Athenians in the Agora as strange (Acts 17:1-34. I8), an assertion with
reference to its tone and character made by the Town Clerk at Ephesus (Acts
19:37), and a reiteration of its fundamental elements by St. Paul himself in his
last address to the Ephesian eiders (Acts 20:21). Besides these, we have an
account of his preaching at Corinth given by St. Paul himself in his first
Epistle to that Church (1 Corinthians 2:2). These accounts are naturally divided
into two classes: the preaching in the synagogue, and the preaching to the
Gentiles. The account given by St. Luke of the preaching in the synagogue at
Thessalonica exactly agrees with, and naturally recalls, the sermon in the
synagogue at Antioch, of which the main outline is set before us at some length,
and it is unquestioned that that sermon so set forth is, and is intended to be,
a type of all St. Paul's teaching in the many synagogues to which he went. The
sermon is divided into three parts by dramatic appeals to the attention of his
hearers. In the first, St. Paul builds upon the past history of the Jewish race
and shows that his Gospel is rooted there, that in his message there is no
casting away of the things familiar, no denial of the truth of the old
revelation made to the Fathers; but rather that the whole history of Israel is
the divinely ordered preparation for the new revelation in the Messiah. In the
second, he sets forth the facts of the coming and rejection of Jesus and His
consequent crucifixion. Here it is startling with what simple and unhesitating
directness St. Paul faces at once this great difficulty, the difficulty which
has at all times everywhere been the most serious hindrance in the way of the
acceptance of the Gospel -- the rejection of the missionary's message by his own
people. He does not shrink from it, he does not apologize for it, he does not
attempt to conceal its weight. He sets it forth definitely, clearly, boldly; he
makes it part of his argument for the truth of his message. It is the fulfilment
of prophecy. Then he produces his conclusive proof, the Resurrection, witnessed
by the apostles, foretold by the prophets, the fulfilment of the promise. In the
third part, he proclaims his message of pardon for all who will receive it, and
utters a solemn warning of the consequences which will follow its rejection. We
may see here five elements and four characteristics of St. Paul's preaching in
the synagogue. The five elements are these: (1) An appeal to the past, an
attempt to win sympathy by a statement of truth common to him and to his
hearers. This statement of common belief creates naturally a bond of union. It
ensures that the speaker starts with the agreement and approval of his hearers.
It also prepares the ground for the new seed. The new truth is shown to grow out
of, and to be in harmony with, truth already known and accepted. It does not
appear as a strange and startling assertion of something at variance with all
that has before guided and enlightened life. (2) There is a statement of facts,
an assertion of things which can be understood, apprehended, accepted, disputed,
or proved. There is a presentation of the concrete, tangible, homely story, of
something easily grasped, the story of life and death. It is indeed the story of
a divine life and a divine death, but it moves on the plane of earth, with which
all alike are familiar, the injustice of rulers, the fluctuating passions of
crowds, the marvellous recovery, the Divine act of the Resurrection. (3) There
is the answer to the inevitable objection, to the instinctive protest, that all
the wisest and most thoughtful and most judicial minds among the speaker's own
people have decided against the claims here made. There is a careful presentment
of the proof, the evidence of trustworthy men, the agreement of the new truth
with the old which has already been acknowledged. (4) There is the appeal to the
spiritual needs of men, to the craving for pardon, and the comforting assurance
that in the new teaching may be found peace and confidence. (5) Finally, there
is the gave warning. The rejection of God's message involves serious danger. The
way of salvation may be refused, and is commonly refused, but not without peril.
Those are the elements. The characteristics are these: (I) Conciliatoriness and
sympathy with the condition of his hearers, readiness to recognize all that is
good in them and in their doctrine, sympathy with their difficulties, and care
to make the way for them as plain and simple as possible. (2) Courage in the
open acknowledgment of difficulties which cannot be avoided, and in the direct
assertion of unpalatable truth. There is no attempt to keep the door open by
partial statements, no concealment of the real issue and all that it involves,
no timid fear of giving offence, no suggestion of possible compromise, no
attempt to make things really difficult appear easy. (3) Respect. There is a
careful presentation of suitable evidence, there is an appeal to the highest
faculties in man. St. Paul speaks to men as naturally religious persons, and
appeals to them as living souls conscious of spiritual powers and spiritual
needs. (4) There is an unhesitating confidence in the truth of his message, and
in its power to meet and satisfy the spiritual needs of men. These four
characteristics of St. Paul's preaching we shall find everywhere. The elements
are not always the same. In particular, there is one element which is very
prominent in the preaching to the heathen which has no place here. There is no
demand for a break with the old religion. The Jew might become a Christian
without abandoning any of the forms of Judaism. A Gentile could not become a
Christian without a definite repudiation of his early faith and a definite
renunciation of its practice. The break for the Jew was internal only. He ceased
to seek his own righteousness in the careful observation of the Law; but
outwardly he might still keep the Law. For a Gentile to continue as a Christian
to observe the outward forms of his old religion was, to St. Paul, impossible.
It is also noticeable that there is not here the same insistence upon the
imminence of judgment which holds an important place in the preaching to the
heathen. The other elements we shall, I think, find more or less prominent in
that preaching. With the two exceptions to which I have just alluded, there
seems to be a closer agreement between the preaching in the synagogue and the
preaching outside than is sometimes allowed. Of the preaching to the heathen we
have two examples given us at some length, the speech at Lystra and the speech
at Athens. If these were typical examples of St. Paul's preaching to heathen,
they would certainly make us think that there was a great gulf between his
preaching in the synagogue and his preaching outside. The sermon in the
synagogue at Antioch is, comparatively speaking, complete. It contains a real
account of the Person and work of the Saviour; the speeches at Lystra and Athens
are only preliminary to any teaching about Christ. But as I think we shall see,
these are not really typical examples; they are speeches made under exceptional
circumstances at dramatic moments in St. Paul's career. They are to be compared
with 'the Speech on the Stairs' to the crowd in the Temple rather than with the
sermon in the synagogue. The speech on the stairs is not a typical example of
St. Paul's preaching of the Gospel to Jews, neither are these typical examples
of St. Paul's preaching of the Gospel to Gentiles. The speech at Lystra is an
extremely simple address, designed to check an excited crowd which proposed to
do sacrifice to the apostles under the belief that they were gods. It begins
with an explanation of the position of the apostles as messengers of God. It
contains a simple statement of the nature of God the Creator, and of His
personal care for His children, and of the folly of idolatry, with an
exhortation to turn from it. Then an answer is given to the natural objection
that, if this were true, God would not have left His children so long in
ignorance; and proofs are given, drawn from the familiar course of nature, the
succession of the seasons, the rain, the harvest. For all its profundity of tone
and philosophic garb, the speech at Athens is singularly like that at Lystra in
its actual teaching. Here too St. Paul begins with the declaration of the nature
of God as Lord of Heaven and earth. Here too he brings out in sharp contrast the
contradiction between idolatry and the nature of God; only, in speaking to
highly educated men, he tries to draw their sympathy by using quotations from
their own literature in support of his argument. Here too he answers the natural
objection to his teaching that it is new and that in the past God had left men
in ignorance of it. Here too he insists upon the need of repentance. But here he
adds, what he has elsewhere specially noted as an important element in his
preaching, judgment at hand, with its proof that the Judge has been appointed,
and His appointment ratified in the sight of all men by the fact of the
Resurrection. These speeches are chiefly important as illustrations of St.
Paul's characteristic method of approach to men and of his wonderful
adaptability to changing circumstances. Every one of the characteristics of the
sermon at Antioch is here, the sympathy and conciliatory address, the courage,
the respect, the confidence; but of the elements very few. There is no setting
forth of the Gospel. Professor Ramsay indeed says: 'There is nothing in the
reported words of St. Paul that is overtly Christian, and nothing (with the
possible exception of "the man whom he hath ordained") that several Greek
philosophers might not have said.' I cannot quite accept that estimate. There is
more, I think, in the last verse of the speech at Athens than Professor Ramsay
allows; but Mr. Rackham seems to be using equally exaggerated language when in
his Commentary on the Acts he describes this speech as 'St Paul's Gospel for the
Greeks'. These speeches were rather examples of the way in which St. Paul made
his first approach to people who were either ignorant of, or in practice denied,
the fundamental truths which lie behind the Gospel, than a setting forth of his
Gospel. It is important to notice how carefully St. Luke calls attention to the
meagre results of the preaching in Athens. It is almost certain that the
emphasis which St. Paul puts upon 'the Cross' in his preaching at Corinth marks,
and is meant to mark, a difference between his preaching at Athens and his
preaching at Corinth. These speeches then are certainly not representative of
St. Paul's preaching to the heathen. The few slight references in the Acts to
the general tenor of his preaching elsewhere make this abundantly clear. The
soothsaying girl at Philippi called attention to two points in St. Paul's
message, the Most High God, and the Way of Salvation. Now if the first of these
is fully represented in the speeches at Athens and Lystra, the second is
scarcely referred to in either. Again in St. Paul's own summary of his teaching
at Ephesus the two elements of the first importance are said to have been,
'Repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ', and here again
if the first finds a place in the speeches at Athens and Lystra, the second
finds none. Or, again, the charge made against St. Paul at Thessalonica was that
he was preaching the Kingdom of Christ, 'that there is another King, one Jesus')
But of this there is not a hint in the speeches. In the light of these facts, it
is, I think, impossible to maintain that the speeches at Lystra and Athens
represent St. Paul's Gospel. It also seems unfair to base upon them a theory
that St. Paul approached his Gentile hearers with great caution and economy,
leading them gradually on from heathenism by a semi-pagan philosophy to
Christianity. It is perfectly just to argue from them that the Christian
missionary should strive to possess a sound knowledge of the religion of those
to whom he speaks, and should approach them with sympathetic understanding of
their intellectual position; but that is a totally different thing. It is one
thing to preach Christ with a sympathetic knowledge of the belief of those to
whom we preach and to base our appeal on the common truth which we hold together
with our hearers; it is another thing to spend our time philosophizing when we
might be preaching Christ. If St. Paul philosophized at Athens he did not
philosophize as a general rule, and he has told us quite plainly what he thought
was more important. Philosophical disquisitions have no doubt their place; but
for mission preaching the supreme subject is 'the Cross', 'Repentance, and
Faith'. It may be justly argued from these speeches that St. Paul did not, and
that the Christian missionary today should not, make bitter and virulent attacks
upon the objects of his hearers' veneration. It is true that St. Paul denounced
idolatry in strong terms, speaking of 'these vain things' and 'this ignorance',
but in doing this he was only taking a position sanctioned by the highest
intellects of his day, and recognized by all as a common attitude amongst
thoughtful men. Similarly today a missionary in China might denounce in strong
terms the folly of Taoist superstitions, and in doing so he would receive the
approval of all right-minded Chinese, because that is the proper attitude for an
enlightened teacher to take up; it is the attitude of the Sacred Edict. But that
is not the same thing as to rail upon the religion of those whom he addresses.
St. Paul did not do that either at Lystra or at Athens, and the Town Clerk at
Ephesus is witness that he did not blaspheme the goddess of that city. This is
quite in harmony with the characteristic attitude of St. Paul to his hearers
which I have before noted. Christians in later days, accustomed to more bitter
methods of controversy, could not understand this. To St. Chrysostom it seemed
incredible that St. Paul should have refrained from fierce denunciation of the
false goddess. He explained the matter by saying that the Town Clerk was not
stating a known fact, but simply using a form of speech which he thought
calculated to quiet an excited crowd. In later ages this same habit of mind
still lingered on, and it is only now dying out. Now, it is happily rare to hear
a missionary revile the religion of other people, or hold up the objects of
their veneration to scorn and ridicule, and it is to be hoped that it may soon
cease altogether. If we cannot accept the speeches at Athens and Lystra as
typical of St. Paul's address to heathen people, still we are not left wholly to
the guidance of the few scattered statements concerning his main doctrines which
I have quoted above. We have as a witness the epistles to the Thessalonians. The
first epistle was written about a year after St. Paul's first preaching in the
city, where, according to Professor Ramsay's calculation he had laboured for
only five months. Thus his stay had not been long enough for him to do more than
teach the fundamental truths which seemed to him of the first importance; all
the circumstances of his visit were still fresh in his memory and he was
recalling to the minds of his readers what he had taught them by word of mouth.
Now in that epistle we get an extraordinarily clear and coherent scheme of
simple mission preaching not only implied but definitely expressed. Briefly that
teaching contains the following elements: (1) There is one living and true God
(1 Thessalonians 1:9); (2) Idolatry is sinful and must be forsaken (1
Thessalonians 1:9); (3) The wrath of God is ready to be revealed against the
heathen for their impurity (1 Thessalonians 4:6), and against the Jews for their
rejection of Christ and their opposition to the Gospel (1 Thessalonians
2:15-16); (4) The judgment will come suddenly and unexpectedly (1 Thessalonians
5:2-3); (5) Jesus the Son of God (1 Thessalonians 1:10), given over to death (1
Thessalonians 5:10), raised from the dead (1 Thessalonians 4:14): is the Saviour
from the wrath of God (1 Thessalonians 1:10); (6) The Kingdom of Jesus is now
set up and all men are invited to enter it (1 Thessalonians 2:12); (7) Those who
believe and turn to God are now expecting the coming of the Saviour who will
return from heaven to receive them (1 Thessalonians 1:10; 1 Thessalonians
4:15-17); (8) Meanwhile their life must be pure (1 Thessalonians 4:1-8), useful
(1 Thessalonians 4:11-12), and watchful (1 Thessalonians 5:4-8); (9) To that end
God has given them His Holy Spirit (1 Thessalonians 4:8; 1 Thessalonians 5:19).'
This Gospel accords perfectly with the account which St. Paul gives of his
preaching in his last address to the Ephesian elders, and it contains all the
elements which are to be found in all the sermons and in all the notices of St.
Paul's preaching in the Acts, except only the answers to the objections against
the Gospel, and the proofs of its truth which would be manifestly out of place
in writing to Christians. The nature of God, one, living, personal, loving; the
facts of the life of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the death, the resurrection:
their meaning and their power to supply the spiritual needs of men; the folly of
idolatry; the way of salvation: repentance and faith; the doctrine of the
kingdom; the nearness of judgment: all are there, not one is omitted, and they
form one connected whole of extraordinary power. We can easily understand how
such a Gospel would appeal to the minds of St. Paul's hearers. To those who,
among the conflicting claims and confused teachings of polytheism, were seeking
for some unity in the world of nature and of thought, St. Paul brought a
doctrine, at once simple and profound, of one personal God living and true, the
Creator of all. To men who sought for some intelligent account of the world, its
nature and its end, St. Paul revealed a moral purpose in the light of which all
the perplexities, uncertainties, and apparent contradictions, resolved
themselves into a divine harmony. To men of high moral instincts, appalled and
dismayed at the impurity of society around them, St. Paul offered the assurance
of a moral judgment. To men oppressed by the sense of sin he brought the
assurance of pardon and release. To the downtrodden, the sad, the hopeless, he
opened the door into a kingdom of light and liberty. To those who were terrified
by the fear of malignant spirits he revealed a Spirit benignant, watchful and
ever present, all-powerful and able at a word to banish the power of darkness.
To men dissatisfied with the worship of idols he taught the pure service of one
true God. To people whose imaginations were overwhelmed by the terrors and
darkness of the grave he gave the assurance of a future beyond the grave in the
bliss and peace of the Risen Lord. To the weak who needed support, to sinners
bound with the chain of vice, to people unable to cope with the depressed
morality of their heathen surroundings, he brought the promise of an indwelling
Spirit of power. To the lonely he offered the friendly warmth and society of a
company all eagerly looking forward to a bright day when Grace would come and
this world with all its perplexities and troubles pass away. It is no wonder
then that this Gospel of St. Paul appealed to men, fired their imaginations,
filled them with hope, and strengthened them with power to face persecution. Yet
to embrace this new religion was not easy. There was, as we have seen, in St.
Paul's preaching a conciliatory, sympathetic attitude towards the heathen. There
was no violent attack, no crude and brutal assault upon their beliefs, still
less was there any scornful or flippant mocking of their errors. But, on the
other hand, there was no weak condoning of the offence of idolatry, no eager
anxiety to make the best of a false religion, no hazy suggestion that every
religion, if only it is rightly understood, is a worship of the true God and a
teaching which leads to Him. St. Paul gave his hearers a perfectly clear,
definite understanding of what was required of them. To enjoy the hope set
before them they must be prepared for a complete break with the past. There was
no easy road to Christ's glory, no making the best of both worlds, no hope of
salvation but in Christ, and no entrance into the Church except with the
certainty of suffering persecution. There is today a tendency to avoid this
stern doctrine. We are tempted rather to exaggerate the truth and virtue of
heathen religions, and to minimize the gulf which separates the man who is 'in
Christ' from the man who is not. We hesitate to speak, we scarcely dare to
think, of idolatry as sin. We have lost the sense that the Judge is at the door
and that the wrath of God against all ungodliness is ready to be revealed. We no
longer look upon the acceptance of our message as 'deliverance from the wrath to
come'. We tend to think that the duty of the Church is rather to Christianize
the world than to gather out of the world the elect of God into the fellowship
of His Son. We hear men speak vaguely of the salvation of the race rather than
of the salvation of the saints. This attitude of mind is most clearly and amply
expressed by Mr. Bernard Lucas in The Empire of Christ, and it leads him to the
conclusion that we ought to receive the Hindu 'without demanding that exclusion
from his social environment which baptism and the renunciation of caste
involve'. If we begin by insisting that the leavening of the heathen world with
Christian ideas is the true aim of the Christian Church, and then argue that the
truly appalling character of the complete break with the heathen past -- which
is involved in the open acceptance of Christianity, and the confession of
Christ, and admission into His body -- is a stumbling-block in the way of the
general acceptance of Christian ideas by pagan nations, we speedily arrive at
the conclusion that everything which accentuates the difficulty, or attracts
attention to the gravity of the change involved in passing from the one dominion
to the other, should be abandoned. If our hope is to see gradual transformation
of native religious thought and practice, and the gradual evolution of a higher
type, we naturally deprecate sudden and startling rupture. The work of the
Christian missionary is not to call men from the heathen temple into the Church
of God but to trim the dimly glowing lamp of God in the heathen temple, and to
pour into it a few drops of the oil of Christian doctrine till it shines with a
new radiance. Where this tendency manifests itself, it is due to the fact that
we have lost the true conception of the nature and work of faith as preached by
St. Paul. As he taught, the one essential condition of life was faith in our
Lord Jesus Christ. But faith in Jesus Christ involved, in itself, a breach with
the past. Faith was not a mere intellectual assent to a new theory of religion
which could be held whilst the life remained what it was before. It was not a
mere acknowledgment of a new moral law, of a duty of following the example of a
new Teacher which could be obeyed without breaking away from the old law. It was
not a mere recognition of the beauty of the life and teaching of the Lord which
might make a man love His character from a distance. It was an act by which a
man came into personal contact with the Divine source of life. It was an act by
which he opened his soul to the influence of a Spirit. It admitted to a vital
union. It was the condition of a new birth. It resulted in a new creation. The
moment a man had faith, life for him consisted in union with Christ.
Consequently it meant the acceptance of a new source of life. It meant
dependence upon Christ for the supply and maintenance of life. It meant the
abandonment of the old conception of life, nay, of the very life itself as he
before knew it. It meant the casting away of all the former things. But this
total and entire conversion of the inner man, this absolute doing away of the
old and acceptance of the new life, being in its nature a real breach and not a
formal one, necessarily involved a corresponding outward breach with the old
form of life. Of this breach baptism was the sacrament. In baptism the change
was effected and realized in fact. Baptism was not a mere formal external act, a
symbol of a spiritual fact which was already complete without it. A spiritual
conversion which was not also a conversion of life was no conversion at all, but
a delusion. Spiritual facts being more real than outward facts must dominate the
outward life; or else we are reduced to drawing a sharp line of demarcation
between the spiritual and the material worlds and treating them as independent
spheres, and that St. Paul always refused to do. With the heart man believes,
with the mouth he confesses; but a mouth which does not confess disproves the
existence of a heart that believes. The soul cannot be God's and the life not
God's at the same time. The soul cannot be recreated and the life remain
unchanged. The spiritual breach is proved and realized and completed in the
outward breach. Where there is no outward change it is safe to deny an inward
change. Faith without baptism and all that baptism involved was consequently no
part of St. Paul's teaching. Furthermore, this easy doctrine of evangelization
has been made more easy for us by the fact that we have lost, in these days, two
of the most prominent elements of St. Paul's Gospel: the doctrine of judgment at
hand, and the doctrine of the wrath of God. St. Paul did not preach that in
times past men had lived under the stern dominion of law and that with the
Gospel had come a day of toleration; he preached that in times past God had been
longsuffering, and that now He called upon all men everywhere to repent, because
the day of judgment was at hand. He did not preach that the mission of the
Gospel was to reveal the true beauty of heathen religions; but that it was to
open a door of salvation to those who would flee from the wrath to come. He did
not deny the salvation of good heathen; but he did not preach that men could be
as certainly saved by being good heathen as by being good Christians. He
proclaimed that the man who was 'in Christ' was 'in the way of salvation'
'saved', and the man who was not in Christ was 'perishing'. He did not argue
that it was desirable to embroider or conceal the doctrine of the Cross which
was a stumbling-block to Jews and Gentiles alike, but that the first duty of him
who would find salvation in Christ was to embrace the Cross in baptism and,
dying to his heathen past, rise into a new life with Christ. He did not minimize
the breach between Christianity and heathenism: he declared that the one was the
kingdom of evil, the other the Kingdom of God, and that his work was to turn men
'from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto God'. Personally, I
feel inclined to believe that in both these respects our modern doctrine is not
more true than the doctrine of the ancients, whilst it is far less effective. I
believe that in concentrating our thought upon the continuity and uniformity of
the world processes we have lost sight of the equally true facts of change,
catastrophe, judgment. If there is no judgment 'human life is the only process
that we know that comes to no vivid conclusion; moral discipline is the only
seed that has no harvest'. There is in St. Paul's definite soul-stirring
assertion of the wrath of God and the reality of judgment at hand, a truth more
profound than any that underlies our somewhat enfeebled ideas of universal
benevolence and the determined progress of the race. There is something more
true in his denunciation of idolatry as sin than in our denial that it is
possible for a man to worship an idol, or in our suggestion that all idolatry is
only a road to spiritual worship of the one true God. There is something
stronger and better in his unhesitating insistence on the necessity of those who
come to Christ breaking with their past than in Mr. Bernard Lucas's doctrine
that in the Christianizing of the world all men will be brought to Christ. One
day I think we shall return to these stern doctrines, realizing in them, a truth
more profound than we now know; and then we shall preach them with conviction,
and being convinced ourselves we shall convince others. 'Knowing the terror of
the Lord' we shall persuade men, to the great advancement of the Kingdom of God.
Meanwhile, if only we could avoid explaining away those passages of Holy
Scripture which speak of the Second Coming and the Judgment, which we
confessedly cannot explain, I believe we should often find that our converts
would understand them better than we do and would help us to understand them.
St. Paul expected his hearers to be moved. He so believed in his preaching that
he knew that it was 'the power of God unto salvation'. This expectation is a
very real part of the presentation of the Gospel. It is a form of faith. A mere
preaching which is not accompanied by the expectation of faith, is not a true
preaching of the Gospel, because faith is a part of the Gospel. Simply to
scatter the seed, with a sort of vague hope that some of it may come up
somewhere, is not preaching the Gospel. It is indeed a misrepresentation of the
Gospel. To preach the Gospel requires that the preacher should believe that he
is sent to those whom he is addressing at the moment, because God has among them
those whom He is at the moment calling: it requires that the speaker should
expect a response. The air of expectation pervades all the accounts of St.
Paul's preaching. Everywhere we are made to recognize, not only that St. Paul
expected to make converts, but that others expected it also. This accounts for
the opposition which his preaching created. People were afraid of his preaching,
and fear is a form of expectation: it is a form of faith. St. Paul himself was
inspired with the faith of hope: he inspired others with the faith of fear.
Everywhere he was surrounded by an atmosphere of faith. Further, he always
contrived to bring his hearers to a point. There was none of the indeterminate,
inconclusive talking, which we are apt to describe as 'sowing the seed'. Our
idea of 'sowing the seed' seems to be rather like scattering wheat out of a
balloon. We read, in our reports, of missionaries on evangelistic tours visiting
village after village, talking to little crowds of hearers, telling them the
good news; but very little seems to be expected to come of it. Occasionally, of
course, grains of wheat scattered out of a balloon will fall upon ploughed and
fertile land and will spring up and bear fruit; but it is a casual method of
sowing. St. Paul did not scatter seeds, he planted. He so dealt with his hearers
that he brought them speedily and directly to a point of decision, and then he
demanded of them that they should make a choice and act on their choice. In this
way he kept the moral issue clearly before them, and made them realize that his
preaching was not merely a novel and interesting doctrine, but a life. The
possibility of rejection was ever present. St. Paul did not establish himself in
a place and go on preaching for years to men who refused to act on his teaching.
When once he had brought them to a point where decision was clear, he demanded
that they should make their choice. If they rejected him, he rejected them. The
'shaking of the lap', the 'shaking of the dust from the feet', the refusal to
teach those who refused to act on the teaching, was a vital part of the Pauline
presentation of the Gospel. He did not simply 'go away', he openly rejected
those who showed themselves unworthy of his teaching. It was part of the Gospel
that men might 'judge themselves unworthy of eternal life'. It is a question
which needs serious consideration whether the Gospel can be truly presented if
this element is left out. Can there be a true teaching which does not involve
the refusal to go on teaching? The teaching of the Gospel is not a mere
intellectual instruction: it is a moral process, and involves a moral response.
If then we go on teaching where that moral response is refused, we cease to
preach the Gospel; we make the teaching a mere education of the intellect. This
is why so much of our teaching of the Gospel in schools and zenanas is
ineffective. We teach, but we do not teach morally. We do not demand moral
response. We are afraid to take the responsibility which morally rests upon us
of shaking the lap. We should refuse to give intellectual teaching to a pupil if
he refused to give us his attention: we might equally refuse to give religious
teaching to a pupil who refused to give us religious attention. It is a question
which needs serious consideration whether we ought to plant ourselves in a town
or village and continue for years teaching people who deliberately refuse to
give us a moral hearing. We persevere in this in spite of the fact that near at
hand are men who are eager and willing to give us that moral hearing. We are
afraid to take the responsibility which morally rests upon us of shaking the
lap. We have forgotten that the same Lord who gave us the command to go, gave us
the command to shake off the dust from our feet. We have lost the art of shaking
the lap, we have learnt the art of steeling our hearts and shutting up the
bowels of our compassion against those who cry to us for the Gospel. There is
one other aspect of St. Paul's preaching which is often taken for granted, but
is certainly not true -- that the Gospel of St. Paul was purely individualistic.
To the heathen crowd St. Paul addressed himself as to a mass of souls from
amongst which he was to gather the elect children of God. But he did not
approach them as an isolated prophet: he came as an Apostle of the Church of
God, and he did not simply seek to gather out individual souls from amongst the
heathen, he gathered them into the society of which he was a member. He did not
teach them that they would find salvation by themselves alone, but that they
would find it in the perfecting of the Body of Christ. Souls were not invited to
enter into an isolated solitary religious life of communion with Christ: they
were invited to enter the society in which the Spirit manifested Himself and in
which they would share in the communication of His life. It was inconceivable
that a Christian taught by St. Paul could think of himself as obtaining a
personal salvation by himself. He became one of the brethren. He shared in the
common sacraments. The Church was not an invisible body formed of unknown
'believers'. Men were admitted by their baptism into a very visible society,
liable to be attacked by very visible foes. The Apostle who preached to them was
a member of it, and he preached as a member of it, and as a member of it he
invited them to enter it, to share its privileges and its burdens, its glory and
its shame. Entrance into it was guarded by a very definite and unmistakable
sacrament. Thus Christianity was from the very beginning both individualistic
and socialistic. St. Paul's preaching ever appealed to and demanded the exercise
of the two highest and deepest convictions of men, their sense of individual
responsibility and their sense of social communion with their fellows.
Repentance and faith are the keynotes of his preaching. He strove always to
bring men to make that act of spiritual surrender by which they renounce the
past and turn to Christ. In repentance they confess their past wrongdoing; in
faith they find forgiveness as members of Christ's Body. In repentance they
recognize their weakness; in faith they find strength by the administration of
the Spirit of Christ. In repentance they confess the way in which they have
walked is a way of death; in faith they find in the Kingdom of Christ the way of
life. In repentance they break with a sinful world; in faith they enter the
Church.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 9: THE TEACHING
========================================================================

PART III The Training of Converts 8 The Teaching. How far was St. Paul's success
due to the teaching which he gave to his converts? 9 The Training of Candidates
for Baptism and Ordination. How far was his success due to his method of
preparing his converts for Baptism and Ordination? CHAPTER 8 The Teaching From
what has already been said it is manifest that St. Paul did not go about as a
missionary preacher merely to convert individuals: he went to establish churches
from which the light might radiate throughout the whole country round. The
secret of success in this work lies in beginning at the very beginning. It is
the training of the first converts which sets the type for the future. If the
first converts are taught to depend upon the missionary, if all work,
evangelistic, educational, social is concentrated in his hands, the infant
community learns to rest passively upon the man from whom they receive their
first insight into the Gospel. Their faith having no sphere for its growth and
development lies dormant. A tradition very rapidly grows up that nothing can be
done without the authority and guidance of the missionary, the people wait for
him to move, and, the longer they do so, the more incapable they become of any
independent action. Thus the leader is confirmed in the habit of gathering all
authority into his own hands, and of despising the powers of his people, until
he makes their inactivity an excuse for denying their capacity. The fatal
mistake has been made of teaching the converts to rely upon the wrong source of
strength. Instead of seeking it in the working of the Holy Spirit in themselves,
they seek it in the missionary. They put him in the place of Christ, they depend
upon him. In allowing them, or encouraging them, to do this, the missionary not
only checks the spiritual growth of his converts and teaches them to rely upon a
wrong source of strength; he actually robs them of the strength which they
naturally possess and would naturally use. The more independent spirits amongst
them can find no opportunity for exercising their gifts. All authority is
concentrated in the hands of the missionary. If a native Christian feels any
capacity for Christian work, he can only use his capacity under the direction,
and in accordance with the wishes, of that supreme authority. He can do little
in his own way; that is, in the way which is natural to him. Consequently, if he
is to do any spiritual work he must either so suppress himself as to act in an
unnatural way, or he must find outside the Church the opportunity which is
denied to him within her borders, or he must put aside the desire which God has
implanted in his soul to do spiritual work for Christ, and content himself with
secular employment. If he does the first, he works all his life as a cripple: if
he takes either of the two other courses, the Church is robbed of his help. It
is almost impossible to imagine that a native 'prophet' could remain within the
church system as it exists in many districts. If a prophet arose he would either
have all the spirit crushed out of him, or he would secede. The native Christian
ministers who remain are those who fall into lifeless submission to authority,
or else spend their lives in discontented misery, feeling that they have lost
themselves not to God but to a foreign system. Thus the community is robbed of
its strength: its own forces are weakened whilst it depends upon the most
uncertain of props and the most unnatural. In the result the missionary is left
to deplore the sad condition of a Christian church which seems in danger of
falling away the moment he leaves it. If there is a striking difference between
St. Paul's preaching and ours there is a still greater difference between his
method of dealing with his converts and that common among us today. Indeed, I
think we may say that it is in his dealing with his converts that we come to the
heart of the matter and may hope to find one secret of his amazing success. With
us today this is the great difficulty. We can gather in converts, we often
gather in large numbers; but we cannot train them to maintain their own
spiritual life. We cannot establish the church on a self-supporting basis. Our
converts often display great virtues, but they remain, too often for
generations, dependent upon us. Having gathered a Christian congregation the
missionary is too often tied to it and so hindered from further evangelistic
work. This difficulty unquestionably arises from our early training of our
converts, and therefore it is of supreme importance that we should endeavour to
discover, as far as we can, the method of St. Paul in training his. For he
succeeded exactly where we fail. The first and most striking difference between
his action and ours is that he founded 'churches' whilst we found 'Missions'.
The establishment of Missions is a peculiarity of our modern methods of which I
have already pointed out many disadvantages in the chapter on finance. Here it
must be added that they have not proved themselves in practice to be very
convenient or effective instruments for creating indigenous churches. They are
intended to be a means to that end. The theory is that the Mission stands at
first in a sort of paternal relationship to the native Christians: then it holds
a coordinate position side by side with the native organization; finally it
ought to disappear and leave the native Christians as a fully organized church.
But the Mission is not the Church. It consists of a missionary, or a number of
missionaries, and their paid helpers, supported by a foreign Society. There is
thus created a sort of dual organization. On the one hand there is the Mission
with its organization; on the other is the body of native Christians, often with
an organization of its own. The one is not indeed separate from the other, but
in practice they are not identified. The natives always speak of 'the Mission'
as something which is not their own. The Mission represents a foreign power, and
natives who work under it are servants of a foreign government. It is an
evangelistic society, and the natives tend to leave it to do the evangelistic
work which properly belongs to them. It is a model, and the natives learn simply
to imitate it. It is a wealthy body, and the natives tend to live upon it, and
expect it to supply all their needs. Finally, it becomes a rival, and the native
Christians feel its presence as an annoyance, and they envy its powers; it
becomes an incubus, and they groan under the weight of its domination. In the
early stages it maintains a high standard of morality, and in all stages it
ministers largely to the advancement of the native community by its educational
and medical establishments; but it always keeps the native Christians in check,
and its relations with them are difficult and full of perils. A large part of
modern books on Missions is concerned with the attempt to justify these
relations and to find some way of escape from these difficulties. For St. Paul
they did not exist, because he did not create them. He set up no organization
intermediate between his preaching and the establishment of a fully organized
indigenous church. It is interesting to speculate what would have happened, if,
at the end of his first missionary journey, St. Paul had hastened back to
Antioch to entreat for the assistance of two or three presbyters to supervise
the growth of the churches in South Galatia, pleading that unless he could
secure this help he would be unable to enter the open door which he saw before
him; or if instead of ordaining elders he had appointed catechists, keeping the
administration of the sacraments in his own hands. From our own experience we
can easily guess. But our experience was not his experience, because our
practice was not his practice. The facts are these: St. Paul preached in a place
for five or six months and then left behind him a church, not indeed free from
the need of guidance, but capable of growth and expansion. For example,
according to Ramsay, St. Paul preached in Lystra for about six months on his
first missionary journey, then he ordained elders and left for about eighteen
months. After that he visited the church for the second time, but only spent a
few months in the province. Then for the last time, after an interval of three
years, he visited them again, but again he was only a month or two in the
province. From this it is clear that the churches of Galatia were really founded
and established in the first visit. The same fact is also clear from the
language used in the Acts concerning St. Paul's second visit. When he was about
to set forth, St. Luke says that he proposed to Barnabas to 'go and visit our
brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how
they do', and he is described as passing through Galatia delivering the decrees
of the Jerusalem Council with the result that 'the churches were established in
the faith and increased in number daily'. This is not language which could be
used of a missionary, visiting congregations which could not stand without his
presence, or which lacked any of the fundamentals of settled Christian life: it
is language which speaks of organized and established communities. Similarly in
Macedonia, Professor Ramsay calculates that St. Paul did not stay in
Thessalonica more than five months, and he did not visit the place again for
over five years, yet he writes to 'the church of the Thessalonians' and speaks
of it as being on the same footing as 'the churches of God in Judea'. At Corinth
St. Paul spent a year and a half at his first visit and then did not go there
again for three or four years, but he wrote letters as to a fully equipped and
well-established church. Now these are typical examples of his work. The
question before us is, how he could so train his converts as to be able to leave
them after so short a time with any security that they would be able to stand
and grow. It seems at first sight almost incredible. In the space of time which
amongst us is generally passed in the class of hearers, men were prepared by St.
Paul for the ministry. How could he prepare men for Holy Orders in so brief a
time? How could he even prepare them for holy baptism? What could he have taught
them in five or six months? If any one today were to propose to ordain men
within six months of their conversion from idolatry, he would be deemed rash to
the verge of madness. Yet no one denies that St. Paul did it. The sense of
stupefaction and amazement that comes over us when we think of it is the measure
of the distance which we have travelled from the apostolic method. We commonly
attempt to alleviate the sense of oppression by arguing, first, that his
converts were people wholly and totally different from ours, and, then, that as
a matter of fact he did not really leave them, because he was constantly in
touch with them by messengers and by letters. In this way we escape from the
difficulty, but it is only by blinding our eyes. I have already attempted to
describe some characteristics of the society from which his converts were taken.
It is quite impossible to imagine or believe that they came to St. Paul with any
special advantages. If we take the highest possible view of the condition of the
people at Lystra, or Thessalonica, or Corinth, a few had some acquaintance with
the Old Testament, and the requirements of the Jewish Law, a few had some
knowledge of Greek Philosophy, the vast majority were steeped in the follies and
iniquities of idolatry and were the slaves of the grossest superstitions. Not
one knew anything of the life and teaching of the Saviour. In India and China we
are constantly in touch with material as good as any to be found at Lystra.
Before now we have received high caste, educated men, before now we have
received mortal men endowed with profound spiritual capacities, who would
compare well with the best of the people with whom St. Paul had to deal.
Moreover, our converts today possess one advantage of great importance which was
denied to his. Today the whole Bible is printed in the vernacular of nearly
every people, and in addition there is a considerable and rapidly-growing
theological literature. This advantage is so great that, by itself alone, it
should make us cautious of arguing that we cannot follow the Pauline method
because his converts were in a better position than ours. Neither is it just to
minimize St. Paul's work by over-estimating the extent of the supervision
exercised by the Apostle over his converts by means of letters and messengers.
The only possible case in the Four Provinces, on which can be based an argument
to guide and direct the organization of a new church for any length of time,
arises out of our ignorance of the movements of St. Luke from the time at which
he arrived at Philippi with St. Paul on his second missionary journey till the
time at which St. Paul met him there on his third journey. St. Luke says that
'we', including himself, arrived at Philippi, and that 'they', i.e. St. Paul and
Silas, left for Thessalonica. Five years later St. Paul and his company arrived
at Philippi, and the 'we', including St. Luke, sailed away to Troas. This has
seemed to many a sufficient reason for arguing that St. Luke was left at
Philippi all that time. In that case he must, without doubt, have been a pillar
of strength to the church in that place. If that was really the case, it does
not affect the truth of the statement that it was not St. Paul's usual practice
to establish his fellow-workers as ministers to the infant congregations which
he founded. If St. Luke stayed at Philippi, it was on his own initiative,
either, as Professor Ramsay suggests, because he had a house there, or for some
other private reason. It is impossible to argue from an isolated and doubtful
incident of this kind against the whole course of St. Paul's action elsewhere.
St. Paul left Timothy and Silas at Beroea, but only for a very short time, with
orders to rejoin him as quickly as possible. He sent Timothy from Athens to
Thessalonica. He sent Timothy at least once and Titus two or three times to
Corinth. But there is no mention of any messenger being sent to Galatia, and the
terms in which these visits of his fellow-workers to Macedonia and Achaia are
spoken off at once reveal the fact that they were not sent to minister to and to
educate congregations ignorant of the fundamental truths and incapable of
maintaining their own life. St. Paul was careful not to lose touch with his new
converts. They sorely needed visits and instruction, and they received them. I
have no doubt that he was in constant communication with them by one means or
another. But there is an immense difference between dealing with an organized
church through letters and messengers and occasional visits, and exercising
direct personal government. Visits paid at long intervals, occasional letters,
even constant communication by means of deputies, is not at all the same thing
as sending catechists or teachers to stay and instruct converts for a generation
whilst they depend upon the missionary for the ministration of the sacraments.
Nothing can alter or disguise the fact that St. Paul did leave behind him at his
first visit complete churches. Nothing can alter or disguise the fact that he
succeeded in so training his converts that men who came to him absolutely
ignorant of the Gospel were able to maintain their position with the help of
occasional letters and visits at crises of special difficulty. We want then to
consider: (1) What St. Paul taught his converts; (2) How he prepared them for
baptism and ordination. (1) I have already tried to set forth the elements of
the simple Gospel contained in the public preaching of St. Paul. That Gospel
involves a doctrine of God the Father, the Creator; a doctrine of Jesus, the
Son, the Redeemer, the Saviour; a doctrine of the Holy Spirit, the indwelling
source of strength; but these in the simplest and most practical form. Besides
this St. Paul left a tradition to which he constantly refers. In the next
Epistle to the Corinthians this tradition, as touching two points of Christian
practice and doctrine, is set forth in some detail. We see there that the
teaching on the Holy Communion involved a careful statement of the institution
of the rite and of the manner in which it was to be observed; we see that the
teaching of the resurrection included an account of the appearances of the Lord
to the disciples after His death, beginning with the appearance to St. Peter and
ending with the appearance to St. Paul on the Damascus road. Hence we may
conclude that the doctrine involved in the preaching was reinforced, in the
tradition delivered to converts, by more or less detailed teaching of the facts
in the life of Christ upon which the doctrine rested. It is unfortunate that we
cannot determine whether this tradition was written down. Professor Harnack
tells us that 'the Jews had already drawn up a catechism for proselytes', and
any one who has had the slightest experience in the difficulty of teaching
heathen converts will at once naturally understand how the need of a book of
instruction, which could be left in the hands of the leaders of these early
churches, must have pressed upon St. Paul. The first work missionaries commonly
do, when they approach a new country, is to translate such a book. We should
naturally incline to imagine that St. Paul would have been compelled by the
circumstances of the case to procure a short life of Christ with an appendix on
Christian morality. Yet there is no sure ground for arguing that in these early
years such a book existed. It is strange that St. Paul makes no references in
his writings to any parable or miracle of Christ; and references to, or
quotations from, His sayings are extraordinarily scanty. On the other hand,
references to His death and resurrection abound. We can only suppose then that
St. Paul relied upon an oral teaching of those fundamental facts. Further, St.
Paul accepted and delivered to his converts as an inspired book the Jewish Old
Testament. With him began that strange process by which a book, originally the
peculiar property of one people, was taken from them and made a foundation stone
of the religion of another people; all its references to the original tribe
being reinterpreted so as to be applicable to the new people, all its rites
spiritualized so as to have a meaning and instruction for a people who did not
observe them in the letter; until at last the new people so made the book their
own that they denied to the original possessors any part or lot in it. St. Paul
taught his converts to read the Old Testament and to read it in a mystic sense
as applying to Gentile Christians. That does not seem to us easy. We do not as a
rule find it easy to teach heathen converts to use the Old Testament properly
even when they have the whole of the New Testament with which to illuminate it.
It does not seem to us the most convenient of text-books to put into the hands
of new converts. We wonder how St. Paul could have taught the common people, the
slaves, the labourers, to use such a book in six months, even if they could read
at all when they came to him? St. Paul plainly lectured, using the Old Testament
as his textbook. The more intelligent speedily caught his method of reading and
interpreting it. The meetings of the church were gatherings for mutual
instruction. Anyone who had been reading the book and had discovered a passage
which seemed to point to Christ, or an exhortation which seemed applicable to
the circumstances of their life, or a promise which encouraged him with hope for
this life or the next, produced it and explained it for the benefit of all. That
was the secret, there lay the source of all the early Christian literature. That
is better than sending a catechist to instruct a congregation. The catechist
conducts a service and preaches a sermon: the others listen, or get into the
habit of not listening; the local prophet is silent. St. Paul did not send
catechists to teach. Timothy, Titus, Secundus, Gaius, and the rest, after a
short time, left their native congregations and followed St. Paul, ready to be
sent anywhere with special instruction, or exhortation, or direction, to any
congregation which was in a difficulty; but he did not set them over
congregations of Christians as catechists are set by us. By this means St. Paul
was always calling out more and more the capacities of the people in the church.
But he might have established Timothy at Lystra or at Thessalonica; in that
case, people who, in Timothy's absence, were forced to think and speak, would
have remained silent. Finally, he taught them the form of administration and the
meaning of the two sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. There is not a
shadow of evidence to support the notion that these sacraments were considered
optional in the early Church. In the writings of St. Paul it is taken for
granted that every Christian has been baptized and that all meet habitually at
the Table of the Lord. To wrest the passage in the First Epistle to the
Corinthians into a depreciation of baptism, in the face of the whole teaching of
all the other Epistles, is simply to deny the use of words to convey meaning.
Further, it is universally taken for granted that those to whom St. Paul wrote
were familiar with the form of administration of these sacraments and with the
essential doctrine implied in them. Thus far St. Paul must have taught his first
converts himself. Thus St. Paul seems to have left his newly-founded churches
with a simple system of Gospel teaching, two sacraments, a tradition of the main
facts of the death and resurrection, and the Old Testament. There was apparently
no form of service, except of course the form of the sacraments, nor any form of
prayer, unless indeed he taught the Lord's Prayer. There is no certain evidence
of the existence of a written gospel or of a formal creed. This seems to us
remarkably litde. We can hardly believe that a church could be founded on so
slight a basis. And yet it is possible that it was precisely the simplicity and
brevity of the teaching which constituted its strength. There is a very grave
danger in importing complete systems of worship and theology. We lay great
stress on the constant repetition of formal services; we make it our boast that
our Prayer Book, year by year in orderly cycle, brings before us the whole
system of the faith, and we import that Prayer Book and hand it over to new
congregations. But it is too complete. It contains too much. The new converts
cannot grasp anything securely. They are forced to go through the whole cycle.
Before they have learnt addition they must study division, before they have
mastered division they must face fractions and decimals, and then round again
and again, until they cease to make any effort to master the truth. By teaching
the simplest elements in the simplest form to the many, and by giving them the
means by which they could for themselves gain further knowledge, by leaving them
to meditate upon these few fundamental truths, and to teach one another what
they could discover, St. Paul ensured that his converts should really master the
most important things. Catechists with Prayer Books cannot take the place of
long meditation and private study and united search, and oft-repeated lessons in
the simplest and most necessary truth. We are sometimes astonished at the
knowledge and zeal of a man who has heard one simple sermon on one Christian
doctrine, and has taken home with him one simple book, a gospel, or a catechism.
After two, or three, or many years he returns and displays a spiritual insight
which astonishes us. He has made his one truth his own, and that illumines the
whole of his world, whilst our Prayer-Book-fed Christians often have a
smattering of knowledge of all the faith, and yet have little light by which to
walk. The Creed is really very simple, and very brief; but it may be made very
long and very obscure. A man does not need to know much to lay hold on Christ.
St. Paul began with simplicity and brevity. In doing this he ran grave risks. It
is characteristic of St. Paul that he had such faith in Christ and in the Holy
Spirit indwelling in the Church that he did not shrink from risks. How great
those risks were, is illustrated by the Judaistic controversy in Galatia, and by
the moral and eucharistic scandals at Corinth. On a most serious point of
doctrine, on most important points of practice, two of his churches fell into
grievous error. The first shows how lightly the Galatians were armed with
controversial weapons against a class of preachers whom St. Paul knew to exist,
and with what ease they were misled on one of the most vital points of St.
Paul's doctrine. The new teaching cut away the very foundation of St. Paul's
work and the difficulty arose on a question with which St. Paul became familiar
quite early in his career. Yet his converts fell. It has been argued by Bishop
Mylne that this catastrophe was due to the fact that St. Paul in his first
missionary journey had not yet learnt the necessity of laying a deep foundation,
that he had not appreciated the danger of trusting the future of the church to
ill-instructed converts. I do not think that this argument is tenable. There is
no sign of repentance in all St. Paul's dealings with the Galatians. He visited
them again and again, and he wrote them a letter; but there is no suggestion
that he regretted that he had too hastily committed the Gospel to their care. On
the contrary his letter is full of the most earnest insistence upon the
necessity of preserving their freedom. From beginning to end it implies that he
desires for them more freedom, not that he regrets that he had given them
freedom. Still less is there any sign in the Acts that St. Luke thought St. Paul
had made a mistake in his practice in his first journey. There is not a hint of
any kind that such was his opinion. St. Luke sets forth St. Paul's journeys as
journeys guided by the Holy Ghost to a successful issue; he shows us St. Paul
using one method everywhere, in Antioch and in Thessalonica, in Lystra and in
Corinth; and everywhere alike he shows us the fruit which resulted. There is no
suggestion whatever that St. Paul made a mistake in committing the future of the
churches in Galatia to ill-instructed converts, or that he afterwards saw his
error and repented of it. I have often heard missionaries use the argument of
Bishop Mylne to justify their interminable government and instruction of their
converts; but the argument is vain unless we are prepared to maintain that St.
Paul remained all his life quite ignorant of true missionary methods. He stayed,
it is true, longer at Corinth than he did in Galatia, but the history of the
Corinthian church might equally be used as an argument that he had not learnt
the danger of entrusting the future of the church to ill-instructed converts. At
Corinth we find the astonishing fact that the whole church could tolerate the
grossest immorality of life and the most disgraceful conduct at the celebration
of the Lord's Supper. There is no question that St. Paul was horrified. The
doctrine of the Lord's Supper was a subject, as he himself declared, of his most
careful teaching. In his epistle he recalls to them exactly what he had taught
them about it, and says that he himself had received it directly from the Lord.
He had been teaching in that church for eighteen months, that is, three times as
long as he had taught any of his earlier congregations. During all that time he
must frequently have celebrated the Lord's Supper. The Corinthian church was
renowned for its learning; it should, therefore, have known best the teaching
and practice of the Apostle. Yet we find in that church the most appalling and
flagrant violations of his fundamental teaching in the matter of the simplest
and most necessary church practice. We should naturally have expected that if
St. Paul had stayed only a month or two with his converts, if they had learnt
anything at all about the Lord's Supper, they would have learnt how to celebrate
it. We should naturally have expected that if St. Paul had taught them anything
at all about morality he would have taught them not to tolerate conduct
universally condemned by their heathen neighbours. It is quite certain that if
any missionary today established a church in which such flagrant violations of
the simplest church rules of practice occurred, we should at once be told that
his methods were hopelessly bad. Consequently if the apostasy of the Galatians
is a proof that St. Paul on his first missionary journey knew nothing of
missionary methods, the failure of the Corinthians in practice will equally
prove that he knew nothing of them at the end of his second. Yet the fact
remains that he was the most successful founder of churches that the world has
ever seen. Paradoxical as it may seem, I think that it is quite possible that
the shortness of his stay may have conduced in no small measure to St. Paul's
success. There is something in the presence of a great teacher that sometimes
tends to prevent smaller men from realizing themselves. They more readily feel
their responsibility, they more easily and successfully exert their powers, when
they see that, unless they come forward, nothing will be done. By leaving them
quickly St. Paul gave the local leaders opportunity to take their proper place,
and forced the church to realize that it could not depend upon him, but must
depend upon its own resources. We have already seen how he did this in all
matters of local finance. By retiring early, he did the same thing in matters of
government and education. One other effect of St. Paul's training is very clear.
His converts became missionaries. It seems strange to us that there should be no
exhortations to missionary zeal in the Epistles of St. Paul. There is one
sentence of approval, 'From you sounded out the word of the Lord', but there is
no insistence upon the command of Christ to preach the Gospel. Yet Dr.
Friedlander is certainly right when he says, 'While the Jews regarded the
conversion of unbelievers as, at the most, a meritorious work, for the
Christians the spread of the doctrine of salvation was the highest and most
sacred duty'. The Christians of the Four Provinces were certainly zealous in
propagating the faith, and apparently needed no exhortation on the subject. This
surprises us: we are not always accustomed to find our converts so zealous. Yet
it is not really surprising. Christians receive the Spirit of Jesus, and the
Spirit of Jesus is the missionary spirit, the Spirit of Him who came into the
world to bring back lost souls to the Father. Naturally when they receive that
Spirit they begin to seek to bring back others, even as He did. The reason of
our failure is, I believe, largely due to the fact that we quench that Spirit.
We educate our converts to think, as we, accustomed to a long-established and
highly-organized church, naturally think, that none but duly appointed ministers
may preach. We dread the possible mistakes of individual zeal. The result is
that our converts hesitate to speak of religion to others. They throw the
responsibility upon the licensed evangelist and 'the mission'. They do not feel
any responsibility themselves to evangelize the world. Their mouths are closed.
Here and there, of course, we find a man so full of the Spirit of the Lord that
he cannot hold his peace, but he is a comparatively rare exception. We need to
begin again to teach ourselves and our people what Spirit we are of, and to give
liberty that the word of the Lord may have free course. When we do that, the
church will again reveal itself in its true character and become
self-propagating.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 10: THE TRAINING OF CANDIDATES FOR BAPTISM AND ORDINATION
========================================================================

CHAPTER 9 The Training of Candidates for Baptism and Ordination We have tried to
discover what teaching St. Paul gave to his converts. This teaching followed, it
did not precede, baptism. For baptism, apparently very little knowledge of
Christian truth was required as an indispensable condition. St. Paul baptized
the jailor at Philippi, for instance, upon his bare confession of belief in
Jesus as Saviour, after an instruction which only lasted an hour or two in the
night. Under such circumstances he certainly could not have taught the man very
much of the life and doctrine of Christ. He was satisfied that a spiritual
change had taken place; there was some sign of repentance, some profession of
faith, and that sufficed. Apparently, any one who was prepared to confess his
sins and acknowledge Jesus as Lord might be baptized. This seems to be the
inevitable conclusion to be drawn from the account of the baptism of whole
households. The head of the house accepted Christ as the Saviour; the household
did so too, following their natural leader. They were all alike baptized, and
then instructed as members of the Christian congregation. But it does not follow
that the great body of converts were baptized without any careful instruction.
We know that very early in the history of the Church a complete system of
training was provided. Even if we suppose that many of St. Paul's converts were
baptized without much teaching, it does not follow that the rite was carelessly
and indiscriminately administered. There is nothing in the evidence before us to
show that St. Paul would have approved the practice of some who have baptized
multitudes of uninstructed people in order to secure that their children might
receive a Christian education, with the hope that the second generation would
become Christian in thought and deed. There is still less to show that he would
have approved of the practice of others who have baptized multitudes of heathen
on their own undivided responsibility, simply because they have thought that
they had evidence that their words had gone home and that the hearts of the
people had been touched, and thereafter have only too often left them, an
isolated, unorganized group of individuals, baptized indeed, but wholly ignorant
how to walk as becomes the Gospel of Christ. On the other hand, there is nothing
in the evidence before us to support the somewhat stiff practice of many of the
Anglican missions where a definite and very long period of probation in the
classes of hearers and catechumens is prescribed, and exceptions can only be
made with the special permission of the bishop. We have adopted this practice in
some form or other, more or less rigid, in order that the reality and sincerity
of converts may be thoroughly tested, and that they may receive the fullest
possible education in Christian doctrine and morals before they are admitted
into the company of the faithful. By this means we have undoubtedly restricted
the number of our converts, and it is not certain that we have succeeded in
attaining an exceptionally high standard of morals and education. We have also
run a great risk of confusing the minds of the converts as to the true meaning
and nature of baptism. We have taught them that union with Christ is the source
of strength, we have taught them that baptism is the sacrament of unity, and
then we have told them that they must prove their sincerity by practising virtue
in their own strength before they can be admitted to the sacrament by which they
are to receive strength to be virtuous. In other words, we have taught them that
the one great need of men is Christ, and that without Christ men cannot attain
to righteousness, and then that they must attain to righteousness by themselves
in order to receive Christ. The evidence in the New Testament here, as
elsewhere, will not provide us with a neat, ready-made rule, which we can follow
without thought. What it does show is that in St. Paul's teaching the
requirements for holy baptism were repentance and faith. The moment a man showed
that he had repentance and faith he was baptized into Christ Jesus, in order
that Christ in him might perfect that repentance and faith, and bring it to its
full end, holiness in the Body of Christ. The question of difficulty is, Who is
to decide whether the candidate is honest in his confession of repentance and
faith? In some cases it is certain that St. Paul himself was the sole judge of
the reality of the spiritual change, and of the truth of the profession; but it
is equally certain that this was not always the case. The majority of the
Christians were baptized in his absence; and even when he was present, he did
not always baptize them himself. The saying in the first Epistle to the
Corinthians that Christ sent him 'not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel', has
surely a wider reference than to that one city. It is a general truth expressed
in general terms. I cannot reconcile this statement with the common assertion
that St. Paul, or his companions in travel, acting on his authority, made it a
general practice to baptize all the early converts. Professor Swete, for
example, says that it is probable that St. Paul's companions generally baptized,
and this opinion is commonly taken for granted. But there is really no evidence
by which to support it. In Corinth we know that St. Paul baptized only three or
four people, one of whom was a man of influence and authority. We know that when
a brother was excommunicated, St. Paul did not act alone, and that he did not
ordain without first obtaining the approval of the brethren. The inference seems
to me irresistible that St. Paul and his fellow-workers admitted first only a
few people of known reputation, who showed unmistakable signs of faith, and
thereafter left the duty of accepting or refusing candidates very largely to
these men, who were themselves from the very nature of the case in a position to
possess or to acquire sound knowledge of the character and motives of those who
offered themselves for baptism. But whether he did this whilst he was present or
not, it is perfectly certain that his speedy departure threw this responsibility
upon the local church. I cannot help thinking that here we find one of the most
important elements of his success. By leaving the church to decide who should be
admitted, he established firmly the great principle of mutual responsibility.
The church was a brotherhood, and the brethren suffered if any improper person
was admitted to their society. They knew the candidates intimately. They were in
the best possible position to judge who were fit and proper candidates. That
they might make mistakes, and that they did make great mistakes, is sufficiently
obvious; but if they made mistakes, they made them at their own peril. In this
matter of mutual responsibility a little practical experience is worth a great
weight of verbal teaching. In our modern missionary practice we have constantly,
almost invariably, violated this principle. We have constantly thrown the whole
responsibility for the administration of baptism upon a foreign teacher who, as
a stranger, is in the worst possible position to judge the real motives and
character of those who offer themselves for baptism, and by so doing we have
done much to weaken the sense of mutual responsibility among our converts. We
have taught them that the church is a brotherhood, and that they must all work
together for the good of the whole, but in practice we have denied their right
and their duty to exercise that responsibility, and that at a most vital point.
It is true that we commonly require native sponsors. But it can hardly, I think,
be said that we have by that requirement succeeded in throwing the real
responsibility of admission upon the local church. If a man has been prepared,
or examined, and accepted by the priest in charge, the mere fact that he has
been so accepted exercises an overwhelming influence over the minds of an
oriental congregation. They will not appear to resist the authority of their
spiritual masters; and where, as is sometimes the case, the priest claims, or
readily accepts, sole responsibility for the administration of the sacrament,
they naturally allow the claim. It is a very extreme action to oppose the
baptism of a man, whom the priest in charge has declared his willingness to
accept. Many a man has been baptized who would not have been admitted if the
whole body of the church had realized that the responsibility for his admission
rested with them, and had had opportunity to express their opinion in their own
way. Even as it is, men sometimes fail to find sponsors, though we can at the
moment perceive no reason why they should fail; but such cases are, I fancy,
rare. I cannot see what we gain by assuming the responsibility, and acting on
our own authority in these matters. We are often left to act in much doubt and
perplexity. The unworthy are not always rejected or sent back for further
teaching; the worthy are not always accepted. We do not avoid the dangers of
mistaken judgments, we rob the people of the right and duty of expressing
themselves and so exercising and realizing by exercise their mutual
responsibility one for another. I should like to see it accepted as a general
principle that converts should be presented by members of the church to the
church, and accepted by the church and baptized on the authority of the whole
local church acting as a church. As with the admission of converts, so with the
appointment of elders, there was some responsibility recognized by the brethren.
I cannot here enter upon the question of the meaning and form of ordination in
the early Church; I am dealing only with the method which St. Paul practised in
the appointment of elders in the churches of his foundation. There is no doubt
that he did appoint elders; and it seems to be equally clear that he did not
appoint simply on his own initiative, acting on his own private judgment. This
is borne out by the constant emphasis laid upon 'good report', and by the term
which St. Luke employs to describe his action. As in the case of 'the seven' at
Jerusalem, so in the Four Provinces there was some form of election. But it may
be argued that the evidence for election is not sufficient, and that St. Paul
did in the first instance appoint elders simply on his own authority and
judgment. In that case the parallel to his administration of baptism will be
even more exact. For, as we shall see later, the elders appointed by St. Paul
had authority to ordain as well as to baptize. If then the first elders were
appointed simply by St. Paul they must be compared with the first converts who
were baptized by St. Paul. Just as he baptized three or four and then committed
the responsibility for admitting others to those whom he had baptized; so he
ordained three or four and committed the authority for ordaining others into
their hands. There is not a shred of evidence that any congregation created its
own elders by election alone. There is evidence that congregations did have some
say in the election of elders. There is evidence that St. Paul did commit
authority to appoint elders to others (notably to Timothy and Titus), and that
this authority very early became concentrated in the hands of a single local
bishop. But the right of the congregation to have some say in the appointment is
manifest throughout the period with which we are dealing. By this means the
principle of mutual responsibility was again made prominent. Furthermore, this
principle was maintained by the fact that St. Paul ordained as elders members of
the church to which they belonged. He did not establish a provincial school to
which all candidates for ordination must go, and from which they might be sent
to minister to congregations in any part of the province, at the bidding of a
central committee or at his own. The elders were really of the church to which
they ministered. They were at home. They were known to the members of their
flock. If they received any pecuniary support, they received it from men who
supported them because they felt the need of their undivided and uninterrupted
care. Thus the bond between the elders and the church to which they ministered
was extremely close. This is of the utmost importance. It makes a great
difference if the ministers feel some responsibility to those to whom they
minister, and if the general congregation feels some responsibility for the
character and work of those who are set over them. Where candidates for the
ministry are selected by the superior order, where they are ordained solely on
the authority of the superior order, and are appointed to their posts by the
sole direction of the superior order, those who are so appointed are apt to lose
any sense of responsibility to the congregation among whom they minister, and
the congregation feels no responsibility for them. The result is an inevitable
weakening of what should be the strongest support, both to clergy and laity.
Where the superior order consists almost wholly of foreigners, the result is
often deplorable. The catechists, teachers, deacons, and priests, so sent out,
are wholly independent of the one authority which they really understand, native
public opinion; solely dependent upon the one authority which they seldom can
understand, the foreign missionary. Consequently they are always striving to act
as they think will please the foreigners, they imitate them as closely as
possible, they fear to take any independent action, whilst the members of the
congregation on their side feel that they have nothing to do with their
appointment. They accept their ministrations so long as they are not seriously
offended; they tolerate, but they do not support them; and if anything goes
wrong, they disclaim all responsibility. The elders so appointed were not young.
They were apparently selected became they were men of high moral character,
sober, grave, men of weight and reputation. When St. Paul ordained younger men,
as Timothy, he took them away with him to act as his assistants and ministers
that they might receive from him deeper lessons of Christian doctrine and
practice than they could learn at home; but, in the provinces, he ordained, to
be the first leaders of the Church, men who thoroughly understood the condition
and requirements of their congregations, men who were respected by the
congregations for their moral and social position. They were not necessarily
highly educated men, they cannot have had any profound knowledge of Christian
doctrine. It is impossible that St. Paul can have required from them any
knowledge of Hebrew, or of any foreign language. From the evidence set forth
above, it seems unlikely that he could have required any great acquaintance with
the life and teachings of Christ. It is not probable that he expected or
demanded any profound knowledge of Greek philosophy. It is inevitable that he
must have been satisfied with a somewhat limited general education, and with a
more or less meagre acquaintance with the Septuagint and with his mystical
interpretation of it, with a knowledge of the brief outline of Christian
doctrine set forth in the Epistle to the Thessalonians, and some instruction in
the meaning and method of administration of the two sacraments of baptism and
the Lord's Supper. The qualifications of elder were primarily moral. If they
added to moral qualifications intellectual qualifications so much the better,
but high intellectual qualifications were not deemed necessary. Very early there
grew up a class of teachers who by virtue of their spiritual insight into the
meaning of the Old Testament, or the sayings of Christ known to them, occupied a
place of great importance in the Church; but they were not necessarily elders.
This is the state of affairs depicted in the Didaché, and the Didascalia agrees
with this. 'If it be possible let him (the bishop) be a teacher, or if he be
illiterate, let him be persuasive and wise of speech: let him be advanced in
years.' They were not an inferior order. 'Upon the whole,' says Professor
Gwatkin, 'their position and duties (apart from the question of a possible
superior) are not unlike those of the priest as described in the English
Original. Their duty was to look after and care for the general well-being of
the body, and to administer the Sacraments. The Sacraments unquestionably were
administered in the churches founded by St. Paul; and I take it for granted that
they could not be administered indiscriminately by any convert. In saying this I
do not wish it to be supposed that I deny that prophets and inspired men
celebrated the mysteries and exercised very wide powers. I am simply asserting
that the elders appointed, either by St. Paul or under his direction, did
exercise these powers. The importance of the ordination of elders lay in this,
that when a church was equipped with elders, it possessed not merely leaden, but
men properly appointed to see that the Sacraments, without which it would have
been starved in its spiritual life and crippled in the work of expansion, were
duly performed. They were indeed of an order different from that which we now
call priesthood, and in one respect higher. They not only administered
Sacraments: they ordained others; for there is no suggestion that St. Paul ever
ordained a second time in any church of his foundation. Moreover, we read that
the churches grew in Paul's absence, and we know by name at least one organized
church of which St. Paul himself says that he had not seen the members. There is
no reason to suppose that these new churches were destitute of ministers and
sacraments, nor is there any account of special ordinations of special ministers
for them. Either, then, they received the sacraments at the hands of spiritual
persons who were recognized as spiritual pastors in virtue of their charismatic
gifts, or their ministers were appointed by those whom St. Paul had ordained in
the churches directly established by him. Without excluding the possibility of
the former alternative in some cases, I think that the evidence inclines us to
accept the latter as the general rule. Later in his career St. Paul specially
appointed Timothy and others to exercise what we should today call episcopal
functions; but in the ten years now under consideration we hear of no such
apostolic bishops. Nevertheless the practice of St. Paul himself, and the
inference to be drawn from all the known cases of ordination, lead us to believe
that it was an accepted principle that authority to administer Sacraments was
not left to the individual claim of any person who might assume it, nor given by
mere election, but was definitely conferred by those who could show that they
themselves had been appointed by the Lord to perform such acts. Consequently, it
seems to be an irresistible conclusion that the elders appointed by St. Paul
were definitely appointcd with power to add to their number and thus to secure
to new churches a proper order and certainty of sacramental grace. Finally, St.
Paul was not content with ordaining one elder for each church. In every place he
ordained several. This ensured that all authority should not be concentrated in
the hands of one man. It ensured the possibility of frequent administrations of
the Sacraments. The infant church was not left to depend for its spiritual
sustenance upon the weakness of a single individual. Responsibility was divided
and many were enlisted in the service of the church. Thus the whole body grew
together. As the general knowledge increased, the older men died, and younger
men, who had grown up with the new generation and shared their education and
experience, gradually took their place and became the natural leaders and the
ordained successors of their fathers, whilst young teachers who had a gift for
preaching found their opportunities and their experience in the open services of
the church. In our day, on the contrary, there has been a tendency to
concentrate all functions in the fewest possible hands. The same man is priest
and teacher and administrator, sometimes architect and builder as well. We have
set up a purely artificial standard of learning as the necessary qualification
for the ministry. We have required a long and expensive college education as a
preparation even for the office of deacon. We have taken the youngest men and
trained them to occupy the position of authority, such very limited authority as
a native may exercise under the supervision of a foreign priest-in-charge. The
examination test is made the real test of fitness for the priesthood. Moral
qualifications may suffice for the office of catechist, but if a man is to
proceed further he must pass an examination of a very artificial character. In
other words we select by examination. That system has long been tried, and is
already being seriously questioned at home, and it does not seem to appeal to
oriental minds as reasonable. In an address presented to the Lieutenant-Governor
by the leaders of the Muslim community of the Punjab in 1904, they said: We
presume that you English had your reasons for imposing such tests: we do not
know and cannot guess them. The system is repugnant to old traditions, and we
cannot consider the results of examinations as furnishing sufficient evidence of
a man's aptitude to govern or to dispense justice. Our history has shown us that
there are other criteria. To cursory examinations, in which memory plays a
predominant part, we prefer the presumptions which arise on the social position
of the candidate, the service rendered to the State by his family, his own
character and demeanour, and his aptitude to obey and command. Of course in our
selection of candidates for Orders, we do not rely wholly upon examinations. The
candidate must bear a good moral character. But the fact remains that we have
made too much of the intellectual test. That objection has been repeated by many
missionaries -- not only evangelistic, but educational. When we are constantly
engaged in criticising the method of our Civil Governors in such a matter as
this, it seems absurd that we should continue to imitate what we so often
condemn. Four very serious consequences have followed upon our action: (1) The
people have been deprived of the Sacraments. Our mission priests have often
large numbers of communicants scattered over a very wide area, entirely
dependent upon them for the administration of the Sacraments, with the result
that the people have opportunity to receive the Sacraments only at rare
intervals. These priests have often under them many excellent and devoted
catechists who cannot be ordained, solely because they have not had a college
education. Thus we deny the Bread of Life to people whom we teach to believe
that partaking of the Bread of Life is the first duty of the Christian, and the
first necessity for spiritual growth. It requires no great education to be able
to celebrate the Holy Mysteries. We have put intellectual qualifications in the
first place, with the result that the congregations starve whilst we educate a
few young men. (2) The young men so educated are sometimes, by that very
education, out of touch with their congregations. They return to their people
with strange ideas and strange habits. They are lonely, and they have to
struggle against the perils of loneliness. They are not even the best teachers
of people from whose intellectual and spiritual life they have so long been
absent. They do not know how to answer their difficulties or to supply their
necessities. They know so much Christian doctrine and philosophy that they have
forgotten the religion of their country. The congregation has not grown with
them, nor they with the congregation. They come, as it were, from outside, and
only a few exceptional men can learn to overcome that difficulty. (3) The grave
men of the church, the natural leaders of the village life, and the natural
leaders of the church are silenced. The church is not led and administered by
the people to whom all would naturally turn, but either by a foreigner, or by a
young man who has come with a foreign education. In this way a great source of
strength is lost. The real elders of the community are not elders in the church,
and the whole church suffers in consequence. (4) The natural teacher, the
divinely gifted preacher, is silenced. The only teacher is the foreign-educated
minister. There is no opportunity for the church to find its prophets, nor for
the prophets to find themselves. The prophet is in danger either of losing his
gift or of leaving the church in order to find opportunity for its exercise.
This is not to say that there is no place for the foreign-educated teacher. He
may be said to resemble in some respects the young ministers whom St. Paul
educated in his own society by constant association with himself. Carefully
selected and diligently trained, these men might go about as preachers and
teachers of deeper truths and higher knowledge, the messengers of, and
fellow-workers with, the white missionary, who, relieved of the overwhelming
burden of personal ministration to numbers of small congregations over a vast
area, could constantly be in touch with his churches, and yet have opportunity
to open up new centres of work. It is absolutely essential that the founder of
churches should keep in close touch with the communities which he has
established, so that he may be able at any moment to intervene in any crisis or
serious difficulty which may arise. St. Paul needed Timothy and Titus, and we
sorely need zealous and capable lieutenants whom we can despatch with haste to
any point of our missions where the less educated and less trained leaders may
be in danger of falling into error. We need such fellow workers not only to help
us in directing the infant communities; we need them also to help us in breaking
new ground. It is in working with them in evangelistic tours that we can best
train them both before and after they leave college, and in evangelistic tours
they may be of great service in instructing inquirers. Four things, then, we see
St. Paul deemed necessary for the establishment of his churches, and only four.
A tradition or elementary Creed, the Sacraments of Baptism and the Holy
Communion, Orders, and the Holy Scriptures. He trained his converts in the
simplest and most practical form. He delivered these to them. He exercised them
as a body in the understanding and practice of them, and he left them to work
them out for themselves as a body whilst he himself went on with his own special
work. He was ready at any moment to encourage or direct them by messengers, by
letters, or by personal visits, as they needed direction or encouragement; but
he neither desired, nor attempted, to stay with them, or to establish his
ministers amongst them to do for them what he was determined that they must
learn to do for themselves. He knew the essential elements, and he trained his
converts in those and in those alone, and he trained them by teaching them to
use what he gave them.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 11: AUTHORITY AND DISCIPLINE
========================================================================

PART IV St. Paul's Method of Dealing Churches with Organized Churches 10
Authority and Discipline. How far was St. Paul's success due to his manner of
exercising authority and discipline? 11 Unity. How did he succeed in maintaining
unity? CHAPTER 10 Authority and Discipline AUTHORITY With the appointment of
elders the churches were complete. They were fully equipped. They very soon
became familiar with all the orders of ministry both permanent and charismatic.
They no longer depended necessarily upon St. Paul. If he went away, or if he
died, the churches remained. They grew in numbers and in grace: they were
centres of spiritual light by which the darkness of surrounding heathenism was
gradually dispelled. In Galatia 'the churches were strengthened in the faith and
increased in number daily'. From Thessalonica 'the word of the Lord sounded out
in Macedonia and Achaia. From Ephesus the Gospel spread throughout all the
neighbouring country so that many churches sprang up, the members of which had
never seen St. Paul's face, and he himself could write to the Romans that he had
'no more place in those regions' . They were no longer dependent upon the
Apostle, but they were not independent of him. When there was occasion he did
not hesitate to assert authority over the churches which he had founded and to
claim that he had received it directly from the Lord. 'Though I should glory
somewhat abundantly concerning our authority, which the Lord gave for building
you up and not for casting you down, I shall not be put to shame.' When he
thought it necessary he could stop the mouth of an objector with the assertion,
'We have no such custom'. He laid down the general principle, 'As the Lord hath
distributed to every man, as God hath called each, so let him walk', and added,
'So ordain I in all the churches'. He gave certain directions for public
worship, and concluded, 'The rest will I set in order when I come,' When people
resisted his authority, he proposed to set up a court in which every word should
be established 'at the mouth of two or three witnesses', with the threat 'If I
come again I will not spare'. Now with regard to these assertions of the
apostolic authority, it is necessary to observe that they all occur in the
epistles to one church, and that they were called forth for the most part by the
outrageous conduct of unreasonable and disorderly men. They certainly do not
represent St. Paul's general attitude to his churches. They do not even
represent the attitude of St. Paul to the Corinthians as a body. In the very
epistles in which these threats are used, he repudiates the idea that he had
'lordship over their faith'. Though they certainly prove that the Apostle
recognized that he possessed a power upon which he could fall back in case of
necessity, yet they also prove how sparingly he used it. He had to deal with
some of the most pressing and difficult problems which can agitate a church,
many of them problems most easily and effectively solved, as we should naturally
suppose, by an appeal to authority, yet he scarcely ever lays down the law,
preferring doubt and strife to an enforced obedience to a rule. It is important
that we should examine these cases carefully, because they give us a most
valuable insight into the method of the Apostle and greatly help us to
understand the secret of his success. The most important questions which came
before him were those of personal purity, litigation, and the eating of things
offered to idols. (1) Fornication. The prevalence of sexual immorality in the
Gentile world was one of the difficulties which most grievously vexed the Jewish
party in the Church. They argued with perfect reason that if Gentiles were
admitted into the Church without being compelled to keep the law of Moses, the
moral condition of the Church would soon be dragged down to a very low standard:
and when they failed to enforce the duty of observing the whole Mosaic Code upon
the Gentile Christians, they succeeded in making this offence the subject of one
of the four solemn decrees of the Jerusalem Council. The event proved how just
their anxiety was. St. Paul had scarcely ceased preaching at Thessalonica, he
had been in constant communication with the church when he wrote his first
epistle: yet the sins of fornication and adultery occupy the first place in his
exhortations. He had not been absent from Corinth more than two and a half years
when he wrote the first Epistle to the Corinthians; yet in spite of the fact
that the church had enjoyed the instruction of Apollos and was notorious for the
wealth of its spiritual gifts, it is perfectly manifest that fornication was a
common offence. How then did St. Paul deal with this very serious difficulty?
There is not in his letters one word of law: there is not a hint that the
Jerusalem Council had issued any decree on the subject: there is not a
suggestion that he desires a code of rules or a table of penalties. He does not
threaten offenders with punishment. He does not say that he shall take any steps
to procure their correction. He beseeches and exhorts in the Lord people to whom
the Holy Spirit has been given to surrender themselves to the guidance of that
Holy Spirit, to recognize that He is given to them that they may be holy in body
and in soul, and that uncleanness necessarily involves the rejection of the Holy
Spirit and incurs the wrath of God. In the Epistle to the Thessalonians, for
instance, this is his argument. He reminds his readers of his personal teaching
when he was amongst them. He reminds them that God's will for them is
sanctification. He suggests that there should be a difference between the
conduct of Christians and that of Gentiles who know not God. He warns them that
the Lord is the avenger of such misdeeds. He reiterates the truth that the
purpose and will of God in calling them from the heathen world was that they
should be made holy. Finally he warns them that the rejection of his teaching on
this subject is the rejection of the Holy Spirit. Precisely similar is the
language which he uses in the Epistle to the Corinthians. It has indeed been
argued that he does in one verse apparently recommend that fornicators should be
excommunicated when he says, 'I write unto you not to keep company, if any man
that is named a brother be a fornicator? But this certainly does not refer to
formal excommunication, because it includes not only fornicators, but covetous,
and revilers and extortioners, as well as drunkards and idolaters; and the same
word is used of association both with heathen and with Christians. It is an
exhortation to good Christians to use their private influence to correct the
faults of their brethren by the silent rebuke of avoiding their company. It is
to be compared rather with the exhortation in the second Epistle to the
Thessalonians, 'We command you, brethren, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ
that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly and not
after the tradition which they received of us', than with the direction to
'Purge out the old leaven' and to 'deliver the offender to Satan'. The one is an
exhortation 'to send a man to Coventry'; the other 'to expel him'. Setting aside
then this point, the language which St. Paul uses elsewhere in the Epistle to
the Corinthians is exactly the same in character as that which we found in the
Epistle to the Thessalonians. He argues that fornication is a violation of the
true use of the body, that it is contrary to the glorious hope of the
Resurrection, that it is a desecration of the members of Christ, that the body
is not the Christian's own to use as he pleases, but is a temple of the Holy
Ghost. Surely it is very strange that St. Paul should not even hint at the fact
that this sin had been condemned by the Jerusalem Council. Surely it is strange
that in speaking of fornication in close connection with a flagrant case of
incest he should not even suggest that it is a breach of the Ten Commandments.
It is plain that St. Paul did not appeal to law at all. He did not seek the
source of the moral life in any command or any exercise of authority. His Gospel
was not a gospel of law but of spirit. In this he was following the example of
Christ Himself. It has often been pointed out that the method of Jesus was to
inculcate principles and to leave His disciples to apply them; and it is
interesting to observe that as St. Paul followed Christ so Clement of Rome kept
the same rule in his Epistle to the Corinthians. It is a striking characteristic
of that epistle that the writer never forgets that his duty is to point out the
right course of action rather than to lay commands upon the church to which he
writes. Again and again he expresses his firm conviction that the church knows
the will of God and will surrender itself to the guidance of the Spirit. But it
may be said that the church in Corinth was of such an independent spirit and was
so conscious of its own capacities that it would not have tolerated any more
autocratic method of government. The Corinthians were in no temper to accept
directions simply on the authority even of St. Paul. That is, of come, true. But
the question is, how did they come to that mind? If at conversion they had been
admitted to a church and initiated into a religion, of which the most marked
requirement was observance of law as laid down by authority, they would have
understood that they could not be Christians unless they submitted to authority.
Submission and obedience would have been the chief duty inculcated. Observance
of the rules would have been the first duty of every convert. If St. Paul had
from the very beginning insisted upon this aspect of the church that it is a
society governed by rules which every one who enters it must keep, the
Corinthians and all his converts would never have thought of it in any other
way. But that would have been precisely what St. Paul did not believe, and
therefore could not teach. If he had begun in that way the difficulties which
arose in Corinth could not have taken the form which they did take, and St. Paul
could not possibly have dealt with them in the way in which he did deal with
them. There might have been an insurrection against authority, but it would have
been a revolt against the whole church system, and St. Paul must have suppressed
it by authority, or the Church would have lost Corinth. (2) Litigation. Some of
the Corinthian Christians had apparently been prosecuting their brethren in the
heathen law courts. Obviously this was an offence likely to bring the Name into
disrepute. The simplest way to deal with it would have been to forbid it by
decree, and to threaten any offender in future with penalties. But that is not
how St. Paul deals with it. He reasons with the whole body, and sets before the
brethren his argument, and there leaves the matter. He puts before them the
glaring inconsistency between their conduct and their position as Christians. It
is, he says, unworthy of men, who are called to be judges of the world and of
angels, to drag their brethren before a heathen judge. It speaks ill, he says,
of the wisdom and moral tone of the church if there cannot be found in it one
who can decide questions in dispute. He urges upon them that it would be better
to suffer injury than thus to publish the immorality of the church, whilst to
injure and defraud the brethren is to make themselves as the heathen. He warns
them that such shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. What could be less like
legislation for the church? It is not the part of a legislator to argue, or to
exhort the injured party to suffer in silence rather than bring discredit upon
the body. St. Paul does not legislate, neither does he urge them to legislate,
he appeals to the Spirit in them. He does not suggest that he will take any
action if they refuse, as some of them certainly would refuse, to listen to his
arguments. For them he has no threat of action to be taken on his part, only a
warning that sinners will be excluded from the Kingdom. (3) Eating of things
offered to idols. At the Jerusalem Council it had been decreed that the Gentile
Christians should abstain from things sacrificed to idols. At Corinth some of
them not only ate things sacrificed to idols: they attended feasts in the idol's
temple, a far more flagrant offence, and one which brought many other offences
in its train. A feast in a temple was associated not only with idolatry, but too
often with impurity also. Surely on such a subject it would be right to appeal
to the decree of the Council, and to close all mouths with the word 'Forbidden'.
St. Paul on the contrary not only does not legislate himself, he makes no
reference to any law on the subject. No one who was not acquainted with the
decree of the Jerusalem Council from some other source would guess from St.
Paul's treatment of the subject that such a decree existed. He not only does not
quote it, he does not even maintain it. In Corinth it was a disputed point
whether it was lawful to eat of the sacrifices. St. Paul does not decide the
question. It is quite plain that he does not approve of the practice. 'I would
not that ye should have communion with devils.' But he speaks, 'as to wise men,
judge ye what I say'. He appeals to the spirit of charity. Some, he says, have
knowledge and know that the idol is nothing and can eat things sacrificed to
idols without acknowledging the idol as a god. They are not conscious of the
idol, they feel themselves superior to such vanities. But others still retain
something of their former superstition. They cannot escape from the sense that
the idol really is something to be feared. They cannot escape from the sense
that when they share in an idolatrous feast they do actually bring themselves
into communion with the idol deity. Their conscience revolts and is distressed,
but they are ashamed to refuse to do what other bolder and more enlightened
brethren do. They eat, and suffer the pangs of an evil conscience. They feel
that they have sinned against Christ by sharing in the service of an idol. St.
Paul then appeals to the highest Christian virtue in his readers. He contrasts
knowledge and charity. He says that to rely upon knowledge, to seize the liberty
of pure enlightenment of the mind, to demonstrate the truth at all hazards and
in every way and by any means, is not Christian. He subordinates knowledge to
charity. He argues that charity must come first, and that if acts based upon
knowledge injure and mislead the weak, they are not only not praiseworthy, they
are sinful. To injure the consciences of the weaker brethren is to sin against
Christ. We cannot even imagine a modern European missionary acting like that. If
any of his converts showed a tendency to kow-tow to the tablet of Confucius on
the ground that they knew quite well that Confucius was only a man, and that the
act was only one of respectful recognition of his virtue as a teacher of the
nation, would he write a letter leaving them to judge on principles of charity
whether they should continue to do so or not? Or would he rather hasten to judge
the question in consultation with his fellow European missionaries, perhaps not
even consulting any native Christians at all, and issue a rule for the church?
If he were a Roman Catholic would he not appeal to the decree of Pope Clement XI
and say the question had been settled? In our dealings with our native converts
we habitually appeal to law. We attempt to administer a code which is alien to
the thought of the people with whom we have to deal, we appeal to precedents
which are no precedents to them, and we quote decisions of which our hearers do
not understand either the history or the reason. Without satisfying their minds
or winning the consent of their consciences, we settle all questions with a
word. This is unfortunate because it leaves the people unconvinced and
uneducated, and teaches them the habit of unreasoning obedience. They learn to
expect law and to delight in the exact fulfilment of precise and minute
directions. By this method we make it difficult to stir the consciences of our
converts, when it is most important that their consciences should be stirred.
Bereft of exact directions, they are helpless. They cease to expect to
understand the reason of things, or to exercise their intelligence. Instead of
seeking the illumination of the Holy Ghost they prefer to trust to formal
instructions from their foreign guides. The consequence is that when their
foreign guide cannot, or will not, supply precise commands, they pay little
attention to his godly exhortations. Counsels which have no precedent behind
them seem weak. Anything which is not in open disobedience to a law can be
tolerated. Appeals to principles appear vague and difficult. They are not
accustomed to the labour of thinking them out and applying them. If a missionary
explains to his converts that some act is not in harmony with the mind of Christ
his words fall on deaf ears: if he tells them that it was forbidden in a council
of such and such a date, they obey him; but that is the way of death not of
life; it is Judaism not Christianity; it is papal not Pauline. St. Paul cannot
have believed that by his appeal to charity the question would be settled. He
must have foreseen strife and division. He must have deliberately preferred
strife and division, heartburnings, and distresses, and failures, to laying down
a law. He saw that it was better that his converts should win their way to
security by many falls than that he should try to make a short cut for them. He
valued a single act of willing self-surrender, for the sake of the Gospel, above
the external peace of a sullen or unintelligent acceptance of a rule. By this
refusal to prejudge the question of the presence of Christians in idol temples,
St. Paul avoided one great difficulty which constantly besets us in our work. He
made it possible for converts to continue to work at their trades as members of
a heathen guild or society. It is perfectly clear that the Christians in the
Four Provinces of whom very many, if not the majority, were of the commercial or
artisan classes, did not abandon their labour in workshops where heathen rites
were performed. Such of them as were slaves could not escape from their
attendance at heathen functions, and probably most of those who were free men
could have done so only at great loss. They were present, but they did not
partake. Tertullian in his treatise de Idolatria, shows that there was scarcely
a trade or business in which a Christian could engage without being mixed up
with idolatry in some form or other, but there was not in the Four Provinces any
immediate break. Christians did not feel it their duty to live in idleness and
beggary rather than work at their old trades. St. Paul did not feel it necessary
to forbid them from continuing at their trades from fear lest they should be
drawn back into the gulf of heathenism from which they were hardly escaped.
New-born Christians and their children were not withdrawn from their heathen
surroundings into the seclusion of a select society which had nothing to do with
the outside world. They did not establish Christian villages from which idolatry
might be excluded. They did not withdraw their children from heathen schools
from fear lest they might be led astray into idolatry. There must indeed have
been some who in those early days sacrificed their living rather than continue
in trades which were directly and definitely associated with the practice of
idolatry, and very soon the Church began to make some provision for such persons
left penniless by their adherence to the doctrine of Christ. But for the most
part it was not necessary for Christians to forsake their work because
idolatrous rites were practised in their workshops. With us there is a tendency
manifest to encourage that kind of separation, a physical separation from a
heathen society. Our converts often cease to live in a heathen society.
Sometimes this is involuntary, because they are expelled by the heathen; but
sometimes it is voluntary. They congregate in Christian villages, they are put
into Christian workshops, they cease to work under heathen masters. Christian
schools are provided for their children, which heathen scholars may indeed
attend, but where the teaching is strictly Christian. By this we have gained
something and we have lost something. We have gained an immunity from
temptation. Our converts enjoy the privileges and support of Christian
intercourse; it is more easy to watch over them; the children grow up as
Christians without being called upon to face the fiery ordeal of the heathen
school and workshop. But on the other hand we have lost something: the
Christians cannot so leaven society when they are, as it were, outside it, as
they can when they are really in it, living the same life, sharing the same
toil, the same gains, the same losses, as their heathen fellows; they and their
religion are peculiarly the care of the foreign missionary; they are looked upon
as having separated themselves from the life of the nation; their religion does
not appear to belong to their people. Of course I know that this criticism has
always in every age been directed against Christians. They cannot escape from
it, however much they live in their nation. They must always be a peculiar and
suspect people. But if they are separated and collected in little groups of
their own, that criticism has a keener edge and bites more sharply, and they do
not, and cannot, so readily influence their fellows. Besides this the converts
themselves, separated from their fellows, tend to lean more heavily upon the
foreign missionary. They learn to imitate him more closely, to expect more and
more support from him, to adopt more and more Western habits. They get out of
touch with their heathen neighbours. The missionary, too, suffers somewhat. By
ministering constantly to Christian communities, he, too, fails to attain or to
maintain a close intercourse with the heathen round him. It is more easy to deal
with his converts in groups and to keep a close hold upon them; but it is less
easy to avoid the danger of over-much direction. It becomes more easy to
minister, more difficult to evangelize. I do not wish to lay too much stress
upon this or to exaggerate it; but, seeing that the besetting sin of European
missionaries is the love of administration, I wish to suggest that this tendency
to separate converts into groups apart from the native life around them is not
without its dangers and disadvantages, and to point out that St. Paul rather
laid stress upon a spiritual separation than upon a physical separation from an
idolatrous society. (4) Marriage and Divorce. But it may perhaps be said that
there is one subject of the first importance upon which St. Paul does very
distinctly lay down the law. It may be argued that the whole of the seventh
chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians dealing with marriage is written
in a tone of authority. In answer to this it must be observed, first, that the
chapter is expressly written in answer to an appeal for guidance, secondly, that
St. Paul is here extremely careful to distinguish between the command of the
Lord and his own judgment, and, thirdly, that the treatment of the marriage
question is very incomplete, and on some points singularly inconclusive. For
instance, he seems to lay it down as a principle that if widows marry again, it
must be 'in the Lord', that is, presumably, with Christians, but he does not
insist on this in dealing with the marriage of virgins. Finally, where he most
distinctly lays down a law and claims for it the authority of Christ, he yet
issues directions for the conduct of the person who acts contrary to the law
which he has just asserted. Thus it would appear that throughout the chapter he
is rather expressing his own view of what is desirable than legislating for the
Church, and though he expresses himself in definite clear-cut directions, yet
for the most part he does so with reasons given which he evidently intends to be
weighed as arguments tending to support his expression of opinion. I cannot help
concluding, from these characteristic notes, that this chapter is not really an
exception to the general rule which we have hitherto found to dominate the
Apostle's attitude to the church. He avoids in every possible way making
clear-cut legal demands which must be obeyed in the letter. He rather suggests
principles and trusts to the Spirit which dwells in the church to apply them.
DISCIPLINE Nevertheless, when individuals broke through all bounds and committed
flagrant offences he did not hesitate to insist upon the need of discipline.
There is a point at which the conscience of the whole Church ought to be stirred
to protest, when for the Church to pass over an offence in silence is to deny
her claim to be a moral society. It is in just such cases that the Church is
often slow to act. Comparatively small offences are sometimes visited with stern
severity: horrible crimes shock the whole congregation, but none dares to move.
Such an offence was committed at Corinth, and Christians who wrote letters to
St. Paul to inquire what they should do in the case of members of the church who
wished to live a life of continence against the will of their partners, took no
action themselves and apparently did not mention the subject to the Apostle. St.
Paul could not avoid moving in the matter, but he obviously did so with great
reluctance. It is quite clear that he was determined in the last resort to take
action himself, but it is equally clear that he was most anxious to avoid it. He
wished the church to realize its responsibility, and to act as a body. In his
epistle he did not tell the church what penalty it ought to enforce, he did not
write to exhort the offender to submit. He wrote to accuse the church of its
failure to realize its duty in the matter. In a case of this kind, according to
his view, the church, as a church, had a duty to perform, a duty to the offender
and a duty to itself. To shirk that duty was criminal. Therefore he waited to
see if the church would do its duty before he interfered himself. In the result
the church did respond to his exhortation, the offender was excommunicated by
the majority, he accepted his discipline, he repented, he was restored. With us
today a very different rule generally obtains. If a serious offence is
committed, the foreign priest in charge of the district, with or without the
assistance of a local committee, inquires into the case; he reports to the
bishop. The bishop either hears the case or accepts the report, excommunicates,
and issues a sentence which is published in the church. But the church in which
the offender lives feels little or no responsibility, and the man is not
excommunicated by the majority. Consequently the act has little effect. It does
not come home to the offender; it does not come home to the church. A man can
afford to present a stubborn front to the fulminations of a foreigner, who is
perhaps only an occasional visitor and is always a foreigner. He cannot so treat
the excommunication of his neighbours. We look upon the sting of excommunication
as exclusion from spiritual privileges; but the man who so acts as to incur
excommunication is often the last person to feel that sting. His spiritual
apprehension has already been deadened before he falls into sin. What he needs
is the public censure of the majority of his fellow churchmen to awaken his
conscience. If the majority of his fellow churchmen do not avoid him and cast
him out, it is little use for a formal sentence of exclusion from church
privileges to be issued against him and carried out by the officials of the
society alone. That does no good; it very often only does harm. It hardens the
man without humbling or instructing him. Moreover, an act of this kind is done
not only for the good of the offender, but for the good of the church. It is
meant to clear the church's good name which has been sullied by the act of one
of its members. It is meant to be a real clearance of the church. But if the
majority feel that they have not a real share in the action of the church, if
they do not heartily and sincerely realize that the act is their own act, if
they consequently do not support it, then there is no real clearance of the
church. Nominally the man is excommunicate, nominally the church has repudiated
his act, nominally it has cleared its good name; but if, in fact, this has only
been the act of a few officials, then in reality there is no clearance.
Christians and heathen alike recognize that the leaders of the church have
expressed their disapproval. Christians and heathen alike recognize that the
body has done nothing of the kind. In this case at Corinth we see St. Paul's
principle of mutual responsibility again enforced, and he enforced it by staying
away from Corinth until the church had realized and executed its duty, and had
cleared itself of complicity in the crime of this offender. The difficulty with
us is that we cannot appreciate this doctrine of mutual responsibility. If a
member of a church commits a serious offence we cannot hold the church
responsible for his action. We are so individualistic that we cannot understand
the practical meaning of St. Paul's doctrine of the body and the members.
Mystically we accept it; but when it is a question of a single man's crime we
ourselves cannot realize, and we cannot bring home to others, their real unity.
To punish the society for the offense of the one would seem to us almost unjust.
But Eastern people more easily appreciate the corporate aspect of life. To them
St. Paul's action would not appear at all strange. A Chinese church would not be
surprised if the Apostle upbraided them with complicity if they failed to
excommunicate an offender. But of course it is quite impossible to exercise any
real discipline unless the common conscience of the church is really injured by
the offence. That conscience needs to be quickened. By throwing the
responsibility on the majority, St. Paul stirred and educated the conscience of
the whole Corinthian church. If he had sent a letter of excommunication to the
elders, and the elders had read it in the church, none of those effects would
have followed. Thus his exercise of discipline was in exact accord with his
exercise of authority. Just as he appealed to the corporate conscience to check
serious and growing evils in the church, arguing and pleading that the Holy
Spirit might enlighten and strengthen his converts; setting forth the
principles, persuaded that the Holy Spirit in them would show them how to apply
the principles and strengthen them to use them; so in discipline he showed them
the right way, but left them to discover how to walk in it. He told them what
they ought to do, but not in detail. He threw upon them the responsibility and
trusted to them to learn in what way it was to be fulfilled. In the last resort
he threatened to intervene, if they refused to do their duty, but it was only
after he had exercised all his powers to make his intervention unnecessary.
Therefore he succeeded through failure where we often fail through succeeding.
We exercise discipline and leave the church undisciplined. He disciplined the
church; we discipline individuals. He left the church, and it stood, tottering
on its feet, but still standing; we leave the church without any power of
standing at all. How different would be the action of a modern missionary in
dealing with such a state of affairs as that which St. Paul encountered at
Corinth. His first action, when he discovered the real state of the case, would
be to remove the priest in charge as incapable and to substitute another with
orders to deal personally with the individual offenders. The errors would be
corrected by authority, but the principles would remain unknown and untaught. I
know that someone will say that this is an absurd comparison, that our Eastern
converts are infants, and that to talk about principles and to leave the people
to find out how to apply them would be to court disaster. But this argument, so
convenient for the masterful man, is not really so powerful as it appears. The
Easterns are not such infants. They are people who can understand principles.
They understand corporate responsibility, in many ways better than we do. Or
even if they are infants, infants can only be taught truly by exercising their
infant faculties. Dependence does not train for independence, slavery does not
educate men for freedom. Moreover, they have the Holy Ghost to strengthen and to
guide them. Christians are not only what they are by nature, they are a
Spirit-bearing body. It is not a question merely of our faith in them: it is
still more a question of faith in the Holy Ghost. We look too much at our
converts as they are by nature: St. Paul looked at his converts as they were by
grace.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 12: UNITY
========================================================================

CHAPTER 11 Unity We have seen that St. Paul did not set out on his missionary
journeys as a solitary prophet, the teacher of a solitary individualistic
religion. He was sent forth as the messenger of a Church, to bring men into
fellowship with that body. His converts were not simply united one to another by
bonds of convenience arising from the fact that they lived in the same place,
believed the same doctrine, and thought it would be a mutual assistance to form
a society. They were members one of another in virtue of their baptism. Each was
united to every other Christian everywhere, by the closest of spiritual ties,
communion in the one Spirit. Each was united to all by common rites,
participation in the same sacraments. Each was united to all by common dangers
and common hopes. In like manner the churches of which they were members were
not separate and independent bodies. They were not independent of the Apostle
who was their common founder, they were not independent of one another. In St.
Paul's mind the province was a unit. So, when his churches were established, he
distinctly recognized the unity of the Church in the province. He constantly
spoke of the churches of Macedonia, of Achaia, of Galatia, of Syria and Cilicia,
of Asia as unities. For the purpose of the collection which he made for the poor
saints at Jerusalem, the churches of Macedonia, Achaia, and Galatia were each
treated as a separate group, and officers were appointed by each group to act on
behalf of the province which they represented in the administration of the
collection. This unity was more than a convenient grouping. The same bonds which
united individual Christians one to another united the churches. They were not
simply groups of Christians who, for mutual assistance and convenience, banded
themselves together in face of a common danger. They were all alike members of a
body which existed before they were brought into it. They could not act as if
they were responsible to themselves alone. 'What,' writes St. Paul to the
Corinthians in rebuking them for allowing women to speak in the church, 'was it
from you that the word of God came forth? or came it to you alone?' Or again, in
laying down the rule that women should be veiled in the church, he concludes,
'If any man seemeth to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the
churches of God'. For him the Church was prior to the churches. The churches did
not make up the Church, but the Church established the churches. We have seen
that St. Paul established his churches at centres of Greek and Roman
civilization and that they were bound to one another by great trade routes. They
were consequently in frequent communication one with another. Visitors passed
easily from one to another and prophets soon began to spend their lives
journeying from place to place preaching and expounding the faith. The evidence
of this frequent communication is abundant. It is quite clear that not only St.
Paul's own converts, but emissaries from Jerusalem were constantly passing from
church to church. It would seem that there was a regular system of commendation
by letter, and that anyone who was recognized as a baptized person was welcomed
and entertained. Thus the churches were, in fact, united by many bonds of
personal interest. But they were not united only by bonds of personal interest.
As the individual converts, as the city churches, so the provincial churches
were united by the most real of all bonds, spiritual communion. They were all
members of one body. That body was a visible Church liable to all kinds of
attacks from very visible enemies. It was held together, not merely by
convenience, not merely by common faith, and common sacraments, but also by
common submission to a common founder. The unity of the churches in the
different provinces was expressed not only in constant intercourse one with
another, but by their common recognition of the Apostle's authority as the
messenger of Christ to them. Furthermore, the churches in the Four Provinces
were not independent of churches of which St. Paul was not the founder. The
'churches of God in Judea' were in Christ before them. St. Paul had been sent
forth by the Church in Syria. The churches in the Four Provinces were united to
them. The same bonds which made converts members of Christ made them members of
the Church; and the Church was not the church in their city only. The same bonds
which united the churches in the Four Provinces one to another united the
churches everywhere one to another. St. Paul began with unity. In his view the
unity of the Church was not something to be created, but something which already
existed and was to be maintained. Churches were not independent unities: they
were extensions of an already existing unity. There could be no such thing as
two churches in the same place both holding the Head, yet not in communion one
with another. There could be no such thing as two churches in different places
both holding the Head, yet not in communion one with another. There could be no
such thing as a Christian baptized into Christ Jesus not in communion with all
the other members of the body of which Christ was the Head. If a member was
united to the Head he was united to all the other members. There was a spiritual
unity in the one Lord, the one faith, the one baptism, the one God and Father of
all. There was an external unity in common participation in common religious
rites, common enjoyment of social intercourse. There was no such thing as
spiritual unity expressed in outward separation. Spiritual unity is unity, means
unity, and is expressed in terms of unity. Outward opposition is a certain sign
that spiritual unity does not exist. Spiritual unity in proportion to its
perfection and fullness necessarily issues in common, united, harmonious
expression, whether of word or act; or else the soul may be God's and the body
the Devil's at the same time. This unity was to be maintained. St. Paul wrote
much to his churches about unity, but he never spoke of it as of something which
they had created. He always spoke of it as a Divine fact to mar which was sin.
Unity could be broken. Spiritual pride might express itself in self-assertion,
self-assertion might issue in open schism. The Body might be divided. But that
was a sin against the Holy Ghost: it was to destroy the temple of the Lord. The
act of schism implied and expressed a schismatic, uncharitable spirit. So long
as charity had its perfect work, differences of opinion could not issue in
schism. The rending of the outward meant the rending of the inward. The
separation of Christians meant the dividing of Christ. That unity might be
broken. The dangers by which it was threatened were of the most profound and
serious character. The Church began in Jerusalem as a body of Jews who carefully
maintained their Jewish tradition and observed the custom of their fathers. The
Church in the Four Provinces consisted almost entirely of Gentiles ignorant of
that tradition. Consequently, if a Christian from Macedonia or Achaia went up to
Judea he must have found himself in a strange atmosphere, in a community as
unlike that to which he was accustomed as it is possible to imagine.
Circumcision was practised, Sabbaths were kept, meats avoided as unclean, the
Law was the practical rule of every-day life. There was a strictness and a
reserve which must have oppressed and dismayed him. Christianity in Jerusalem
must have seemed to him a thing of rules hardly distinguishable from pure
Judaism. Many of the Christians shrank from the Gentile, or tolerated him only
as a sort of proselyte. In the meetings of the church the prayers were modelled
on Jewish patterns and expressed Jewish thought in Jewish speech with which he
was not familiar. The only point of real contact was a common devotion to the
Person of Jesus, a common recognition of the same apostles, and a common
observance of the same rites of baptism and the Lord's Supper. On the other
hand, when a Christian from Jerusalem went down to Corinth the shock must have
been even more severe. The Corinthian in Jerusalem found himself in a society
stiff, uncouth, severe, formal, pedantic. The Jewish Christian in Corinth must
have thought the church there given over to unbridled license. Uncircumcised
Christians attended the feasts of their pagan friends in heathen temples. Every
letter of the ceremonial law was apparently broken every day without rebuke.
Even in the meetings of the church, preachings and prayers were built on a
strange system of thought which could hardly be called Christian, and there was
a most undignified freedom of conduct. He must have welcomed the presence in the
church of a party led by men from his own city who argued that in dealing with a
people like this it was useless to compromise matters: the only possible course
was to enforce the observance of the whole Law throughout the whole Church. To
omit anything would simply be to admit the thin end of a wedge which would split
Christian morals into fragments. If a man wanted to be saved he must keep the
law. Even amongst themselves the Greeks were not at one. In doctrine and
practice there were different schools of thought. Some inclined to maintain that
there was some importance in the directions in the Old Testament concerning
meats clean and unclean, or in the common conviction that idols were really the
instruments by which spirits of superhuman beings came in to intercourse with
men and enabled men to approach them with prayers and offerings, or that the
disregard of holy days was really a serious offence. Others laughed all these
things to scorn, arguing that it was precisely from that kind of religion that
Christ had come to set men free, that the Gospel did not depend upon any outward
acts or facts. Some went so far as to say that even the Resurrection of the Lord
was to be regarded by spiritual men rather as a spiritual than as a material
fact, and that if it was apprehended as a spiritual fact in which Christians
spiritually shared by faith, then it was not necessary to believe that any
actual resurrection of any actual body took place, or if Christ's body rose it
was not necessary to conclude that other men's bodies would rise, because
spiritually men in virtue of their faith in Christ were already risen. Thus
there was not only a danger of schism in the churches of the Provinces. There
was an even greater danger lest the churches of Judea might repudiate and
excommunicate the churches of the Four Provinces altogether. To preserve unity
under such circumstances was a task of no small difficulty. How then did St.
Paul overcome this difficulty? Unity might be maintained in two ways. The Church
in Jerusalem might be regarded as the original Church, the body of Christ
established and organized by His apostles. The converts in the Four Provinces
might be regarded as joining that Church. In that case the new members must be
willing to accept the rules and regulations, the laws and the customs of the
Society which they joined, and any rebellion against those laws and customs must
be treated as an act of schism. The authorities in Jerusalem must be regarded as
the final court before which every act of disobedience must be tried. There must
be a highly centralized organization. That is the Roman system, a system which
has so dominated the modern world that even those who repudiate the papal claims
for themselves yet cannot resist the temptation to adopt it in principle when
they establish missions among other peoples. On the other hand, new churches
established in the provinces might be regarded equally with the first as parts
of a still incomplete whole which must grow up by degrees into its completeness.
In this case the new additions would at once be recognized as members of a
Spirit-bearing body, equally enjoying the inspiration of the Spirit with the
older members. The rules and regulations of the older members of the body could
not then be regarded as final and of universal obligation. The first had the
customs natural to its own habit of thought designed to satisfy its own needs.
The last might equally have its own customs natural to its own habit of thought
to meet its own needs. The first had no right, simply on the ground that it was
the first, to impose its laws and its customs upon the last. In a word, unity
did not consist in outward conformity to the practices of the earliest member,
but in incorporation into the body. It would thus be as distinct an act of
schism for the earliest to claim a right to dominate the last member as for the
last member to assert its own independence of the earlier. It was the second of
these two policies which St. Paul adopted. He refused to transplant the law and
customs of the Church in Judea into the Four Provinces. He refused to set up any
central administrative authority from which the whole Church was to receive
directions in the conduct of local affairs. He declined to establish a priori
tests of orthodoxy which should be applicable for all time, under all
circumstances, everywhere. He refused to allow the universal application of
particular precedents. (I) He refused to transplant the law and the customs of
the Church in Judea into the Four Provinces. For that he went in daily peril of
his life, for that he endured calumny, persecution, detraction, for that he
risked everything. He himself kept the law, but that availed him nothing. He was
pursued from province to province and from city to city by the most cruel and
malicious opponents. His work was hindered, his converts perverted, his labours
multiplied, his strength worn out. Yet he held on his course; and the
establishment of Christianity throughout the then known world was his reward.
(2) He refused to set up any central administrative authority from which the
whole Church was to receive directions. Once, and once only, he supported an
appeal to the Council in Jerusalem to settle a question which arose in another
province. The church of that province was not of his founding, and it seemed
good to the brethren to appeal. But from the Four Provinces there was no such
appeal made. When the same or similar difficulties arose in these provinces, he
treated these difficulties as questions which each province, if not each church,
must settle for itself. He gave his advice and trusted the church to arrive at a
right conclusion. When emissaries from Jerusalem attacked him in Jerusalem, he
proceeded thither, not to attend a council which might override the provinces,
but to maintain the orthodoxy of the provinces and to defend their liberty. (3)
He declined to establish a priori tests of orthodoxy. We who are eager for such
tests, who always want to have it clearly defined beforehand precisely what a
church may or may not do, what it may or may not put aside on pain of ceasing to
be of the Catholic Church, seek earnestly in the records of the apostolic acts
for such a test. And we fail to find it. We know what St. Paul taught
positively. We have seen how he handed on the tradition and the Scriptures, how
he established the orders of the Ministry, how he insisted upon the due
administration of the Sacraments. But negatively nothing is defined. It is very
strange how difficult it is to find any clear guidance. There was a point beyond
which a church could not go without being excluded, just as there was a point of
moral conduct beyond which an individual could not transgress without being
excommunicated. But as at Corinth the law was not laid down beforehand, as the
offences which would necessitate the excommunication of an individual convert
were not defined, so the point at which irregular conduct on the part of a
church would imply apostasy and would demand exclusion were not defined
beforehand. St. Paul never tells us what would happen if something should be
done which, as a matter of fact, had not actually been done. His great strength
lay in his power to refuse to define, or to anticipate, any heresy or schism. He
foresaw that there would be, that there must be, heresy, but he refused to
prejudge the matter before the offence was actually committed. (4) He refused to
allow the universal application of precedents. When a question had arisen and a
judgment had been given he did not apply that judgment as of universal
authority. The decrees of the Jerusalem Council were addressed to the churches
of Syria and Cilicia. St. Paul carried them as far as Galatia, but he carried
them no further. He did not enforce them in Macedonia or Achaia. Precedents are
not of universal application. The conditions in Corinth or in Thessalonica were
not the same as in Antioch in Syria, or even in Galatia. What was vital and
natural in Syria would have been artificial in Achaia. It would not have been a
precedent to the Corinthians or Thessalonians. It would have been a purely
arbitrary ruling. Questions are not settled once for all. They recur in each age
and in each country in different forms. They have to be restated and the answer
must be revised and restated by the church there on the spot. Nothing is more
dangerous than to substitute judgment by precedent for judgment by conviction,
and nothing is easier. To appeal to Jerusalem, or Trent, or Lambeth, or
Westminster, is easy, but it is disastrous. It makes for an appearance of unity:
real unity it destroys. Definitions and precedents have created more schisms
than they have healed. If definitions and precedents are dangerous necessities
at home, when they are transplanted abroad they become dangerous superfluities.
If it is a true doctrine that 'every man must bear his own burden', it is
equally true that every age must produce its own definitions and every church
its own precedents. St. Paul's conception of unity was so spiritual that it
could not possibly be realized by a mere maintenance of uniform practice. It was
so spiritual that it could not fail to issue in vital agreement. It was so
spiritual that it could not be enforced by compulsion; it was so spiritual that
it demanded that it should be expressed in outward unity. The only thing which
mattered was the spiritual unity; outward unity which did not express an inward
unity was an empty husk. But inward unity was the only thing that mattered,
because inward unity which did not express itself in outward unity was the
negation of unity. Hence he laid great stress upon unity. (1) He taught unity by
taking it for granted. He taught men to realize it as a fact of their Christian
experience. He taught his converts to recognize every baptized Christian as a
brother. He taught them, as we have seen again and again, the duty of mutual
responsibility one for another. He taught them by constantly recalling to their
minds their common difficulties and sufferings, referring in his letter to the
sufferings of other churches and comparing them with their own. He taught them
to practise hospitality one to another. At all times, by all means, he kept the
fact of the unity of the Church before their eyes. (2) He used to the full his
position as intermediary between Jew and Greek. He was a Pharisee with a Greek
education and in perfect sympathy with the Greek mind. He carefully kept the law
when he was in Jerusalem whilst he strenuously advocated the liberty of the
Greeks. He was trusted by all the leaders of the Church and he constantly used
that influence. In ten years he went up to Jerusalem three times. After his
first journey through Galatia he returned to Antioch and thence went up to
Jerusalem for the Council. After the second he considered his presence in
Jerusalem of such importance that he refused an urgent entreaty to stay in
Ephesus, which was a centre in which he had long designed to preach. At the end
of the third journey he insisted upon going up to Jerusalem in spite of earnest
and repeated warnings in which he himself believed The only possible
interpretation of this care is that he knew that it was only by his personal
intervention that he could hold the churches of Judea and the Four Provinces
together and counteract the machinations of the party which would bind upon the
Gentiles the burden of the Jewish law, and so either create a schism or destroy
his work. (3) He maintained unity by initiating and encouraging mutual acts of
charity. The collection for the Jewish saints of Jerusalem was at once a proof
and a pledge of unity. It has been universally recognized that St. Paul's eager
anxiety to secure this collection was due to his sense of the gravity of the
situation, and to his conviction that this sign of fellowship in the Gospel
would be an immense source of strength to him in the coming struggle with the
Judaizing party in Jerusalem. No assurance of orthodoxy in the face of
contentious questions is so powerful as a single act of charity. The real unity
which lies at the back of external agreement is common participation in the
Spirit of Christ, the spirit of charity. One sign of that Spirit moves men to
suppress their grievances and to recognize the rightness of others more than
many assertions of orthodox practice. And the influence of the collection is
apparent in the refusal of the Church in Jerusalem to take the side of the
Judaizing missionaries. (4) He encouraged the constant movement of communication
between the different churches. He encouraged his churches in common action for
a common end. The collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem was not a series
of separate collections made in Galatia, Macedonia, Achaia and Asia, it was a
collection made by all these churches together. If it helped to bind the Church
in Jerusalem to the churches in the Four Provinces, it also helped to bind the
churches in the provinces one to another. They all sent representatives with the
Apostle to Jerusalem. When he went up, he went as the head of a large party. It
was the presence of a Greek with him in the city which was the immediate cause
of the riot. To counteract distorted statements nothing is more valuable than
many witnesses. Some may see the worst side of things, but amongst many some
will see the best side and the evidence of the many will tend to sound judgment.
Hence the value of the growing intercourse between the churches abroad and the
Church at home; each helps the other to understand the unity of the Church. In
all these ways St. Paul taught his converts to realize the fact of unity. Today
unity is maintained in our missions by a very different means. We have had a
long and very bitter experience of schism at home, and all our missions have
been planted and organized with the fear of schism ever before our eyes. Our
attitude towards our converts is largely the result of this fear, and our
methods are largely the offspring of it. We have not established abroad anything
that can be compared with the church in the Four Provinces. We have simply
transplanted abroad the organization with which we are familiar at home. We have
maintained it by supplying a large number of European officials who can carry it
on, with the idea that sooner or later we shall have educated the natives to
such a point that, if they eventually become the controlling power in the
church, the change will be nothing more than a change of personnel. The system
will proceed precisely as it did before, natives simply doing exactly what we
are now doing. In other words, we have treated unity mainly as a question of
organization. When we establish a mission abroad we make a European the bishop
of an enormous diocese, and the diocese is ruled by him essentially in the same
way as a diocese is ruled by a bishop at home. He has under him a certain number
of white priests who are in charge of districts which they habitually call their
parishes, and they govern their parishes on essentially the same principle as
the parish priest at home governs his. Externally, there are certain
differences. Their flocks are widely scattered, and in consequence priests in
charge try to move about as much as they can, and they hold more evangelistic
services for those in their parish who are not churchgoers. They have under them
priests, deacons, or catechists, who minister to little groups of converts at
mission stations larger or smaller, and these stand to them in very much the
same relation as curates and lay-readers stand to the parish priest at home.
They conduct their services in precisely the same way as their brethren at home.
They use the same Prayer Book and the same ritual. If a traveller returns from
visiting our Indian or Chinese Christians the first thing that he tells us is
that he was delighted to find himself worshipping in a church where the language
indeed was strange and the worshippers of another colour, but that in every
other respect he felt quite at home. He found the same sort of ornaments, the
same service, the same Prayer Book, the same hymns with which he was familiar.
If a Chinese or an Indian convert comes to England he finds, of course, that
England is not the Christian country which he imagined it to be, and that the
majority of people do not observe many of the rules which he has been taught to
keep, but within the circle of the Church he finds the same thing with which he
was familiar in his own home. In all the outward forms of religion there is
practical uniformity. There are, of course, divisions, but they are our
divisions transplanted into a foreign soil. We have our own parties, and party
distinctions are allowed at home and abroad; but there are not divisions between
the Church at home and the Church abroad. We import, of course, our own
divisions, High and Low, Ritualistic and Anti-ritualistic; but we do not admit
the possibility of divergence in manner between East and West. There is nothing
that we can really compare with the differences which separated the Church in
Jerusalem from the Church in Corinth or in Ephesus. To find a parallel to our
modern missions in the churches of St. Paul we should have to imagine a
Judaistic church in Macedonia or Achaia divided into Pharisaic, Sadducean, and
Grecian parties. In fact, we should have to imagine that St. Paul and his
fellow-workers were all Judaizers. No emissaries from Europe or America ever
return to accuse some native church of violating the law and the customs. No
bishop ever hastens home to claim for the church of his foundation spiritual
liberty, and to assert its right to disregard a rubric. None ventures to
maintain the equality of one church with another, as equally with it a member of
the Spirit-bearing body. A rule is made in London by a Conference of Western
bishops and is applied indiscriminately to China and to Africa, and none dares
to say that the Chinese have already settled this question for themselves in
their own way, and that, though their decision may not approve itself to
Englishmen, still it is certainly not a sufficient reason for breaking
communion. With the alteration of a few titles, the same description would, I
fear, be equally applicable to the missions of other Christian bodies. They too
carry abroad their own organization and forms. They too Judaize in exactly the
same way. The unity, therefore, which we maintain is practically uniformity of
custom. It is essentially legal in its habit. When questions arise they are
settled by the missionaries, and the missionaries have but one test and that
test is agreement with Western practice. If a precedent be found, that precedent
settles the question. If a rule of the Western Church, in any way applicable to
the case, is to be found, that rule must be followed. If no law, no precedent,
seems applicable, some rule or precedent is established which seems most in
harmony with the genius and history of the Western Church. By this means it must
be admitted we have succeeded in maintaining a kind of unity. Schism and heresy
are almost unknown in our missions. But at what a price have we succeeded! If
there has been no heresy, there has been no prophetic zeal. If there has been no
schism, there has been no self-realization. If there has been no heresiarch,
there has been no Church Father. If there have been no schismatics, there have
been no apostles. If there has been no heresy, there has been no native
theology. If there has been no schism, there has been no vigorous outburst of
life. If there has been no danger of a breach between the New Missions and the
Church which founded them, there has been no great advance in the religious life
of the Church. The establishment of new churches in the East should bring to us
as great a gain as the establishment of Greek churches brought to the Church in
the first century. But how can that be, so long as we persist in thinking of the
conversion of Eastern people simply as the making of so many proselytes for the
communion to which we happen to belong?


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 13: PRINCIPLES AND SPIRIT
========================================================================

PART V Conclusions I2 Principles and Spirit I3 Application CHAPTER 12 Principles
and Spirit If we look out over the mission field today we see that we have made
most amazing progress, and that our labours have been more than abundantly
blessed. We see that we have established all over the world missions through
which great numbers of heathen have been brought into the fold of the Church,
civilization has been introduced into barbarous countries, immoral customs have
been abolished and education and culture have been extended far and wide. On all
sides we see steady and increasing progress. It is impossible to have even the
most superficial acquaintance with the history and present condition of our
foreign missions without being convinced that we have been instruments in the
hands of God for the accomplishment of his Divine purpose to sum up all things
in Christ. Nevertheless, there are everywhere three very disquieting symptoms:
(1) Everywhere Christianity is still an exotic. We have not yet succeeded in so
planting it in any heathen land that it has become indigenous. If there is one
doubtful exception to that rule, it is a country where from the very beginning
Pauline methods were followed more closely than elsewhere. But generally
speaking it still remains true that Christianity in the lands of our missions is
still a foreign religion. It has not yet really taken root in the country. (2)
Everywhere our missions are dependent. They look to us for leaders, for
instructors, for rulers. They have as yet shown little sign of being able to
supply their own needs. Day by day and year by year there comes to us an
unceasing appeal for men and money for the same missions to which we have been
supplying men and money for the last fifty or sixty years, and there seems at
present little hope that that demand will change its character. If we do not
send men and money the missions will fail, the converts will fall away, ground
painfully won will be lost: that is what we are told. When the day comes in
which the demand is for men and money to establish new missions in new country,
because the old are capable of standing alone, the end of our work will be in
sight. But at present that day still seems far distant. (3) Everywhere we see
the same types. Our missions are in different countries amongst people of the
most diverse characteristics, but all bear a most astonishing resemblance one to
another. If we read the history of a mission in China we have only to change a
few names and the same history will serve as the history of a mission in
Zululand. There has been no new revelation. There has been no new discovery of
new aspects of the Gospel, no new unfolding of new forms of Christian life.
These symptoms cannot but cause us grave anxiety. There was a day when we rather
expected these effects to follow our preaching, and rather prided ourselves upon
the fact that no strange elements had produced new and perhaps perplexing
developments of Christian thought and life. But today we are living in an
atmosphere of expectation. We look forward to new and startling forms of
progress. We begin to think that signs of dependent uniformity are signs, not of
success, but of failure. We desire to see Christianity established in foreign
climes putting on a foreign dress and developing new forms of glory and of
beauty. So far then as we see our missions exotic, dependent, uniform, we begin
to accuse ourselves of failure. The causes of that failure are not far to seek.
We have allowed racial and religious pride to direct our attitude towards those
whom we have been wont to call 'poor heathen'. We have approached them as
superior beings, moved by charity to impart of our wealth to destitute and
perishing souls. We have used that argument at home to wring grudging and
pitiful doles for the propagation of our faith, and abroad we have adopted that
attitude as missionaries of a superior religion. We have not learnt the lesson
that it is not for our righteousness that we have been entrusted with the
Gospel, but that we may be instruments in God's hands for revealing the
universal salvation of His Son in all the world. We have not learnt that as
Christians we exist by the Spirit of Him who gave up the glory of Heaven in
order to pour out His life for the redemption of the world. We have not learnt
the lesson that our own hope, our own salvation, our own glory, lie in the
completion of the Temple of the Lord. We have not understood that the members of
the Body of Christ are scattered in all lands, and that we, without them, are
not made perfect. We have thought of the Temple of the Lord as complete in us,
of the Body of Christ as consisting of us, and we have thought of the conversion
of the heathen as the extension of the body of which we are the members.
Consequently we have preached the Gospel from the point of view of the wealthy
man who casts a mite into the lap of a beggar, rather than from the point of
view of the husbandman who casts his seed into the earth, knowing that his own
life and the lives of all connected with him depend upon the crop which will
result from his labour. Approaching them in that spirit, we have desired to help
them. We have been anxious to do something for them. And we have done much. We
have done everything for them. We have taught them, baptized them, shepherded
them. We have managed their funds, ordered their services, built their churches,
provided their teachers. We have nursed them, fed them, doctored them. We have
trained them, and have even ordained some of them. We have done everything for
them except acknowledge any equality. We have done everything for them, but very
little with them. We have done everything for them except give place to them. We
have treated them as 'dear children', but not as 'brethren'. This attitude of
mind is apparent everywhere, but it shows itself most distinctly when it is
proposed that we should submit any of our actions to the judgment of the native
councils which we have established as a training ground for independence. The
moment it is suggested that a council in which natives are in a majority should
have the power to direct the action of a white missionary, the moment it is
suggested that a native, even though he may be a man of the highest devotion and
intellectual ability, should be put into a position of authority in a province
where white men still hold office, the white missionaries revolt. They will not
hear of such a thing. We acknowledge that the Spirit of God has fitted the man
for a position of authority, but he cannot occupy it because we are there. 2.
Want of faith has made us fear and distrust native independence. We have
imagined ourselves to be, and we have acted so as to become, indispensable. In
everything we have taught our converts to turn to us, to accept our guidance. We
have asked nothing from them but obedience. We have educated our converts to put
us in the place of Christ. We believe that it is the Holy Spirit of Christ which
inspires and guides us: we cannot believe that the same Spirit will guide and
inspire them. We believe that the Holy Spirit has taught us and is teaching us
true conceptions of morality, doctrine, ritual: we cannot believe that the same
Spirit will teach them. The consequence is that we view any independent action
on the part of our new converts with anxiety and fear. Long experience of
difficulties, dangers, heresies, parties, schisms, has made us over-cautious and
has undermined our faith in the power of the Holy Ghost. We see the waves
boisterous and we are afraid. If anyone suggests giving to the natives any
freedom of action the first thought that arises in our minds is not one of eager
interest to see how they will act, but one of anxious questioning; if we allow
that, how shall we prevent some horrible disaster, how shall we avoid some
danger, how shall we provide safeguards against some possible mistake? Our
attitude in such cases is naturally negative. This is why we are so anxious to
import the law and the customs. This is why we set up constitutions containing
all sorts of elaborate precautions against possible mistakes. We sometimes hope
to educate the native in self-government by establishing councils, or synods, on
which they are represented, but we hasten to take every possible precaution to
avoid the possibility of their making any mistake or taking any action, even in
the smallest matters of ritual or practice, which may be contrary to our ideas
of what is proper. In the councils we give an overruling authority to the
foreign priest: in conferences we make provision for dividing by orders on any
question about which the foreigners feel keenly. By all means we try to secure
that the real authority and responsibility shall remain in our own hands. We are
so familiar with difficulties that we make elaborate preparation to meet every
conceivable kind of difficulty and friction before it arises. In so doing we
often prepare the way for a difficulty which would never arise if we did not
open the door for it to enter. The natives see this and resent it. They see the
preparation for overruling them, they see that only when they advise what the
foreigner approves will their advice be accepted, and they say, 'It does not
matter what we think or say; if we suggest anything which the foreigners do not
like, all the power is in their hands, and they will do as they please'. So,
even when there is perfect agreement, there is no real harmony; and even when
the advice of the native representatives is followed, they feel no
responsibility for the consequences. It is surprising how carefully the native
Christian will consider a question, how eagerly they will seek the advice of
their teacher, how willingly they will listen to his suggestions when once they
realize that he really trusts them to do what is right, and really intends to
let them go their own way even against his own judgment. It is sad how sullenly
they will do what they themselves really approve and would naturally do
themselves of their own accord, when they think that they are being commanded.
It is most sad when they do nothing, because they feel that they have no
responsibility. It would be better, far better, that our converts should make
many mistakes, and fall into many errors, and commit many offences, than that
their sense of responsibility should be undermined. The Holy Ghost is given to
Christians that He may guide them, and that they may learn His power to guide
them, not that they may be stupidly obedient to the voice of authority.
Moreover, the systems which we import are systems which we acknowledge to be
full of imperfections, the sources of many difficulties and dangers at home. We
bind on the new converts a burden heavy and grievous to be borne, a burden which
neither we nor our fathers were able to bear; and we bind it upon a people who
have not inherited it. To us the burden is in a sense natural, it is the result
of our own mistakes and sins. We know its history. It has grown upon us. It
belongs to us. It is our own. But it is not our converts' in other lands. They
do not know its history, nor is it fitted to their shoulders. They will
doubtless make their own mistakes. They will create their own burdens; but they
need not be laden with ours. In so acting we have adopted a false method of
education. Slavery is not the best training for liberty. It is only by exercise
that powers grow. To do things for people does not train them to do them for
themselves. We are learning more and more in things educational that the first
duty of the teacher is not to solve all difficulties for the pupil, and to
present him with the ready-made answer, but to awaken a spirit, to teach the
pupil to realize his own powers, by setting before him difficulties, and showing
him how to approach and overcome them. The work of the missionary is education
in this sense: it is the use of means to reveal to his converts a spiritual
power which they actually possess and of which they are dimly conscious. As the
converts exercise that power, as they yield themselves to the indwelling Spirit,
they discover the greatness of the power and the grace of the Spirit, and in so
doing they reveal it to their teacher. But we are like teachers who cannot
resist telling their pupils the answer the moment a difficulty arises. We still
live in the age of Mangnall's Questions. We cannot resist the temptation to do
for them whatever we can do for them. We cannot sit by and see things done ill,
or ill in view of our ideas of well. That may be a form of government, but it is
not education. The work of the missionary cannot be done by imposing things from
without. The one result which he desires is the growth and manifestation of a
Spirit from within. We sometimes acknowledge this, but we excuse ourselves by
saying that it is inevitable. We adopt a curious theory about missionary work.
We argue that there are three stages of missionary work. In the first the
missionary must proceed by introducing the system in which he has been educated,
because he must have a system, and that is the only possible system for him. In
this stage the missionary must do everything for his converts, because they are
infants incapable of doing anything for themselves. Then there is a second stage
in which the converts educated in the missionaries' system learn to understand
and practise it. Finally, there is a stage in which they may conceivably modify
it. With regard to this theory it must be said that as a theory it is untrue,
and in practice it is pernicious. In fact there is no such first stage. There is
no stage in which converts cannot do anything for themselves. There is no stage
in which it is necessary that they should be slaves of a foreign system. The
moment they are baptized they are the Temple of the Holy Ghost, and the Holy
Ghost is power. They are not so incapable as we suppose. It is often said that
the people to whom we go lack initiative and moral force, that they cannot and
will not do anything for themselves, and consequently that, in the early stages,
it is absolutely necessary to provide everything for them and to govern them
until they acquire a character capable of meeting their own problems. But some
of the people of whom this is said are seen every day to be capable of carrying
on great commercial enterprises. They do not really lack initiative; and if they
did, as Christians they should begin to find it. The Spirit of Christ is the
spirit of initiative. If they had no initiative without Christ, with Christ they
should not fail to have it. That power is in them by the gift of the Holy Ghost.
It should be jealously guarded and hopefully encouraged to find larger and
larger fields for its activity. But it often fails to find its proper sphere; it
is checked and discouraged and stifled in a system in which everything is done
under foreign direction. It is exactly because we believe in that power of the
Lord that we go. It is the revelation of that Spirit that we seek. To deny it is
to deny our hope, to check it is to hinder the attainment of our end. Again, it
is said that we are not now living in the first age of the Church's history,
that we cannot go back and act as though these twenty centuries had not been,
that we cannot and ought not to rob the new churches of today of the experience
of the past, of all that we have learnt by centuries of struggle and labour.
That is true. We cannot teach less than the full truth which we have so learnt.
But to introduce the fully developed systems in which that truth has expressed
itself amongst us is to attempt to ignore differences of race and clime and to
omit necessary stages of growth. It is impossible to skip stages of growth.
Scientists tell us that each human embryo passes through all the stages by which
man has been evolved from lower forms of life. It passes through them, but it
now passes through them quickly. In a few months it repeats the history of ages.
So our new churches guided and helped might speedily and painlessly learn the
lessons which the Church of old learnt with the pain and labour of centuries.
But it is one thing to pass through stages quickly, it is another to try to omit
them. Again it is said that methods must change with the age. The Apostle's
methods were suited to his age, our methods are suited to ours. I have already
suggested that unless we are prepared to drag down St. Paul from his high
position as the great Apostle of the Gentiles, we must allow to his methods a
certain character of universality, and now I venture to urge that, since the
Apostle, no other has discovered or practised methods for the propagation of the
Gospel better than his or more suitable to the circumstances of our day. It
would be difficult to find any better model than the Apostle in the work of
establishing new churches. At any rate this much is certain, that the Apostle's
methods succeeded exactly where ours have failed. But, important as I believe it
to be in the very early stages of our missions to follow the apostolic practice,
which manifestly and undeniably conduced to his astounding success, yet it is of
comparably greater importance that we should endeavor to appreciate the
principles in which the Apostle's practice was rooted, and to learn the spirit
which made their application both possible and fruitful. Those principles are
assuredly applicable to every stage of the Church's growth and that spirit is
the Divine spark which should inspire every form of method in order to make it a
means of grace. It is scarcely possible to imagine the Apostle in other
countries or in another age using a different method; it is quite impossible to
imagine him inspired by a different spirit, or adopting other principles of
action. The principles which seem to underlie all the Apostle's practice were
two: (1) that he was a preacher of Gospel, not of law, and (2) that he must
retire from his converts to give place for Christ. The spirit in which he was
able to do this was the spirit of faith. 1. St. Paul was a preacher of a Gospel,
not of a law. His Epistles are full of this. He reiterates it again and again.
It was not simply that he was a preacher of a Gospel in contradistinction to the
preachers of the Jewish law, he was a preacher of Gospel as opposed to the
system of law. He lived in a dispensation of Gospel as opposed to a dispensation
of law. He administered a Gospel, not a law. His method was a method of Gospel,
not a method of law. This is the most distinctive mark of Pauline Christianity.
This is what separates his doctrine from all other systems of religion. He did
not come merely to teach a higher truth, or a finer morality than those who
preceded him. He came to administer a spirit. Before St. Paul many teachers had
inculcated lofty principles of conduct and had expounded profound doctrines. Men
did not need another. They needed life. Christ came to give that life, and St.
Paul came as the minister of Christ, to lead men to Christ who is the life, that
in Him they might find life. His gospel was a gospel of power. So he taught, and
for that all his life was one long martyrdom. If he would have admitted for a
moment that his work was to introduce a higher law, a new system, he would have
made peace with the Judaizers and he would have been at one with all
contemporary reformers; but the Gospel would have perished in his hands. In his
own words he would have fallen away from grace; Christ would have profited him
nothing. That he refused to do and for that he suffered. Men called him an
antinomian in consequence; but he was not. We have seen this truth illustrated
in his practice again and again. He did not establish a constitution, he
inculcated principles. He did not introduce any practice to be received on his
own or any human authority, he strove to make his converts realize and
understand its relation to Christ. He always aimed at convincing their minds and
stirring their consciences. He never sought to enforce their obedience by
decree; he always strove to win their heartfelt approval and their intelligent
co-operation. He never proceeded by command, but always by persuasion. He never
did things for them, he always left them to do things for themselves. He set
them an example according to the mind of Christ, and he was persuaded that the
Spirit of Christ in them would teach them to approve that example and inspire
them to follow it. 2. He practised retirement, not merely by constraint, but
willingly. He gave place for Christ. He was always glad when his converts could
progress without his aid. He welcomed their liberty. He withheld no gift from
them which might enable them to dispense with his presence. He did not speak, as
we so often speak, of the gift of orders, or the gift of autonomous government,
as the gift of a privilege which might be withheld. He gave as a right to the
Spirit-bearing body the powers which duly belong to a Spirit-bearing body. He
gave freely, and then he retired from them that they might learn to exercise the
powers which they possessed in Christ. He warned them of dangers, but he did not
provide an elaborate machinery to prevent them from succumbing to the dangers.
To do this required great faith; and this faith is the spiritual power in which
St. Paul won his victory. He believed in the Holy Ghost, not merely vaguely as a
spiritual Power, but as a Person indwelling his converts. He believed therefore
in his converts. He could trust them. He did not trust them because he believed
in their natural virtue or intellectual sufficiency. If he had believed in that,
his faith must have been sorely shaken. But he believed in the Holy Ghost in
them. He believed that Christ was able and willing to keep that which he had
committed to Him. He believed that He would perfect His Church, that He would
stablish, strengthen, settle his converts. He believed, and acted as if he
believed. It is that faith which we need today. We need to subordinate our
methods, our systems, ourselves to that faith. We often speak as if we had to do
simply with weak and sinful men. We say that we cannot trust our converts to do
this or that, that we cannot commit the truth to men destitute of this or that
particular form of education or training. We speak as if we had to do with mere
men. We have not to do with mere men; we have to do with the Holy Ghost. What
systems, forms, safeguards of every kind cannot do, He can do. When we believe
in the Holy Ghost, we shall teach our converts to believe in Him, and when they
believe in Him they will be able to face all difficulties and dangers. They will
justify our faith. The Holy Ghost will justify our faith in Him. 'This is the
Victory which overcometh the world, even our faith.'


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 14: APPLICATION
========================================================================

CHAPTER 13 Application The question may well be asked, How far is it possible to
follow today the Apostle's methods which I have tried to set forth in the
preceding chapters? It is plain that our Missions have hitherto proceeded on
very different lines. Is it possible then to make any useful deductions? Is it
possible to introduce into our Missions any of these methods without destroying
to the very foundations all that we have hitherto established? We have seen that
the secret of the Apostle's success in founding churches lay in the observance
of principles which we can reduce to rules of practice in some such form as
this. (1) All teaching to be permanent must be intelligible and so capable of
being grasped and understood that those who have once received it can retain it,
use it, and hand it on. The test of all teaching is practice. Nothing should be
taught which cannot be so grasped and used. (2) All organization in like manner
must be of such a character that it can be understood and maintained. It must be
an organization of which the people see the necessity: it must be an
organization which they can and will support. It must not be so decorate or so
costly that small and infant communities cannot supply the funds necessary for
its maintenance. The test of all organizations is naturalness and permanence.
Nothing should be established as part of the ordinary church life of the people
which they cannot understand and carry on. (3) All financial arrangements made
for the ordinary life and existence of the church should be such that the people
themselves can and will control and manage their own business independently of
any foreign subsidies. The management of all local funds should be entirely in
the hands of the local church which should raise and use their own funds for
their own purposes that they may be neither pauperized nor dependent on the
dictation of any foreign society. (4) A sense of mutual responsibility of all
the Christians one for another should be carefully inculcated and practised. The
whole community is responsible for the proper administration of baptism,
ordination and discipline. (5) Authority to exercise spiritual gifts should be
given freely and at once. Nothing should be withheld which may strengthen the
life of the church, still less should anything be withheld which is necessary
for its spiritual sustenance. The liberty to enjoy such gifts is not a privilege
which may be withheld but a right which must be acknowledged. The test of
preparedness to receive the authority is the capacity to receive the grace. We
have seen further that the power in which St. Paul was able to act with such
boldness was the spirit of faith. Faith, not in the natural capacities of his
converts, but in the power of the Holy Ghost in them. Now if we are to practise
any methods approaching to the Pauline methods in power and directness, it is
absolutely necessary that we should first have this faith, this Spirit. Without
faith -- faith in the Holy Ghost, faith in the Holy Ghost in our converts -- we
can do nothing. We cannot possibly act as the Apostle acted until we recover
this faith. Without it we shall be unable to recognize the grace of the Holy
Spirit in our converts, we shall never trust them, we shall never inspire in
them confidence in the power of the Holy Spirit in themselves. If we have no
faith in the power of the Holy Spirit in them, they will not learn to have faith
in the power of the Holy Spirit in themselves. We cannot trust them, and they
cannot be worthy of trust; and trust, the trust which begets trustworthiness, is
the one essential for any success in the Pauline method. But if we make that
great venture of faith then the application of the Pauline method is still beset
with difficulties because the past history of our converts is, as I have pointed
out, very different from the history of his converts. Most missionaries today
find themselves in charge of mission stations in the midst of established
communities of Christians with often a long tradition of foreign government and
foreign support behind them. Those communities will probably look to the
missionary in everything. He is assisted by a number of native clergy,
catechists and teachers whose work it is his duty to superintend. These again
will look to him for guidance and encouragement, and probably for definite and
particular orders in every conceivable circumstance that may arise, even if they
do not depend upon his initiative and inspiration to save them from stagnation.
In the central station he will almost certainly find a considerable organization
and elaborate establishment which the native Christian community has not created
and cannot at present support without financial aid from abroad. He will find
that they have been more or less crammed with a complete system of theological
and ecclesiastical doctrines which they have not been able to digest. He will
find an elaborate system of finance which makes him in the last resort
responsible for the raising and administration of all funds in his district. He
will find that as regards baptism, the recommendation of candidates for office
in the church, and the exercise of discipline, the whole burden of
responsibility is laid upon his shoulders alone. He will find in a word that he
is expected to act as an almost uncontrolled autocrat subject only to the
admonitions of his bishop or the directions of a committee of white men. He
cannot possibly ignore that situation. He cannot act as if the Christian
community over which he is called to preside had had another history. He cannot
desert them and run away to some untouched field. He cannot begin all over
again. Nevertheless, if he has the Spirit of St. Paul he can in a very real
sense practise the method of St. Paul in its nature, if not in its form. He
cannot undo the past, but he can amend the present. He can keep ever before his
mind the truth that he is there to prepare the way for the retirement of the
foreign missionary. He can live his life amongst his people and deal with them
as though he would have no successor. He should remember that he is the least
permanent element in the church. He may fall sick and go home, or he may die, or
he may be called elsewhere. He disappears, the church remains. The native
Christians are the permanent element. The permanence of the church depends upon
them. Therefore, it is of vital importance that if he is removed they should be
able to carry on the work, as if he were present. He cannot rely, and he ought
not to rely, upon having any successor. In many cases it must be literally true
that he has none, at any rate, for some years. The supply of men from home is
happily so inadequate that it is impossible to ensure a sufficient number of
European recruits to man all the existing stations. It is obvious that there
will not be, and ought not to be, enough to man similar stations all over any
great country. In some cases it is probable that he will have no successor: in
every case it is desirable that no successor should be necessary to the
existence of the church. Consequently, it is of the first importance that he
should keep this always before him and strive by all means to secure that the
absence of a foreign superintendent should not result in that deplorable lapse
from Christianity which we have only too often observed, with shame and grief,
to follow upon the withdrawal of foreign support in the past. It is his first
duty to prepare the way for the safe retirement of the foreign missionary. He
can do this in two ways: (1) He can associate the people with himself in all
that he does and so make them thoroughly understand the nature of the work, and
(2) he can practise retirement. (1) He can associate the people with himself in
all that he does. He need not do anything without their co-operation. By that I
mean not merely that he can associate with himself a few individuals who seem
suited to his mind, but that he can educate the whole congregation. In the past
we have associated with ourselves individuals of our own selection, we have
begun our education from the top. What is needful is to begin from the bottom.
Leaders must be thrown up by the community, not dragged up by the missionary. It
is necessary to make the whole body realize its unity and common responsibility.
It is essential that he should not allow, he certainly must not encourage, the
whole body to abandon all its responsibility to others, as he certainly will do
if he deals only with a few people whom he has selected. He may avoid this
danger by referring all business to the whole congregation in the first
instance. In this way he will not only force the whole congregation to
understand its responsibility, he will also compel those who are naturally
leaders to understand that just as he cannot act as an autocrat because he has
been put over them by the bishop, so neither can they so act because they have
attracted his attention by some display of intellectual or social superiority.
It is essential that the whole body should grow together. Now in doing this we
shall find that the missionary must, in fact, follow the example of St. Paul
very nearly, as we shall see if we take a few instances. Let us take four
typical examples of the Pauline method: the management of funds, the
administration of baptism, the selection of ministers for the congregation, the
exercise of discipline. (a) Finance. It is important that the missionary should
educate the whole congregation in the principles of church finance because this
is a question which touches every member directly in a very obvious way, and
when the people learn to understand that the control of finance is in their own
hands they will more easily and quickly learn their responsibility in other
matters. Even where, as in some central stations, a considerable proportion of
the annual income is derived from foreign sources we need not hesitate to take
this course. The missionary can teach the congregation as a congregation the
sources from which all money is derived. He can make them understand what money
is wanted and why it is wanted. He can generally give them control of all local
expenses. He need not take charge of any money collected by the congregation
even at their instant and special desire. He can refuse to accept the
administration of money for which he is wholly and solely responsible. The
modern institution of church councils will greatly assist him in this, but in
the actual administration of money in small communities he need not even use a
council. He can easily teach the whole community; for finance is a subject in
which the whole congregation is naturally interested. If the people appoint a
council to administer local funds, the council may be responsible to them
primarily, and the use and abuse of funds may still be really in their hands.
Only here is it unfortunately necessary to remark that it is no use to pretend.
To consult the people whilst the missionary intends to carry out his own plans
to hand over money to them and to keep control over it at the same time, is
fatal. The people at once see the deception and resent it. They must be allowed
to learn by making their own mistakes. Of all local finance the administration
of charity is the simplest and most instructive. The relief of distress should
be entirely in the hands of the congregation. The creation of a charity
committee is not so good an educational method in a small community as is the
alleviation of individual cases as they arise by the whole congregation. Cases
of poverty may be referred at once to the whole congregation. Everybody knows
everybody else. The congregation knows exactly what is needed. They can reject
the appeal or subscribe to meet it on the spot. The missionary, if he will, may
subscribe with the others. Nothing is more calculated to draw the congregation
together and to help the people to realize their mutual dependence, than the
supply of special needs by special acts of charity one towards another. A poor
fund, if it is administered by a missionary, only tends to misunderstanding and
discontent. Even in such matters as the foundation of schools, the congregation
ought to manage its own business. The first thing is to persuade the people of
the need for a school. Until they desire it and are ready to support it, nothing
is done. When they want it, they will certainly seek the missionary's help. He
can give help, why should he insist upon control? He and they, they and he,
should think out the plans, seek for sources of supply, and engage the teacher.
It is essential that the people should recognize that the school is their own
school, not simply his. If he does the work for them, even though he may induce
them to subscribe, the work will be his work not theirs, and they will feel no
responsibility for its success or failure. Similarly, if a school is to be
enlarged the missionary has another opportunity of teaching his people the same
lesson. The school is really their school, not his, even if it has been founded
in the first instance with foreign money. It is their children who are to be
educated in it. They are really more nearly affected by the alteration than we
are. Then they should be consulted, and their advice should be taken. It is a
grievous loss to the whole Church if the work is done simply by foreigners, when
the whole community might be made to realize, as perhaps they never realized
before, its importance to them and their responsibility for it. In finance, as
in other matters, the principle of throwing upon the shoulders of the native
Christians all the responsibility that they can carry, and more than they can
carry, is a sound one. If they have more than they can manage, they will gladly
seek advice and help; if they have less, they will, sooner or later, begin to
fight for more or to feel aggrieved that they are not given their proper place.
(b) Baptism. The admission of new converts is a matter which very intimately
affects the whole Church. It cannot but seriously affect the whole community if
improper persons are admitted or proper persons excluded. It is of vital
importance that the Christians should learn to recognize this. It is possible to
teach them and to help them to feel a proper responsibility in the matter. They
will recognize the truth and feel the responsibility, if the truth is taught
them and the responsibility is thrown upon them. No convert should be admitted
by baptism into the body without the approval of the body, as a body. If a man
wishes to be baptized he must be accepted by the congregation. But some one will
say, 'If we do that, men will be rejected whom the missionary is convinced are
proper persons'. If that is so, then the missionary must try to educate the
congregation, but he will do that not by overruling them with a high hand, but
by teaching them true principles. If the convert must go to the church, so must
the missionary. He must entreat, exhort, advise with all long-suffering. He may
fail to obtain his end in a particular case. But the people may be right and he
be wrong. Even if he is right, he may really gain more by allowing the people to
overrule him than by overruling them. They will speedily see that they are
dealing with one who earnestly seeks their welfare, but will not force his own
views upon them, and they will certainly be in greater danger of erring through
their desire to please him than through their desire to vex him, or even to
drive him away. (c) The appointment of ministers. If a man is to be trained at a
central school as a catechist or teacher, it is of the first importance that he
should feel that he is sent by the whole community, not by the favouritism of a
foreign missionary, that he is supported by the common assent and approval, that
he represents the body, and that he will be received on his return by the whole
body. No missionary is compelled to recommend in such cases on his sole
authority. It is not enough that he should consult the Christians, he may see to
it that the choice is the real choice of the whole congregation, or group of
congregations, to which the candidate belongs. Beyond that the missionary cannot
at the present time go. The appointment of catechists, deacons and priests to
posts in the diocese is generally in the hands of the bishop or of a committee,
and the people to whom the man is sent are seldom, if ever, consulted. So long
as this is the case the missionary is compelled to accept the nominee of that
committee, and the people can scarcely be expected to understand the true
relations between the pastor and his flock. The situation is grievous; but in
old-established missions it is at present unavoidable. For no one can expect a
committee directed by foreigners to act on Pauline principles. The committee
will inevitably make the bonds which bind the native ministers to itself as
tight as possible, and the bonds which unite the minister to his flock
proportionately weak. But if the missionary sees to it that no candidate is sent
up from his district until he has really been selected and approved by the
people to whom he naturally belongs he will lay a foundation upon which a better
system may one day be established. At any rate, he will remove the common
complaint that candidates for ordination and clergy are at the mercy of one man
and that to displease the superintending missionary even accidentally is certain
to result in the ruin of the man's career. (d) Discipline. Cases of moral
failure are more simple. In nearly every case the missionary in charge is left a
very large discretion in such matters. He can act as St. Paul acted. If a man
falls into grievous sin, if an offence is committed which ought to shock the
conscience of the whole Christian community, he need not deal with it directly.
He can call the attention of the congregation to it and point out the dangers
manifest and pressing of leaving it unrecognized or unreproved. He can call upon
them to decide what ought to be done. He can in the last resort refuse to have
any dealings with a congregation which declines to do its duty and tolerates
gross open immorality in its midst. He can entreat, exhort, advise, he may even
threaten, the whole body when it would be fatal to deal with the individual
himself. If he can persuade them to do what is right, the whole community is
uplifted; but he cannot put them in the right way by doing for them what they
alone can (2) He can train them for retirement by retiring. He can retire in two
ways, physically or morally. He can retire morally by leaving things more and
more in their hands, by avoiding to press his opinion, by refusing to give it
lest he should, as is often the case, lead them to accept his opinion simply
became it is his. He can retire by educating them to understand all the working
of the mission and by gradually delegating it. He can retire physically. He can
go away on missionary tours of longer and longer duration, leaving the whole
work of the station to be carried on without any foreign direction for a month
or two. He can do this openly and advisedly because he trusts his people. He can
prolong his tours. He can find excuses for being away more and more. He can even
create such a state of affairs that he may take his furlough without their
suffering any harm. At first, no doubt, he would be anxious, and he would have
good cause for anxiety. Things would go wrong. But his people would know his
mind, and, though they would grudge his absence, they would see that he was
really helping them most by leaving them. Retirement of that kind, deliberately
prepared and consciously practised, is a very different thing from absence
through stress of business unwillingly. Only by retirement can he prepare the
way for real independence. But the difficulty instantly arises that in many
cases the retirement of the missionary would mean that the Christians would be
deprived of the sacraments. That is too often true, and it is apparently an
insuperable difficulty. The only way out of it is to persuade the Bishop to
ordain men in every place to celebrate the sacraments. There are plenty of
suitable men. Everywhere there are good, honest, sober, grave men respected by
their fellows, capable of this office, and they ought to be ordained for that
special purpose. But meanwhile, even at the risk of depriving the Christians at
the centre of that spiritual food which is their right, the missionary should
retire, at any rate for a few months, in order to evangelize new districts, and
above all to teach his people to stand alone. But in every district the
missionary has not only to deal with settled congregations. If he is an
evangelist he is always beginning work in new towns or villages with new
converts. Then he can begin at the very beginning. He can make the rule of
practice the rule of all his teaching. Wherever he finds a small community of
hearers he can begin by teaching them one simple truth, one prayer, one brief
article of the Creed and leaving them to practise it. If on his return he finds
that they have learned and practised that first lesson, he can then teach them a
little more; but if he finds that they have not succeeded, he can only repeat
the first lesson and go away again so that they may master that one before they
are burdened with another. If they learn to practise one act alone they may make
more progress than if they had learned by heart all the doctrines of the Church
and depended solely upon some outside teacher, He need not take it for granted
that, if men are converted, there is no hope for the conversion of their wives
and children until he can get women missionaries and teachers to instruct them
in the rudiments of the Gospel. He can tell his first converts that they are
responsible not only for their own progress, but for the enlightenment of their
wives and families and neighbours. In some places the difficulties of this are
apparently insuperable; but men overcome apparently insuperable difficulties by
the power of the Holy Ghost. We need not take it for granted that men or women
must run away from home, or cannot influence their households and teach them
what they have learned. It is better to take it for granted that they can, even
to the death. Slaves in heathen households in Rome were in apparently an
impossible position; yet they overcame the apparent impossibility. He need not
take it for granted that every small community of hearers must have a catechist
settled amongst them. Where there are three people one will inevitably lead. On
his visits the missionary, or his catechist, can give special attention and
teaching to these natural leaders and instruct them to hand on to the others the
special teaching which they have received. This can be done if the instruction
given is given line upon line, and if there is no haste to complete a
theological education. So these leaders will grow with their fellows, with those
whom they teach. They will learn more by teaching than in any other way. If the
missionary is fortunate he may be able to induce his bishop to ordain some of
these men of approved moral character and natural authority. In that case the
church in that part will grow naturally into completion: otherwise, his converts
will be compelled to wait for his visits to receive the sacraments, the work
will be retarded, and the people starved. But even so, he can make them largely
independent in all other respects. The visits of the missionary will be welcomed
as the visits of a friend who can help them. They will eagerly seek his advice,
they will need his encouragement. But whatever they have learnt, they will have
so learnt that they can practise it, even if he never came near them again. It
would be better to teach a few men to call upon the name of the Lord for
themselves than to fill a church with people who have given up idolatry,
slavishly and unintelligently, and have acquired a habit of thinking that it is
the duty of converts to sit and be taught, and to hear prayers read for them in
the church by a paid mission agent. The missionary can observe the rule that no
organization should be introduced which the people cannot understand and
maintain. He need not begin by establishing buildings, he need not begin by
importing foreign books and foreign ornaments of worship. The people can begin
as they can with what they have. As they feel the need of organization and
external conveniences they will begin to seek about for some way of providing
them. The missionary, or his helper, can encourage and assist them. They may
even subscribe money, but if they do this, it should be a subscription from
them, freely given, and entirely in the control of the little congregation.
Their finance so far as they have any common finance may be entirely in their
own hands. It will obviously be small, and because it is small it is of great
importance that they should learn to manage it themselves, so that they may be
prepared to understand the larger finance of a wider area when they begin to
find their place in an organization which covers a large district. Similarly
with all church rules, it is not necessary to begin by insisting upon mere
verbal assent to a code of law. The new converts may grow up into it. If they
learn to pray in twos and threes, if they learn to read as they may be able the
Holy Gospels, and to discuss amongst themselves the lessons of the teacher they
will gradually perceive the inconsistency of that which they read or hear with
heathen practices to which they have been accustomed. They will inquire amongst
themselves and dispute; they will refer the question to the missionary on his
visit and he will have opportunity of explaining wherein the custom in question
is agreeable or otherwise to the doctrine which they have been taught. But he
need not hurry them. They must learn to change because they feel the need of
change, and to change because they see the rightness of the change, rather than
to change because they are told to do so. If they change unintelligently, by
order, they will easily relapse, because they have never seen the principle on
which the change is based. Artificial changes are not likely to be permanent
until they have become in process of years habitual, and then they will still be
unintelligent. Changes made under the influence of the Holy Spirit are
reasonable, and, so made, are the accepted changes of the people themselves.
From those they can only fall away by deliberate apostasy. So we advance at
home. We educate public opinion until that opinion is on the side of
righteousness and then the change is permanent. So, e.g., we put down slavery.
And so we may deal with our converts. Our past efforts have not been so
fruitless but that we have now a great number of Christians who, beginning by
accepting Christian law as an external demand of the foreign teachers, have
ended by seeing its true meaning and accepting it as a proper expression of the
will of God and here we have a powerful influence and example. New converts will
speedily strive to attain the level of their fellows. They will see the manifest
advantages. By setting the example before them of Christian communities more
advanced than themselves, by encouraging them to take their difficulties to
their more educated brethren, we can encourage and help them without enforcing
authoritative, and to them incomprehensible, demands. Some things they will
speedily accept because they are true and natural expressions of the mind of
Christ in them; some things they will accept only after a long struggle, because
they are not easily understood; and some things they will never accept because
they are neither natural nor proper expressions of the mind of Christ in their
lives; and such things have never been really accepted, even by those who have
outwardly submitted to them. But there would certainly arise cases in which the
people would for a long time observe practices which the missionary would be
compelled to condemn as superstitious, immoral, or otherwise iniquitous. Still
the true method is purely persuasive. The missionary must use his judgment as to
whether the refusal is deliberate rejection of a truth which the people know to
be truth and will not accept, or whether it is due to ignorance and immature
ideas of the nature of Christianity. In the latter case he can go on teaching,
exhorting, persuading, certain that so far as he is right, he will lead the
people to see that he is right. In the former case, he has no resort but to
shake off the dust of his feet, to refuse to teach men who will not be taught.
Compulsion is futile, and disastrous. There are men who will be taught. He must
seek out those and turn to them. This applies to all missionary preaching. The
one test which the missionary should require of his hearers is openness of mind.
If he teaches, he teaches as one who is making a moral demand, and if that moral
demand is met with a flat determination to resist it, then he cannot well
continue his teaching. Willingness to send children to school in order to obtain
material advantage, if coupled with a determination not to submit to the claims
of Christ, is not a field in which the doctrine of Christ can be planted.
Willingness to listen to the preacher in order to rise in the social scale by
becoming Christian is very different. There is a willingness to accept the
teaching. The motive is low, but the willingness to accept is present, and the
teacher can there plant seeds which will grow up and purify the motive. This has
happened again and again. Willingness to hear for the sake of advantage with a
determination not to submit to the doctrine is one thing, willingness to hear
for the sake of advantage with even a half-hearted intention of accepting the
doctrine is another. There must be in the hearers a willingness, not only to
hear but to accept, if the missionary is to persevere with success. Everywhere
there are those whose hearts God touches and so bring prepared hearts. On those
the missionary may concentrate his attention. For them there is hope. Everywhere
there are those who refuse to hear with their souls, who close their hearts.
These we must prepare to refuse to teach. We must be prepared to shake the lap.
So far, any missionary who chooses can go today, without upsetting the work of
his predecessors, but building upon it. Many things may seem desirable, but this
at least is possible.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 15: MISSIONARY SURVEY AS AN AID TO INTELLIGENT
========================================================================

Missionary Survey As An Aid To Intelligent by Roland Allen The Project Gutenberg
EBook of Missionary Survey As An Aid To Intelligent Co-Operation In Foreign
Missions, by Roland Allen This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no
cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this
eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net Title: Missionary Survey As An Aid To
Intelligent Co-Operation In Foreign Missions Author: Roland Allen Release Date:
September 3, 2004 [EBook #13360] Language: English Character set encoding:
ISO-8859-1 *** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MISSIONARY SURVEY ***
Produced by Ted Garvin, Josephine Paolucci and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team. Transcriber's Note: In order to maintain appropriate line
length, some tables have been transposed, i.e. rows are columns and vice versa.
MISSIONARY SURVEY AS AN AID TO INTELLIGENT CO-OPERATION IN FOREIGN MISSIONS BY
ROLAND ALLEN, M.A. SOMETIME S.P.G. MISSIONARY IN NORTH CHINA AUTHOR OF
"MISSIONARY METHODS, ST. PAUL'S OR OURS," ETC. AND THOMAS COCHRANE, M.B., C.M.
LATE PRINCIPAL OF UNION MEDICAL COLLEGE, PEKING, AND HON. SECRETARY OF THE
LAYMEN'S MOVEMENT, LONDON MISSIONARY SOCIETY 1920 ANALYSIS OF CONTENTS. CHAPTER
I. THE IMPORTANCE OF A DOMINANT PURPOSE. The modern demand for intelligent
co-operation The same demand in relation to Foreign Missions The need for a
definition of purpose The failure of our present reports in this respect Is
definition of purpose desirable? It is necessary for formulation of policy
Societies with limited incomes cannot afford to pursue every good object The
admission of diverse purposes has blurred the purpose of Medical Missions The
admission of diverse purposes has confused the administration of Educational
Missions The admission of diverse purposes has distracted Evangelistic Missions
Hence the absence of unity in the work Hence the tendency to support details
rather than the whole The need for a dominant purpose and expression of
relations The need for a statement of factors which govern action The need for a
missionary survey which expresses the facts in relation This demand is not
unreasonable CHAPTER II. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 1. All survey is properly
governed by the purpose for which it is made The purpose decides what is to be
included, what excluded A scientific survey is a survey of selected factors This
is not to be confused with the collection of facts to prove a theory The
collection of facts is independent of the conclusions which may be drawn 2. The
survey proposed is a missionary survey The difference between medical and
educational surveys and missionary survey 3. The survey proposed is designed to
embrace the work of all Societies 4. Definition of aim necessarily suggests a
policy We have not hesitated to set out that policy We make criticism easy 5.
Survey should provide facts in relation to an aim, so as to guide action 6.
Twofold aspect of survey--survey of state, survey of position Survey is
therefore a continual process 7. Possible objections to method proposed-- (i)
The information asked for statistical All business and organised effort is based
on statistics Every Society publishes statistics (ii) The admission of estimates
The value of estimates (iii) The difficulty of many small tables Why burden the
missionary with the working out of proportions? The tables should assist the
missionary in charge (iv) The objection that we cannot obtain all the
information Partial knowledge the guide of all human action (v) The tables
contain items at present unknown CHAPTER III. SURVEY OF THE STATION AND ITS
DISTRICT. The Work to be Done, and the Force to Do it. We begin with survey of
the station and its district If the station exists to establish the Church in a
definite area then we can survey on a territorial basis The definition of the
area involves a policy I. When the area is defined we can distinguish work done
and work to be done, in terms of cities, towns, and villages; in terms of
population The meaning of "Christian constituency" The reasons for adopting it
Example of table, and of the impression produced by it Example of value of
proportions Tables of proportions The difficulty of procuring this information
The value of the labour expended in procuring it II. The force at work The
permanent and transitory elements (a) The foreign force The use of merely
quantitative expressions Such tables essential for deciding questions of
reinforcement (b) The native force Reasons for putting total Christian
constituency in the first place The Communicants. The paid workers. The unpaid
workers The difficulty in this classification The interest of these tables lies
in the proportions Summary But we need to know something of capacity of the
native force (1) Proportion of Communicants The importance of this proportion in
itself In relation to the work to be done (2) Proportion of paid workers to
Christian constituency and to Communicants The difficulty of appreciating the
meaning of this proportion It must be checked by (a) the proportion of unpaid
voluntary workers (b) The standard of wealth (3) The contribution to missionary
work in labour and money (4) The literacy of the Christian constituency The
importance of widespread knowledge of the Bible The importance of Christians
having a wider knowledge than their heathen neighbours CHAPTER IV. THE EMPHASIS
LAID UPON DIFFERENT TYPES OF WORK. I. Work amongst men and women respectively We
first distinguish men, wives, and single women among the Foreign Missionaries
The reasons for applying the distinction between men and women to the Native
Force II. The different classes in the population chiefly reached by the mission
III The different races and religions Emphasis upon one class or race or
religion is no proper basis for adverse criticism of the mission IV. The
emphasis laid on evangelistic, medical, and educational work respectively The
difficulty of distinguishing medical, educational, and evangelistic missionaries
The reason why grades need not here be distinguished V. Sunday Schools-- The
diverse character of Sunday Schools The table proposed CHAPTER V. THE MEDICAL
WORK IN THE STATION DISTRICT. The tendency to treat medical and educational work
as distinct from evangelistic Medical and educational boards and their surveys
The difficulty of determining the aim of the medical mission First of medical
missions as designed to meet a distinct medical need Two tables designed to
present the medical force in relation to area and population The necessity of
considering non-missionary medical work in this connection The extent of the
work done in the year Then of the medical mission as designed to assist
evangelistic work (i) The extent to which evangelists work with the medicals
Caution as regards the use of this table (ii) The extent to which medicals
assist the evangelists outside the institutions (iii) The extent to which the
evangelistic influence of the hospital can be traced CHAPTER VI. EDUCATIONAL
WORK IN THE STATION DISTRICT. The difficulty of determining the aim of
educational missions The difficulty presented by different grades and standards
The reason for excluding Colleges and Normal Schools at this stage First of the
educational mission as designed to meet a distinct educational need Two tables
designed to present the educational work in relation to area and population The
necessity of considering non-missionary educational work The existence of
non-missionary schools may either increase the need for missionary schools or
decrease it The extent to which education is provided for the better educated
and the more illiterate The extent to which education is provided for boys and
girls, for Christian and non-Christian scholars The extent to which mission
schools receive Government grants throws light on their character and purpose
The extent to which education is provided for illiterate adults The importance
of this The importance of the distinction between Christians and non-Christians
in this table Then of the educational mission as designed to assist evangelistic
work (i) The extent to which evangelists work with the educationalists in
schools Caution needed in the use of this table (ii) The extent to which
educationalists work with evangelists outside schools The importance of the work
done by educationalists outside the schools (iii) The immediate evangelistic
results of education given The difficulty The table proposed The support given
by the Natives to medical and educational work CHAPTER VII. CO-OPERATION. The
importance of the relation between the different parts of the mission The
relations already expressed in earlier tables The chief difficulty lies in the
relationship between medicals and educationalists The importance of medical work
in schools The table showing the work of medicals in connection with schools The
importance of educational work in hospitals The table showing the work of
educationalists in hospitals Summary of co-operation between evangelists,
medicals, and educationalists CHAPTER VIII. THE NATIVE CHURCH. The end of the
station, a Native Church This end a condition into which the Church must be
growing Survey must therefore deal with the Native Church The reason for
beginning with self-support The meaning of self-supporting Churches In rare
cases it means independence of external support In most cases it means
attainment of an arbitrary standard In most cases it does not represent the
power of the people to supply their own needs In most cases it is not sure
evidence of growing liberality Nevertheless we must begin by considering the
self-supporting Churches We ask for proportion of self-supporting Churches This
will not reveal the power of the Churches to stand alone We inquire then the
proportion of inquirers in self-supporting Churches We inquire then the
proportion of unpaid workers in self-supporting Churches Where self-supporting
Churches are not recognised we inquire-- (i) Power of Christians to conduct
their own services (ii) Power to order Church government (iii) Power to provide
expenses of Church organisation CHAPTER IX. SURVEY OF DISTRICTS WHERE TWO OR
MORE SOCIETIES ARE AT WORK. SURVEY OF MISSIONS WITH NO DEFINED DISTRICTS. I. The
possibility of united survey by missionaries of two or more Societies The evil
of ignoring the work of others Survey is concerned with facts not with
ecclesiastical prejudices The difficulty of obtaining the facts The use of
estimates II. The mission which has no defined district--A general expression of
the purpose of such a mission In its widest terms survey of the work of such a
mission would involve survey of the whole state of society In its narrower terms
it is survey of a mission establishing a Church In this case most of the
preceding tables could be used, omitting proportions to area and population Then
we could see force at work Then we could see forms of work Then we could place
the mission in a survey of the Country CHAPTER X. SURVEY OF THE WORK IN A
PROVINCE. The mission station is not an isolated unit The relationship of
station with station is recognised So the relationship of all missions in a
country is recognised We can then consider the work of a mission station in
relation to all mission work done in the Province or Country Considered in
relation to the larger area, impressions produced by the earlier tables may have
to be revised The first necessity is to gain a view of the whole work in the
Country The difficulty presented by capitals and other large cities I. The items
proposed as necessary for such a general view-- (1) The work to be done; a bare
quantitative expression in terms of population, perhaps also in terms of cities,
towns, and villages unoccupied This expression ought not to suggest that the
work to be done is to be done by the foreigners (2) The Foreign Force at work in
relation to the work to be done is larger than that presented by returns from
all mission stations The Native Force also is more than the sum of the station
district returns (3) Different forms of work; one table revealing proportion of
Missionaries, Native Workers, Foreign Funds, and Native Contributions employed
in different forms of work One table of results A serious flaw in this table (4)
The extent to which different classes, etc., are reached. One table including
the station returns with the addition of special missions which work among
special classes in the whole Province or Country (5) Self-support. One table
showing the relation of the native contribution to the total salaries of all
paid native evangelistic workers II. To this must be added tables of students in
training for different forms of mission work First the relative proportion of
students in training for different types of work Then of each more
particularly-- (1) Evangelistic Confusion of nomenclature prevents more than a
rough classification (2) Educational: divided roughly into four classes (3)
Medical: divided into three classes These tables are prophetic of line of
advance in the near future The question of perseverance III. Then the
Educational Institutions excluded from the district survey must be added to the
sum of the station returns to show the relation of the educational work to the
population of the larger area The importance of the relation of the higher to
the lower grade institutions The educational work of non-missionary agencies
must also be considered IV. Medical work needs only the addition of provincial
hospitals and non-missionary medical work V. Two other subjects claim attention
here, literature and industrial work The difficulty of dealing with literature.
It needs special treatment Two brief tables suggested The difficulty of dealing
with industrial work still greater For industrial missions, other than those
which are really educational, we suggest three tables VI. Union work CHAPTER XI.
THE RELATION OF THE STATION TO THE WORLD. A world-wide work can only be
conducted on world-wide principles These world-wide principles must govern the
work in every part, however small No country, however large, can be an isolated
unit from missionary point of view How shall we gain a view of this large whole?
We suggest that four tables would suffice for our purpose:-- (1) A table showing
the force at work in relation to population (2) A table designed to reveal
something of the character and power of the force (3) A table showing the
relative strength expended in evangelistic, medical, and educational work (4) A
table showing the extent to which the native Christians support existing work
This is only a tentative suggestion proposed to invite criticism


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 16: PREFACE
========================================================================

PREFACE. This book, written by Mr. Allen, bears both our names because we
studied the material together, and settled what should be included and what
excluded. We discussed and disputed, and finally found ourselves in complete
agreement. We therefore decided to issue the book in our joint names, on the
understanding that I should be allowed to disclaim the credit for writing it.
But the book would never have been written at all save for the inspiration and
help of Mr. S.J.W. Clark, who, in his travels in nearly every mission field, has
brought an unusually acute mind, trained by a long business experience, to bear
upon mission problems, and has done more hard thinking on the question of survey
than any man we know. Let anyone who doubts the need for survey study the
present distribution of missionary forces. He will find little evidence of any
plan or method. In one region of the world there are about four hundred and
fifty missionaries to a population of three millions, while in another area with
more than double the number of people, there are only about twenty missionaries.
After travelling in the latter region I asked one of the senior workers what in
his opinion would be a large enough foreign staff, and he indicated quite a
moderate addition to the existing force. Suppose I had suggested a total of a
hundred missionaries, he would have declared the number far too large. Perhaps
he was too modest in his demands. Conditions in one area differ from those in
another. But such a wide difference in distribution and in demands makes the
need of survey to ascertain facts and conditions absolutely imperative,
especially when we remember that to the force of four hundred and fifty in the
territory with the smaller population, missionaries will probably continue to be
added and unevangelised regions will have to wait. After surveying one of the
better staffed divisions of the mission field, a missionary declared that not
more missionaries were needed, but a more effective use of the force at work;
and fortunately in that particular field central direction is beginning to
secure that end. But usually there is no central direction and no comparison of
plans between neighbouring missions on the field, although several missions may
be located in the same town or city; and two Mission Houses in London may be
almost next door neighbours, and may have missions in the same city in the Far
East, and may yet be entirely ignorant of each other's plans for work in that
city. They might be rival businesses guarding trade secrets! Hence it is not
strange that when late in the day a survey of a city in China is made in which
there are about two hundred missionaries, it is found that not one of them is
giving full time to evangelistic work! Across the city of Tokyo a line could be
drawn west of which all the foreign workers live, while east of it there are
nine hundred and sixty thousand people without a single resident missionary! But
not only is intermission planning, based on survey, sadly lacking; few missions
have thoroughly surveyed their own fields and their own work, and fewer still
have surveyed them in relation to the work of others. The result is that
policies are adopted and staffs increased in a way which--for all administrators
know to the contrary--may be adding weight where it should be diminished, and
may be piling up expenditure in the wrong place. It should be pointed out,
however, that survey is beginning to come into its own. It is being more and
more realised that it should be the basis of all co-operative work, and the
survey of China now nearing completion places that country in a premier position
as far as a foundation for wise building is concerned. Recently in London,
neighbouring Mission Houses have been getting into touch with each other, and
the Conference of British Missionary Societies and the analogous body in America
have made conference between missions frequent and fruitful. But there is a long
way yet to travel before we can have that comprehensive planning which the
present world situation imperatively and urgently demands. But just as
neighbouring missions should get to know about each other's work and plans in
order that funds may be spent most effectively; so a world survey is necessary
if the command of Christ is to be adequately obeyed. The unit is the world, and
survey in patches may misdirect money which would have been spent differently if
the whole need had been before the eyes of those who are charged with the
responsibility of administration. We make bold to affirm that no Society can be
sure that it is spending the money entrusted to it wisely unless it has a
satisfactory system of survey in operation, a system which takes account not
only of its own work but also of the work of others. We go further and say that
the chances are the money is not bringing the maximum return. When world need is
so vast it is time to challenge a reasoned contradiction of this assertion. If
each Society did what in justice to its constituency it ought to do, a survey of
an area such as a province or a country would be an easy task, and a survey of
the world would be neither difficult nor expensive, and after all, until we know
the whole, we cannot intelligently administer the part. The missionary
enterprise waits for the men who will take the comprehensive view and become
leaders in the greatest and most fundamental task of all time. Until these
leaders appear, mission work, for those who seek to understand it as a world
enterprise, will, as a layman said recently, remain worse than a jigsaw puzzle!
THOS. COCHRANE.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 17: THE IMPORTANCE OF A DOMINANT PURPOSE.
========================================================================

CHAPTER I. THE IMPORTANCE OF A DOMINANT PURPOSE. It is a marked characteristic
of our age that every appeal for an expression of energy should be an
intellectual appeal. Emotional appeals are of course made, and made with
tremendous force, but, with the emotional appeal, an emphasis is laid to-day
upon the intellectual apprehension of the meaning of the effort demanded which
is something quite new to us. Soldiers in the ranks have the objective of their
attack explained to them, and this explanation has a great influence over the
character and quality of the effort which they put forth. Labourers demand and
expect every day a larger and fuller understanding of the meaning of the work
which they are asked to perform. They need to enjoy the intellectual
apprehension of the larger aspects of the work, and the relation of their own
detailed operations to those larger aspects; and it is commonly recognised that
the understanding of the meaning and purpose of the detail upon which each
operative may be engaged is a most powerful incentive to good work. In the past
leaders relied more upon implicit, unreasoning obedience, supported often by
affection for the leader's own character, and profound trust in his wisdom, and
a general hope of advantage for each individual who carried out orders
unhesitatingly and exactly; but they did not think it necessary, or even
desirable, that the common workers should understand their plans and act in
intelligent co-operation with them: to-day, intelligent co-operation is prized
as it has never been prized before, and its value is realised as it has never
been realised before. If this is true in the world of arms, of labour, of
commerce, it is equally true in the world of foreign missions. The common
worker, the subscriber, the daily labourer, is beginning to demand that he shall
be allowed to take an intelligent part in the work, and missionary leaders are
beginning to see the importance of securing intelligent co-operation. In the
past the appeal has been rather to blind obedience, and immense stress has been
laid upon the "command"; the appeal has been to the emotions, and love for
Christ, love for the souls of men, hope of eternal blessings, hope of the coming
of the Kingdom, and (for direction of the work) trust in the wisdom of great
missionary leaders or committees, have been thought sufficient to inspire all to
put forth their best efforts; but to-day, as in the labour world, as in
commerce, as in the army, so in the world of missions, the intellect is taking a
new place. Men want to understand why and how their work assists towards the
attainment of the goal, they want to know what they are doing, they want to
understand the plan and to see their work influencing the accomplishment of the
plan. It is no doubt true that the demand for intelligent co-operation, both on
the part of the subscribers and workers on the one side and of the great leaders
and boards of directors on the other, is at present slight, weak, uncertain and
hesitating; but it is already beginning to make itself felt, and must increase.
Certainly it is true that the support of a very large body of men is lost
because they have never yet been able to understand the work of foreign
missions. They are accustomed in their daily business to "know what they are
driving at," and to relate their action to definite ends; and they have not seen
foreign missions directed to the attainment of definite ends. They have not seen
in them any clear dominant purpose to which they could relate the manifold
activities of the missionaries whom they were asked to support; and they cannot
give to the vague and chaotic that support which they might give to work which
they saw clearly to be directed to the attainment of a great goal which they
desired by a policy which they understood. The attitude of these men is the
attitude of those who await an intelligent appeal to their intelligence. For a
true understanding of foreign missions it is necessary first that their aim and
object should be clearly defined. Without such a definition intelligent
co-operation is impossible. Unless the objective is understood men cannot
estimate the value of their work. They cannot trace progress unless they can see
clearly the end to be attained; they cannot zealously support action unless they
are persuaded that the action is truly designed to attain the defined end. There
may indeed be many subordinate objects, and men may be asked to work for the
attainment of any one of these, but there ought to be one final end and purpose
which governs all, and intelligent co-operation involves the appreciation of the
relation between the subordinate and the final end. Consequently if many objects
are set before us, as they are in our foreign missions, it is essential that
these many purposes and objects should be presented to us not simply as ends to
be attained, but in their relation to one another and in their relation to the
final end which the directors of our missions have clearly before their eyes.
Now it is just at this point that we fail to attain satisfaction. All societies
publish reports and statistics, but the reports and statistics do not provide us
with any clear and intelligible account of progress towards any definite end.
They seem rather designed to attract and to appeal to our sympathy than to
satisfy our intelligence. They set before us all kinds of work unrelated,
indefinite, changeable, and changing from year to year, as though the compilers
selected from the letters of missionaries any striking statements which they
thought would attract support in themselves and by themselves. No goal is set
before us, and the progress towards that goal steadily traced from year to year;
still less is the relation between the different methods and means employed to
attain each subordinate objective expressed so that we can see, not only what
progress each is making towards its own immediate end, but what is the effective
value of all together towards the attainment of a final end to which they all
contribute. But would not the definition of one great end or purpose hinder us?
Are not all the great ends which we set before ourselves indefinite enough to
include a host of different and mutually separate and even occasionally
incompatible subsidiary objects, aims, and methods? Would not the rigid
definition of the aim of our foreign missions, by excluding a great many
legitimate aims and methods, weaken and beggar our missions, which are strong in
proportion as they admit all sorts of different aims and methods? There are men
who speak and act as if they thought so, and in consequence welcome as a proper
part of the missionary programme all Christian, social, and political
activities. Anything, they think, which makes for the amelioration of life,
everything which tends to enlighten and uplift the bodies, the souls, and the
minds of men, is a proper object for the missionary to pursue, and the
missionary should assist every movement towards a higher life in the heathen
community as well as in the Christian, and should introduce every method and
plan, industrial, social, or political, literary, or artistic, which tends to
ennoble the life of men. It may be so. It may be true that the introduction of
everything which tends to uplift and enlighten is a proper object for missionary
activity, but we venture to argue not all at once, in the same place, nor even
any one of them at the whim of any missionary at any time, anywhere. Nor all in
the same order. There is a more and a less important. And we do urge that if we
are to take an intelligent part in foreign missions and to give those missions
intelligent support, we must know what is the more important and what the less.
We are told that the duty of the foreign mission is to bring all nations into
the obedience of Christ, and that "all the nations" means all the people of all
the nations, and all the capacities, powers, and activities of all the people of
all the nations, individually and collectively, and that any work which tends to
bring any part of the collective action of any non-Christian people under the
direction of Christian principles is, therefore, the proper work of the
missionary, and that the most important is the particular social, industrial, or
political scheme which the missionary who is addressing us believes to be the
pressing need of the moment in his district. So long as foreign missions are
presented to us in that way, so long as any mission may serve any purpose, we
cannot possibly take any intelligent share in foreign missions as a whole. We
are lost. We cannot co-ordinate in thought the activities of the missions, as we
see plainly that they are not co-ordinated in action in the field itself. And it
is practically impossible for us to imagine that the missions are directed on
any thought-out policy, because a policy seems to involve necessarily the
sub-ordination of the aim deemed to be less important to another which is deemed
to be more important, and the less or the more must depend, not upon personal
predilections, but upon closeness of relation to some one dominant idea; and,
therefore, the definition of the dominant idea is the first necessity for the
establishment of a reasonable missionary policy. To some minds the idea of a
policy in connection with missions seems to be abhorrent; but can a society with
an income of something between half and a quarter of a million pounds, or even
less, afford to aim at every type and form of missionary activity? Is it not
necessary that it should know and express to itself, to its missionaries, and to
its supporters what forms of activity it deems essential, what less important,
what aims it will pursue with all its strength, and what it will refuse to
pursue at all? It cannot afford to pursue every good or desirable object which
it may meet in its course. It must have a dominant purpose which really controls
its operations, and forces it to set aside some great and noble actions because
they are not so closely related to the dominant purpose as some other. A society
with the limited resources which most of us lament cannot do everything. In
medicine it cannot afford to aim at a strictly evangelistic use of its medical
missions and at a use which is not strictly evangelistic. We hear men talk
sometimes as if it were the business of a missionary society to undertake the
task of healing the physical afflictions of the people almost in the same sense
as it is the business of a missionary society to seek to heal their souls. We
hear them talk sometimes as if it was the duty of a missionary society to
supplant the native medical practice by western medical science as surely as it
is their business to supplant idolatry by the preaching of Christ. And the
tolerance of these ideas has certainly influenced the direction of missions. The
evangelistic value of medical missions has not been the one dominant directing
principle in their administration, and the consequences have been confusion of
aim and waste of power. Nor has any other dominant purpose taken control; no
other purpose, philanthropic, social, or economic, ever will take control so
long as the vast majority of the supporters of foreign missions are people whose
one real desire is the salvation of men in Christ. But the admission of another
purpose has blurred the aim. Because they have been pioneers in education,
missions earn large praise and not in-considerable support from governors and
philanthropists; but they have sometimes paid for these praises and grants
dearly in confusion of aim. Many of them started with the intention of relating
their educational work very closely to their evangelistic work; but because the
evangelistic idea was not dominant, a government grant sometimes led the
educational mission far from its first objective. Similarly, the establishment
of great educational institutions altered the whole policy of a mission over
very large areas, because no dominant purpose controlled the action of the
mission authorities. The institutions demanded such large support, financial and
personal, that when once they had been founded they tended to draw into
themselves a very large proportion of the best men who joined the mission. In
this way a great educational institution has often altered the policy of a
mission to an extent which its original founders never anticipated, and a
mission which was designed primarily to be an evangelistic mission has been
compelled not only to check advance, but even to withdraw its evangelistic
workers and to close its outstations. But that was not the intention of the
founders of the institution. The difficulty arose because there was no dominant
purpose which governed the direction of the mission. There was no purpose so
strong and clear that it could prevent the foundation of, or close when founded,
an institution which was leading it far from its primary object. Again it is
notorious that what we call the work of the evangelistic missionary is so
manifold and variegated that it includes every kind of activity, every sort of
social and economic reform. Our evangelistic missionaries are busy about
everything, from itinerant preaching to the establishment of banks and asylums.
Can we afford it? What purpose is dominant, what aim really governs the policy
of those who send out evangelistic missionaries? What decides the form of their
work and the method by which they pursue it? It is hard to guess, it is hard to
discover, it is hard to understand. Now when our missions are presented to us
and we are asked to support them on all sorts of grounds, as though a society
with its slight funds could really successfully practise every kind of
philanthropic work, we begin to doubt whether it can really be wisely guided.
Each mission station, each institution, seems to be an isolated fragment. The
missionary in charge often appeals to us as an exceedingly good and able man,
and we support him, and we support the society which sends him and others like
him. And we call this the support of foreign missions; but foreign missions as a
unity we do not support because we can see no unity. The directors of foreign
missions appear not to have hitched their wagon to a star, but rather to all the
visible stars, and we cannot tell whither they are going. So we fall back on the
individual missionary, or the isolated mission which at any rate for the moment
seems to have an intelligible objective. Hence the common conception of
missionary work as small. We look at the parts, and the smallest parts, because
our minds instinctively seek a unity, and only in the parts do we find a unity,
nor there often, unless we concentrate our attention on one aspect of the work.
But by thinking of foreign missions in this small way and speaking of them in
this small way, we alienate men who are accustomed to think in large terms of
large undertakings designed on large policies. What we need to-day is to
understand foreign missions as a whole. We want to take an intelligent part in
them viewed as a unity. We want to know what is the grand objective and how the
parts are related to that end. We do not want merely to support this mission
because this missionary appeals to us; we want to know what dominant purpose
governs the activities of the different societies, directs, and controls them,
deciding what work good and excellent in itself the mission cannot afford to
undertake, what it can and must do with the means at its disposal in order to
attain an end which it has deliberately adopted. We need more, we need to know
on what principles the missionaries are sent here or there. We need to know what
facts must be taken into consideration before any mission, evangelistic,
educational, or medical, is planted in any place, what facts decide the question
whether work is begun, or reinforcements sent, to this place rather than to
that. It is not enough to be assured that there is a need. There is need
everywhere. We cannot supply all need; but we can have some settled and clear
judgment what facts ought to weigh with us, what information we must possess
before we can decide properly whether the claim of this place is more urgent
than the claim of that. We ought to have same basis of comparison. The mere
appeal of an earnest and devoted man, the mere clamour of a body of men, the
mere insistence of a persevering man, is not sufficient to guide us aright. The
mere offer of some supporter to provide a building ought not to suffice.
Acceptance of the offer may alter the whole balance and character of the
mission. We ought to know what facts must be considered and how. We need
therefore a reasoned statement of the work of our foreign missions expressed as
a unity, which sets forth the work actually done in different departments
showing their relation one to another and the relation of all to a dominant
object. In other words, what we need is a survey of the missionary situation in
the world in terms of these relationships. It may be said that such a claim is
outrageous and impossible; but we are persuaded that with our present
enlightenment, with the means of knowledge which we now possess, we could, if we
thought it worth while, lay our hands on the necessary information. Our firm
conviction is that, if we did that, and set out the results of our examination
in a form intelligible to thoughtful laymen, we should obtain the support of a
great number of men to whom foreign missions at present appear as nothing but
the ill-organised, fragmentary and indefinite efforts of pious people to
propagate their peculiar schemes for the betterment of humanity. Without some
such statement we do not know how anyone can take an intelligent, though he may
take a sentimental, interest in foreign missions.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 18: PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS.
========================================================================

CHAPTER II.
PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS.
1. We need a survey of the missionary situation in the world which will express the facts in terms of the relationships between the different missionary activities and between them all in relation to a dominant idea or purpose. Such a survey is strictly scientific. All scientific survey is properly governed by the end or purpose for which it is made.
It is this purpose or end which decides what is to be included and what is to be excluded from the survey. If, for instance, we are making a survey of the acoustic properties of church buildings in England, it is not scientific to introduce questions as to the character of the gospel preached in them. A scientific survey is not necessarily a collection of all possible information about any people or country; that is an encyclopaedia; a scientific survey is a survey of those facts only which throw light on the business in hand. A scientific survey of foreign missions ought not then necessarily to look at the work carried on from "every point of view". The point of view must be defined, the end to be served defined, and then only those factors which throw light upon that end have any place in a scientific survey. We cannot be too clear about this, because in survey of a work so vast and so many sided as foreign missions we might easily include every human activity, unless we defined beforehand the end to be served and selected carefully only the appropriate factors. Carefully defined, missionary survey is not the unwieldy, amorphous thing which people often imagine. There is indeed a dangerous type of survey which starting with a hypothesis proceeds to prove it by collecting any facts which seem to support it to the neglect of all other facts which might disprove it. The procedure advocated here is the adoption of a definite and acknowledged purpose for which the survey is to be made and the collection of all the facts which bear upon the subject in hand. The facts are selected, but they are selected not by the prejudices or partiality of the surveyor, but by their own innate and inherent relationship to the subject.
A scientific survey can only be a collection of facts; but inferences will certainly be drawn from the facts which will direct the policy of those who administer foreign missionary societies. The drawing of these inferences from the material collected must be carefully distinguished from the collection of the material (i.e. the making of the survey). The latter precedes the former and is independent of it. Inferences hastily drawn, or prematurely adopted, would only tend to discredit missionary survey as a means to the attainment of truth. The adoption of a hypothesis and the making of a survey in order to prove it by a careful selection and manipulation of facts would not discredit survey as a means to the attainment of truth; it would only discredit and debase the moral character of the man who made such a survey.
2. The survey here treated of is missionary survey, that is to say, it treats of missions and is governed by a missionary purpose. And it is a survey of Christian missions; therefore it is governed by the purpose of spreading the knowledge of Christ. This statement is of great importance and needs to be carefully conned before it is accepted, because by it missionary survey will be distinguished from all other survey. For instance, medical boards survey medical institutions. Their sole concern is whether those institutions are well found and efficient.[1] But when a missionary surveys a missionary hospital (if the principle which we propound is accepted), he surveys it not qua medical establishment but qua missionary utensil. The object is not to find out the medical efficiency of the hospital, but its missionary effectiveness. It may be answered that a medically inefficient hospital cannot be truly effective from a missionary point of view. That may be true; but it is not certainly true. Whether it is true or not, that does not alter the fact that an efficient medical establishment is not necessarily effective from a missionary point of view; it is not necessarily either missionary or Christian at all. Then to survey medical missions simply as medical institutions is to ignore their real significance. Missionary survey must relate the information asked for to the missionary purpose; and unless it is so related the survey is a medical survey, not a missionary survey. The same holds good of educational work, and of pastoral work.
[Footnote 1: We could produce surveys of medical and educational mission work which are essentially of this character, dealing solely with medical and educational efficiency.]
3. The survey here proposed is designed for all societies so far as the societies can be persuaded to supply the information. It would perhaps be more simple to provide statistical returns for one society of which the ecclesiastical organisation is known and the ecclesiastical terms used consequently fixed. But survey of the work of a society, invaluable and necessary as that is for a society, is not sufficient by itself. It is essential to-day that we should be able to place our work in the world in relation to all the missionary work done. We can no longer afford to ignore the work of others and to plan our missions as though other missions did not exist. As we try to point out from time to time no society can act rightly in ignorance of another's work. Therefore we have attempted to design a survey which would show what is the work of any mission in such a form that its work can be related in some sort to the missionary work of all, and not only to the other missions of its own society.
4. Seeing that all survey is scientifically governed by the object for which it is made, it is essential that in a survey such as we propose the end for which it is made should be stated in each case as clearly and definitely as possible. This involves often such a definition of the end as implies a certain missionary policy. Realising this, we have not hesitated to set forth the policy implied in the terms which we use and the questions which we ask.[1] We are well aware that this lays us open to attack from men who may question the policy and dispute the value of the survey. It would be far more easy to set down simply the facts which we think any true survey should contain, leaving them unrelated to one another, so that no one could tell exactly what we were driving at. This is the common plan. Men say they want to know the facts of the missionary situation, any facts, all facts, indiscriminately, and they draw up a list of all the facts that they can think of and issue a questionnaire which leaves the compiler of the answers in complete ignorance concerning the purpose of the questions. Such heaps of information might be used anyhow if they were really complete; but in fact since they have not been designed for any definite use they are generally deficient for any definite use, and remain mere masses of information on which no true judgments can be based. So far from revealing the missionary situation they obscure it. We have, therefore, taken the risk of explaining why we want each piece of information, how we think it might be used, and have drawn our tables in such a form that it is actually seen at work. By so doing we open the door at once, both for intelligent co-operation and intelligent opposition. We frankly make criticism easy; we invite it; for we believe that frank criticism on the basis of agreed facts is extremely fruitful.
[Footnote 1: It does not follow that we approve the policy implied.]
We may well acknowledge that the aim which above all others has appealed to us is the aim of the establishment in the world of a Christian Church, native, indigenous, living, self-supporting, self-governing, self-extending, independent of foreign aid. That has no doubt coloured our work and will perhaps render it less acceptable to some; for the facts which must be included in a survey which accepts that aim are precisely the facts which societies do not now tabulate and are often estimated with some difficulty.
But though this thought has inevitably governed our conception of survey and we have made no attempt to conceal it, we have nevertheless tried to avoid the danger of selecting for survey only those facts which might serve to support a theory of the method by which that aim is to be attained; and we have kept in our minds constantly the needs of men whose idea of the aim of foreign missions differs from our own.
5. Missionary survey must justify itself by assisting definitely and clearly those who make it and those who have to direct and support missionary work in all parts of the world. The first question which we ought to answer in every case where our help is asked is this: "What do we want to do? What is our purpose in doing anything at all here?" The second question is: "What must we know to enable us to act discreetly and wisely in this case? What facts are properly to be taken into account in this matter?" The first question is the question of aim, the second is the question of relation. Suppose we say that we want to send our missionaries where they are most needed, what information must we have to direct us? First we must know what we mean by need, what kind of need we are to put first in our thoughts; that is the question of definition of aim. Then, how shall we decide where that need is greatest at the present time, for us, that is, within our possibility of active assistance; that is the question of relation. The facts of need as we define it must be related and compared. The survey of which we speak as necessary for an intelligent understanding of foreign missions must provide these facts in a form easily grasped and understood and compared for different countries and districts, so that those who direct action and those who support the action may be able to do so with reason, not being guided merely by the most influential voice or the loudest shout.
6. To serve this purpose survey must have twofold aspect. It must be a review of the present state of the work, it must also be a review of the present position of the work. It is a review of the state of the work, the stations, the converts, the Church; it is a review of the position, the progress made compared with the work to be done. But the state varies, the position changes, and action must be taken continually.
The survey, therefore, should be not simply a single act but a continual process. Mission work is not a task which can be undertaken and finished on a predetermined plan, like the construction of a railway. It is a task the conditions of which vary from time to time, and consequently plans and policies and methods must vary, and this variation can only be rational if it is determined by recognition of the changing circumstances, and the change of circumstances can only be understood and appreciated if the survey of missions is a continuous process kept constantly up to date. It is a form of mission history in which the omission of a few years may break the connection of the whole narrative.
7. (i) It may perhaps cause surprise to some that the information for which we ask is mainly such as can be expressed in a statistical form. But the fact remains that all statesmanship (and foreign missions involve large elements of statesmanship), and all organised effort (and foreign missions are highly organised), is in the world always based either upon carefully compiled statistics, or upon guess work; and that the business which is directed by guess work does not enjoy the same confidence as the business which is directed by knowledge derived from carefully compiled statistics.
Take, for example, this extract from a letter written by a firm in the United States of America which deals with candy securities:--
The candy business, the history of which shows a remarkable record of freedom from failure, is to-day enjoying unparalleled prosperity, and there is every reason to believe that the present high earnings of all the large candy concerns in the United States will continue indefinitely. Those fortunate enough to hold shares in well-established candy manufacturing concerns may expect, therefore, to enjoy larger earnings than could reasonably be expected from funds placed in most other enterprises. Prohibition is proving a tremendous factor in increasing candy sales. Best estimates show that the American public is now spending between $800,000,000 and $1,000,000,000 annually for candy. ---- & Co. are specialists in the candy and sugar securities. We maintain a statistical department, and endeavour to furnish information concerning all of the prominent issues based on these industries. You are invited to avail yourself of this service, and if you are interested in any candy or sugar stock, we will be pleased to have you confer with us. This department now has in preparation an analysis of the candy and sugar situation as it exists to-day in the United States. Interesting data is also being collected from most reliable sources, giving figures and statistics for the world. The number of copies which we are preparing for general distribution is limited. If you will sign the enclosed card, and return it to us, we will take pleasure in extending to you the courtesy of a copy of this analysis free of charge.
When individuals work individually, for themselves, as they please, statistics are only necessary for the onlooker who wants to compare individual effort with individual effort; the individuals who want to make no comparison of their own work with that of others, nor to keep any record of the progress of their work, need keep no statistics; but societies always want to keep a record of their work, and that record must be largely statistical.
It is vain to attack statistics to-day. Every society publishes statistical sheets. Every society by publishing them shows that it recognises the value of statistics. The difficulty to-day is not that the societies do not publish statistics, but that the statistics which they publish are not related to any aim or purpose, and do not include factors or standards which enable us to measure progress.
(ii) It may also cause surprise that we ask for estimates in some cases where exact information is not immediately accessible. It may be said that statistics are misleading, but estimates are hopelessly misleading: let us have correct figures or none. That attitude is easily understood, but under the circumstances it is vain. "Correct figures," that is, meticulously exact figures, are unattainable. An estimate is in nearly all matters of daily life and business the basis, and rightly the basis, of our action. It will be noticed that in that letter which we quoted above concerning the statistics of the candy trade in the United States of America, estimates had a place, and foreign missions involve matters about which "correct figures" are more difficult to obtain than the candy business. An estimate carefully made and understood, a deliberate statement expressed in round numbers, is not unscientific: it is only unscientific to mistake such figures for what they do not profess to be. When men object that the figures are not exact, if the figures do not profess to be exact, it is the objector who is unscientific, not the statistics.
Nevertheless, we must acknowledge that the admission of estimates and round figures does open the door to serious error. Men will be tempted to mistake an estimate for a guess. An estimate is a statement for which reasons can be given, a guess is--a mere guess. The great safeguard against guesses, as against all slipshod statistical entries, is the assurance that the statements made will be used. At present missionary statistics are untrustworthy mainly because so few people use them, and consequently those who supply them do not feel the need of revising them carefully.
Furthermore, it is important to bear in mind that the field for estimate in statistics of the kind proposed is limited; it only embraces figures for which exact totals are unobtainable, for instance, area, population, and figures of societies which refuse to give statistics, etc., and in every case precision in these statistics is not of vital importance.
(iii) The main difference between our tables and those of others is that we make them very small and express in each a relation. The figures supplied by the societies in their reports are seldom related to anything; they are mere bundles of sticks; we suggest the introduction of a relation into every table which gives to each figure a significance which by itself it does not possess. In our tables every figure is set to work. Our idea of missionary statistics demands that they should be a basis for action. We think that it is waste of time to collect statistics from which no conclusion can be certainly drawn both by the compiler and the reader--a conclusion which ought to be suggestive when taken alone by itself, and, when considered in relation to the conclusions suggested by similar tables, compelling.
But it may be said that we are adding to the already overwhelming burden of accounts and reports over which missionaries toil to the great detriment of their proper work. The tables in this book are arranged apparently for the worker on the spot as well as for the intelligent supporter and director at home; why multiply tables and trouble the missionary with the sums of proportion? Why not ask the man there simply to give the necessary facts and then let the man at home work out for special purposes the various relations? The answer is simple: we ourselves have been asked to fill up long schedules of unrelated facts; and we know that the labour is intolerable. The supply of unrelated, meaningless facts dulls and wearies the brain. Few men can do the work with pleasure or profit, and consequently the schedules are often filled up, not indeed with deliberate carelessness, but with that heavy painfulness which, taking no interest in the work, often produces as pitiful a result as downright carelessness. "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn" is a maxim which has a great application here. The man who provides the information should be the first to profit by it and to be interested in it. The first man to criticise these tables should be the missionary who fills them up on the spot; and his most valuable criticism might be a demonstration that the last column in a table was futile; that the table led him to no conclusions and suggested no remarks. That column of conclusions and remarks we hold to be the most precious of them all. We would have no man supply meaningless information. Only, we believe, when the information is of vital importance and interest to the man who supplies it will it be supplied carefully, correctly, willingly, and above all, intelligently. We venture to hope that our tables may be one step towards the day when the supply of statistical information by the missionary will cease to be mere drudgery.
(iv) Seeing that the missionary task is essentially world-wide, it is obvious that a world-wide work cannot be properly directed without a world-wide view. Now, missionary survey is in its infancy, and in most parts of the world it has yet to be begun. A full and complete missionary survey of the whole world would necessarily be a considerable undertaking, for many important facts could not be easily or quickly collected. There is then a strong tendency for men to argue that, since all the facts desirable cannot be known at once without much time and expense, it is futile and dangerous to collect those facts which can be collected speedily without great expense. A little knowledge, they say, is a dangerous thing ... let us remain ignorant.
We would venture to suggest that a little knowledge is only dangerous when it is mistaken for much knowledge; that it is far better to act on knowledge which can be obtained than to act in total ignorance, blindly. Where we must act it is our duty to know all that we can know, and if, because we cannot collect all the information that we should wish to possess, we refuse to collect that information which we can obtain, because we realise that it will be incomplete, we commit a serious moral and intellectual crime. If we can know only one factor out of one hundred, we offend if we refuse to know that one. We must act. We have no right to shut our eyes to knowledge which ought to guide our action because we are aware that action taken on that one factor will be insufficiently guided. The one factor is an important one and must influence our action, and would influence our action if we knew all the other factors. We ought to allow it to influence our action even in ignorance of the other factors.
In daily life we habitually act on partial knowledge, and we should think that man mad who urged us to refuse to be guided by our partial knowledge until our knowledge was complete; we should think a man mad who, being under necessity to act, refused to know what he could know, because he was aware that fuller knowledge might lead him to modify his action. Now missionaries and missionary societies are acting and must act, and the refusal to collect the information which they can obtain is as culpable as the ignorance of a man who refuses to attend to the one word "poison" printed on the label of a bottle which he can read, because he cannot read the name of the stuff written on the label.
Yet it is very commonly argued that unless survey can be made complete, unless, that is, every factor which we can think of as exercising an influence on our action is duly weighed, it is futile to survey the larger, commoner, and more easily accessible factors. This objection recurs again and again, and unless it can be put out of the way it must prejudice missionary survey. It would be wise, it would be right, to collect information on only one point, if that were all that we could do. It would be better than to rest content with total ignorance. Nevertheless, when anyone collects with care statistics on any particular point, he is certain to meet the objection that his labour ought to be ignored because he has not collected information about something else. As if total ignorance were preferable to partial knowledge! Is there any answer to the argument, that "Where ignorance is bliss 'tis folly to be wise," when supported by "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing," other than Dr. Arnold's maxim, "Where it is our duty to act it is also our duty to learn"?
(v) We have not been careful to avoid asking for details of which we are well aware that the statistics do not now exist. We have thought it our duty rather to point out the information necessary for arriving at right conclusions than to mislead our readers by pretending that it is possible to form judgments and act properly without taking the trouble to collect information which is really necessary. This is no contradiction of the argument which we set forth that partial information is better than none, but it does warn the surveyor that blanks in the forms leave him not fully equipped, and that steps ought to be taken to secure information without which his conclusions are uncertain.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 19: STATION DISTRICT SURVEY.
========================================================================

CHAPTER III.
STATION DISTRICT SURVEY.
THE WORK TO BE DONE, AND THE FORCE TO DO IT.
Missionary work is presented to us here at home mainly at two points; the one, work at a mission station, the other, the condition and needs of a country or of a continent. In the one case we hear a great deal about the missionary's life and work; in the other we hear about great problems, religious, moral, social, and very little about the facts of the work.
We propose to begin with the mission station and to set down the information which we need, in order that we may take an intelligent interest in the work at the station, viewed by itself, as progress is made towards the immediate object of its existence; and then we propose to look at it in relation to other stations in the province or country, both comparatively to see how they differ, and as parts of a whole, to see what is the position of the Church in the province or country, and what place each station occupies in the work done in the larger whole.
When we look at the mission station viewed by itself, the first question which we ask is: Has the station any defined area, district, or parish, connected with it in which it is the business of the missionaries to preach the Gospel and establish the Church? If the answer to that question is, "Yes, it has," and that answer would very commonly be given, then at once we get our feet on firm ground. We can start our survey on a territorial basis; and with a common territorial basis we can immediately compare the work of one station with that done at another station. We have further a terminus ad quem, and in our survey we can tell whether progress is in that direction and how rapid it is.
We can do this, because the definition of a parish or district implies the recognition on the part of those who define the parish or district, of the purpose, if not the duty, of preaching the Gospel and establishing the Church in the area of that parish or district. The mere definition of the area, therefore, implies a policy for the mission which defines the area and for the station for which the area is defined. For such a station, therefore, we design our first survey, the object of the survey being to discover how far the work of the station is succeeding in performing the task which it obviously undertook when it accepted the definition of area.
1. We begin then by surveying the position of the work in the station district extensively: we ask--What is the relation between the work done and the work remaining to be done? We ask this question in two forms; first, in terms of the cities, towns, and villages which lie in the station area, and secondly, in terms of population. We ask the question in this double form because we believe that by this means the surveyor will obtain a clear view of the situation and will be able easily to see what has been done in relation to the work yet to be done, and it is the relation of those two that is most illuminating. If these tables were constantly revised the progress of the work could be traced from year to year easily and helpfully. Put side by side they illuminate each other, and each affords a check upon the other. Progress in numbers in proportion to population and progress in the number of places occupied should often properly advance side by side. Progress in numbers in proportion to population without any increase in the number of places occupied may often occur; progress in the number of places occupied without a corresponding increase of the Christian population in proportion to the non-Christian population may also occur, and each must give the missionary food for thought. The tables are simple, dealing with bare numerical proportions:--
------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | Number of| Number of | | | Date of | Occupied | Unoccupied| Work to District.| Area.| Foundation| Cities, | Cities, | be Done. | | of Station.| Towns, | Towns, | | | | Villages.| Villages. | ------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | ________|_____|___________|_________|__________|________
By "occupied" we mean places where there are resident Christians, few or many.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Total | Total | Total |Work to | Remarks Population.| Christian | Non-Christian | be Done. | and | Constituency. | Constituency. | |Conclusions. -------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | _________|_____________|______________|________|__________
By Christian Constituency we mean the total number of people who call themselves Christian in the area in question. They may not be baptised, they may be mere inquirers or hearers; but if asked their religion they would call themselves Christians rather than anything else.
The reasons why we adopt this extremely wide expression are: (1) Some societies, whose members are undeniably Christian in morals and thought, do not baptise adults; many societies do not baptise infants; yet these unbaptised people are certainly not heathen; they certainly do not belong to any other religious organisation than the Christian. Again, some societies baptise very much more freely than others, and count as members large numbers of people whom other societies would consider to be in the position of inquirers or hearers. Consequently any just comparison between different areas in which different societies are working is impossible unless a very wide expression is employed, and a very wide interpretation given to it.
(2) The Christian cause, both for good and evil, is largely influenced by the existence of these unbaptised. They are called Christian, they are considered to be such by their heathen neighbours, they suffer persecution often with the other Christians when any outbreak occurs. Their numbers and conduct exercise a wide influence in the society in which they live, for or against the progress of the Christian faith.
(3) The attitude of these people to the Christian missionary is quite different from that of the heathen. They acknowledge Christ as the one Divine Teacher and Lord. The missionary cannot count them as belonging to the heathen; he cannot approach them as the teacher of a new religion. He must approach them as an exponent of the religion which they already profess. However inadequate and confused their ideas about Christian theology and practice may be, they expect to receive from a Christian teacher instruction in their own religion, and that religion is a religion common to him and to them. Consequently to omit them from the Christian constituency is to do an injustice to them, and to misrepresent the true facts of the case.
(4) In many areas two or more societies are at work and their conception of the qualifications for the name of Christian differ. In a survey each society is tempted to ignore the members of the other, and to reckon as Christians only those who fulfil the conditions which are applied by the one society. So certain Protestant societies ignore all Roman Catholics; but that for the reasons already stated is most misleading, for when persecution arises Protestants and Roman Catholics alike suffer for the Name of Christ. Whatever the members of another society may be, they are certainly not heathen; the heathen deny them. Consequently they cannot properly be counted with the heathen by any surveyor who wishes to present the facts.
For these reasons we have been compelled to adopt a very wide expression, and the expression used by the China Continuation Committee seemed to be sufficiently elastic to serve our purpose. Nevertheless, to avoid error as far as possible, when we institute comparisons between Christian and non-Christian population, we introduce side by side with the total Christian Constituency the total Communicants (or Full Members), which is a valuable check.
Take then an example. The figures here given are obviously not the figures of a station area; they are figures for a province; but they serve to illustrate the point. We cannot fill up the area table; we can only supply figures for the population.
---------------------------------------- Population. : Total : Total Non- : Christians. : Christians. ---------------------------------------- 32,571,000 : 534,238 : 2,036,762 ----------------------------------------
Now, here of the 534,238 Christians 500,655 are Roman Catholics, the Protestants numbering 33,583. The Roman Catholics in this area began work about 300 years earlier than the Protestants. Are we to eliminate them?
Are all these 33,583 Protestants more worthy of the name of Christian than some of the Roman Catholics? Or shall we eliminate some of the 33,583? If so, how many, and on what grounds? Is not the denial of the Name to those who claim to be servants of Christ absurd? Are there not enough non-Christians to be converted?
Suppose the Roman Catholic figures to be an estimate. Is it not plain that in dealing with considerable areas estimates may be useful though faulty? How little difference in the work to be done does an error in that estimate make? Knock off or add on 50,000 and is the work to be done seriously affected? It is true that in some calculations an error of that magnitude might mislead us somewhat, but hardly enough to vitiate our whole view of the situation, especially if we carefully check our conclusions by the results of other tables given later.
At the first glance these figures produce the impression that very little has been done. In the beginning, and that was many years ago, there were over 32 million non-Christians; there are over 32 million to-day. But let us look at proportions and see what a different impression is produced.
----------------------------------------------------------- Population. : Total : Total Non- : Proportion : Christians. : Christians. : of Christians to : : : Non-Christians. ----------------------------------------------------------- 32,571,000 : 534,238 : 32,036,762 : 1 to 60 -----------------------------------------------------------
One Christian to every sixty non-Christians gives us a totally different impression. We begin to feel that if only the Christians awoke to their duty they could influence the whole population profoundly. That is precisely the effect produced upon the Christians by a missionary survey undertaken with them, and understood by them; they begin to see the immensity of the work to be done, they begin to see that it can be done.
There should properly then here be two tables parallel to the first two. Thus:--
--------------------------------------------------------------------- | Number of | Number of | | | Occupied | Unoccupied | Proportion of |Remarks Area. | Cities, Towns, | Cities, Towns, | Occupied to |and | Villages. | Villages. | Unoccupied. |Conclusions. ------|----------------|----------------|---------------|------------ | | | | ____|______________|______________|_____________|__________
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Total | Total | Total Non- | Proportion of | Remarks Population. | Christian | Christian | Christian to | and | Population. | Population. | Non-Christian. |Conclusions. ------------|-------------|-------------|----------------|------------ | | | | __________|___________|___________|______________|__________
Observe what light is thrown upon a district by the mere juxtaposition of those few facts. I think those two tables alone should suffice to prove that a survey which regarded only a very few factors might be of immense service, if those who used it kept clearly before them its partial character and did not allow themselves to treat it as complete.
But, unfortunately, these first facts which we have desired are, like other facts of importance, procured only with difficulty and toil. In order to fill up the preceding tables the missionary surveyor must be able to state what is the area and what the population in the station district. But some could not supply that information. Its acquisition might involve a journey of many months given up to careful examination and inquiry. It is no small demand to make. In many cases a reasoned estimate is indeed the only possible statement; but as we have already argued careful estimates are invaluable, and where a census does not exist they give us for the time something to work upon.
Where the physical survey can be undertaken it is most illuminating work, illuminating both to the missionaries and to their native helpers, who often gain an entirely new view of their work and its possibilities from such personal examination. Testimony to the value of this experience is growing daily in weight and volume.
This physical survey would naturally result in the production of a map of the area in which the cities, towns, and villages in the station district were marked with notes on their character from the missionary point of view. In this map all places where Christians resided, where there were Christian congregations, churches, preaching places, schools, hospitals, dispensaries, etc., would be marked. It would be a pictorial presentation of the facts so far as they were capable of expression in map form.
But whether in map form or in statistical form, the area and the population for which the mission is working must be expressed either by exact figures or by estimates if we are to trace progress.
If these tables were kept over a number of years, the missionaries on the spot and directors and inquirers at home would be able to see what progress was being made towards fulfilling the obligation implied by the definition of the station area or district, and what that obligation involved.
II. When we know the work to be done we turn to the consideration of the force available. This force consists of permanent and more or less temporary members. Some will in all human probability remain in the place till they die; they are of it, they belong to it; others will probably depart elsewhere; they are not of the place; they speak of home as far away; they are liable to removal; sickness which does not kill them takes them away; the call of friends or business carries them back to their own land; they are strangers all their days in the mission district. Nevertheless, they are generally the moving, active force; upon them progress seems to depend. It is strange, but it is true generally: the permanent is the passive element, the impermanent is the active. Here we simply state the fact to excuse or condemn the placing of the missionary force first in our tables. First it is to-day.
We need then a table of the foreign missionary force. In its form it will be a mere statement of proportions. The proportions are essential in order to make comparison between one area and another possible; and comparison is the sweet savour of survey. We cannot compare the work of three men labouring among an unstated population with the work of two other men working in an unstated population; the moment that the proportions are worked out the cases can be compared. But some men detest this purely quantitative comparison. They insist, and rightly, that there is no true equality in the comparison. One man differs from another man and his work differs from the work of the other man: over large areas it is often the work of one man among many which really saves the situation. It is quite true. In the last resort survey becomes survey of personalities. But in a survey of the kind which we propose, survey of personalities is impossible and most undesirable.
The survey proposed cannot deal with personalities, but that does not invalidate the importance of the information asked for. Such forms received from many different stations would certainly throw light on the serious question of reinforcement. It is of course obvious that reinforcements could not be allotted rightly on such slight evidence as the proportion of missionaries to the population of a district. The question is not whether reinforcements could be allotted on this factor alone; but whether they could be allotted rightly in ignorance of it. Taken in conjunction with the preceding and following tables, this table would reveal something that we may call need in a purely quantitative expression, and comparative need should certainly influence the allotment of reinforcements. Though the statement of need in this table is indeed utterly insufficient by itself, it is nevertheless true that no statement of comparative need which ignored the proportions here set out would be satisfactory. This quantitative expression is not sufficient; but no statement is sufficient without it, and, as often, so here, it is the proportion rather than the actual figures which make comparison possible:--
--------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Total |Proportion |Proportion | Remarks District.|Popula- | Foreign | to | of Women | and | tion. |Missionaries.|Population.| to |Conclusions. | | | |Population.| ---------|--------|-------------|-----------|-----------|------------ | | | | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
We turn now to the permanent Christian force in the district. We want to know what is the force. We ask, therefore, that the total Christian constituency may be accepted as the first expression of the native force. The progress of the Gospel is most seriously affected by the whole number of those who in any sense call themselves Christians. They are the force in the place which influences the heathen for or against it. It is of the utmost importance that they should be reckoned first, and treated first, as the force which above all others works slowly, quietly, imperceptibly, but mightily. The whole body of those who profess and call themselves Christians should be put in the very first place.
Then the communicants (or full members) are commonly the body to which all turn for voluntary zealous effort. The communicants are the strength of the Church. We compare them next with the work to be done. Then the paid workers. Then the voluntary unpaid workers, recognised as such.
The difficulty of calculating the unpaid voluntary workers is indeed very great. We know of no definition which would serve to give any uniformity to returns made by different missions. We recognise that different missions would make the returns on different bases. We earnestly desire a common definition, which all might accept. But under existing circumstances it seems impossible to find one. Nevertheless, without some statement of the number of voluntary workers, we are, as we shall see, in grave danger of misjudging the situation and wronging our missionaries and the native Christians. For the time then we suggest that it would be far better to accept the returns given to us by the missionaries on their own basis, asking them to append a note to the return explaining how they calculated their voluntary force. We should then have the following table:--
The Native Force.
(a) The Christian Constituency.
------------------------------------------------------------------- District. |Population. |Christian |Proportion to |Remarks and | |Constituency |Non-Christian |Conclusions. | | |Population. | ------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) The Communicants or Full Members.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- District. | Population. | Communicants. | Proportion to | Remarks and | | | Non-Christian | Conclusions | | | Population. | --------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) The Paid Workers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- District. | Population. | Paid Workers. | Proportion to | Remarks and | | | Non-Christian | Conclusions | | | Population. | --------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) The Unpaid Workers.
----------------------------------------------------------------- District. | Population. | Unpaid | Proportion to | Remarks and | | Workers. | Non-Christian | Conclusions. | | | Population. | ----------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Here again it is the proportions which are illuminating and enable comparisons of different areas to be made. The bare figures of the number of Christians and communicants and workers by themselves would tell us very little; only when we have them related to a common factor do we get any real light.
Let us now sum up our inquiry thus far.
+-------------------------------------------------------+-----+ Work to be Done: Non-Christian Population. | | +-------------------------------------------------------+-----+ Untouched, Unoccupied Villages. | | +-------------------------------------------------------+-----+ Foreign Force Compared with Work to be Done. | | +-------------------------------------------------------+-----+ Native Force Compared with Work to be Done. | +-------------------------------------------------------+-----+ Christian Constituency. | | +-------------------------------------------------------+-----+ Communicants. | | +-------------------------------------------------------+-----+ Paid Workers. | | +-------------------------------------------------------+-----+ Unpaid Voluntary Workers. | | +-------------------------------------------------------+-----+
If these tables were kept over a series of years, the progress of the force in relation to the work to be done would be most interestingly revealed.
But in estimating the Christian force in the district we need to know more than its number; we need to know so much of its character as statistical tables can show.
One Christian to every 129 heathen may mean much or little. It might mean that the day when the Christian force would be the controlling force in the area was close at hand. That would depend largely upon the capacity of the Christians, their education, their zeal. The tables which we now suggest are designed to reveal, so far as tables can reveal, the truth in these matters.
We begin then with the proportion of communicants in the Christian constituency. If we take the last table and, instead of considering the proportion of the communicants to the non-Christian population, consider the proportion of communicants to the Christian constituency, we gain a very different view. We gain then an idea of the character of the Christians. Instead of an idea of the size of the force at work we receive an impression of the quality of the force. Even one who lays little stress on the value and necessity of sacraments would not deny that he would expect more from a Church of 1000 in which 500 were communicants than he would from a Church of 1000 of which only 100 were communicants. He might deny that his expectation was based upon any faith in the virtue of sacraments, but he would acknowledge the fact that in our experience the Church which possesses large numbers of communicants is generally stronger than the Church which possesses a small number. The comparison of the number of communicants in relation to the number of the total Christian constituency does properly produce an impression of the strength of the Christian body.
If we can fill up the table
--------------------------------------------------------------------- District.| Total. | Communicants | Proportion of | Remarks and | Christian | or Full | Communicants | Conclusions | Constituency.| Members. | to Christian | | | | Constituency. | --------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
we gain an impression of the strength of the Church. But it is important to observe that it is only in relation to the earlier tables, which set out the force in relation to the work to be done, that this impression of strength is of immediate importance to us. We are dealing with a missionary survey, a survey concerned with the propagation of the Gospel. The mere strength of the Church, unrelated to any work in which the strength is to be employed, is a very different matter. We might take pleasure in the sight of it. We might congratulate ourselves and the missionaries on the beauty of the strength revealed, but not until it is related to work to be done does strength appear in its true glory. We find in nearly all missionary statistics the number of communicants and converts set forth, and we often wonder what for. It cannot be that we may glory in our conquests and say: See how many converts and communicants we have made! But, unrelated to any task to be done, that is all that appears. Therefore we have instituted this comparison here, in close relation to the earlier tables, that we may know what is the force on the spot at work in the area defined.
Next, the proportion of Paid Workers in proportion to the number of the Christian constituency and the communicants is a most illuminating factor. By itself it is a difficult factor to appreciate rightly. Suppose we find, as we do sometimes find, that one out of every ten communicants is a paid worker. That may imply that the proportion of rice Christians is very high, or it may imply a high standard of zeal, very many of the converts being able and willing to devote themselves to Christian work and at the same time too poor to be able to support themselves without pay. This proportion, therefore, should be carefully checked by a table which shows the proportion of unpaid workers and another which shows the standard of wealth. But commonly we are given the number of paid workers, and given neither the number of unpaid voluntary workers, nor the standard of wealth, and therefore the danger of reading amiss the number of paid workers is great. We have already explained the difficulty of obtaining exact figures, or even estimates, of the number of voluntary unpaid workers, but a mere glance at the proportion of paid workers to communicants should be enough to persuade any man who desires to judge our work fairly of the necessity for such a table as we now suggest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- District.| Paid | Proportion | Proportion of | Remarks and | Workers. | of Paid Workers | Paid Workers | Conclusions | | to Christian | to | | | Constituency. | Communicants. | --------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------- District.| Unpaid |Proportion |Proportion of | Remarks and | Workers. |of Unpaid Workers|Unpaid Workers | Conclusions | |to Christian |to | | |Constituency. |Communicants. | --------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Proportion of Christian | | | Constituency. According | | | to Local Standard. | --------------------------------------------------------------------- District.| Christian | Well | Poor | In | Remarks and | Constituency. | to do. | | Poverty | Conclusions | | | | | --------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
There is indeed a way of judging the zeal of native Christians for the propagation of the Gospel very popular among missionaries, the way of tabulating and comparing the amount which they subscribe for missionary work. Obviously this method is the form most natural to us, but it is one of the worst conceivable. When a Christian congregation lives surrounded by heathen, for it to learn to satisfy the divine spirit of missions by putting money into a box, is most dangerous. The zeal of Christians for the spread of the Gospel ought always to be expressed first in active personal service. We should prefer to omit any question as to the amount subscribed for missionary work far off. We believe it to be a most delusive and deluding test. It deceives the giver, it deceives the inquirer. We should prefer to inquire the number of hearers or inquirers brought to the Church by the undirected effort of the Church members, or the number of Church members who go out to teach or preach in their neighbourhood, or perhaps best of all, the number of little Christian congregations which as a body are actively engaged in evangelising their neighbours. But we admit missionary contributions as an additional question
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Christian |Inquirers |Congregations| Amount | Remarks and Constituency.|brought in |Evangelising | Subscribed | Conclusions |by Native |their | for Missionary | |Christians.|Neighbours. | Purposes. | --------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
That a Church must be instructed and instruct its children all are agreed: where men differ is with respect to the manner of the teaching. On the one side are those who would safeguard the faith by committing the teaching of it to a small body of carefully trained men, the clergy, whilst the majority of the Christians, the laity, remain unlearned and accept what is taught by the trained official teachers: on the other side are those who would boldly commit the faith to all, opening to all the door of learning. The one party would preserve the faith in the hands of a select few, the other would put the Bible into every man's hands. It is an old controversy; but we suppose nearly all those for whom we write are of the second party, men who would gladly see every Christian able to read the Bible and to base his religious life upon it. We stand for the open Bible; we believe that the Christian Church in every country will progress and develop strongly if it is based on a widespread knowledge of Holy Writ, and we are prepared to believe that a capacity to read the Bible is a sure sign of health in any Christian Church. The test of literacy commonly adopted in our missions is the capacity to read the Holy Gospels: we accept that gladly and confidently.
Furthermore, the influence of the Christian Church in the country will largely depend upon the extent to which the Christians are better able to read and understand literary expression than their heathen neighbours.
We want then to know the literacy of the Christian community as compared with the literacy of the non-Christian population from which it springs, and, if possible, a little more than that--what proportion of the Christians have had a sufficient education to enable them not only to satisfy the very slight demands of a literary test, but to have some wider knowledge with which to improve their own position and to enlighten others.
The table which results is as follows:--
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Non-Chris-|Propor- |Total |Propor- |Proportion | Remarks and tian |tion of |Christian |tion of |of Christians | Conclusions. Popula- |Liter- |Consti- |Liter- |of Higher | tion. |ates. |tuency. |ates. |Education. | --------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
In this table we touch one of the points on which exact figures are often inaccessible and an estimate must be made. An estimate which is recognised as an estimate is not misleading, and, if it is carefully made and based on evidence understood, is generally most useful, only estimates carelessly made and mistaken for precise and accurate statements of fact are misleading.
These tables would, we suggest, suffice to give us a fairly clear idea of the strength of the force at work, especially if they are taken in conjunction with the tables which we suggest under the heading of the Native Church in Chapter VIII. where we deal particularly with organisation.
We ought now to be able to form some idea of the work to be done and of the force to do it. We know in quantitative terms the work to be done, we know the relative force of missionaries, we know the relative strength of the native Christian constituency, its communicants, its workers, its education, its wealth, in relation to the work to be done.
We have now to consider how the force is directed, along what lines it is applied, and how its efforts are co-ordinated.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 20: THE EMPHASIS LAID UPON DIFFERENT TYPES OF WORK.
========================================================================

CHAPTER IV.
THE EMPHASIS LAID UPON DIFFERENT TYPES OF WORK.
When we know the area and the force at work in it, we must next consider how this force is applied. We need to know in what proportion it works amongst men and women, how far different classes of the population are reached by it, and what emphasis is placed upon different forms of work, evangelistic, medical, and educational. We propose then four tables which will help us to understand these things.
First, we inquire into the relative strength of the force in relation to work among men and women. In the foreign missionary force we distinguish men, wives, and single women; in the native force we distinguish only men and women; because marriage generally affects the character of the foreigner's work more than it affects the character of the work done by the native Christians who live in their own homes among their own people.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | Single | | | | Women and | Remarks and | Men | Wives| Widows | Conclusions --------------------------------------------------------------------- Foreign missionaries. | | | | --------------------------------------------------------------------- | Women Christian constituency | | | --------------------------------------------------------------------- Communicants. | | | --------------------------------------------------------------------- Native workers (paid) | | | --------------------------------------------------------------------
Since it is generally agreed that men in the main appeal to men, and women to women, that table should tell us roughly what is the force at work in relation to men and women; and any mistake in that supposition will be checked by the statistics for the Christian constituency, which serve a double purpose. The statistics of the Christian constituency show us not only an important part of the Christian force at work in relation to the men and women of the non-Christian population; but in relation to the foreigners and the native workers they also help us to see how far the idea that men appeal to men and women to women, is in fact a good working rule.
Next it is desirable to know to what classes the mission especially appeals. Here we shall probably have to accept estimates, sometimes rough estimates, for part at least of the information desirable; in some cases the table may be impossible; in some it may be most useful. The table which we suggest is:--
---------------------------------------------------------------------- In the Population of Station District-- ___________________________________________________________________Per Cent.|Per Cent.|Per Cent. |Per Cent.| Per Cent.| Remarks Students.|Officials|Agricultural |Traders. |Labourers,| and | |Small Holders.| |Craftsmen.| Conclusions. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Christian Constituency--
___________________________________________________________________Per Cent.|Per Cent.|Per Cent. |Per Cent.| Per Cent.| Remarks Students.|Officials|Agricultural |Traders. |Labourers,| and | |Small Holders.| |Craftsmen.| Conclusions. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
If that table could be filled up it would show at a glance what class of the people was reached most easily and fully, and whether any were unduly neglected.
Then, in many station areas there are divergencies of race and religion, and it is important to know how far the mission is reaching each of these. In some areas, for instance, large numbers of converts are made from the pagan population whilst a Moslem population in the area is practically untouched; in some nearly all the converts are made from one caste out of many. That is no reason for adverse criticism of the mission: it may be, and often is, a reason for striking harder at the point on which the work is now most successful; but it is a fact which throws great light on the nature of the work done and upon the character of the Church which is rising in the area, and therefore cannot be ignored. We append then a table to reveal this:--
-------------------------------------------------------------------- | Area of Races, Castes, | Remarks and | Religions, etc. | Conclusions | | Proportion of Population | | -------------------------------------------------------------------- Proportion of Christian | | Constituency derived from| | --------------------------------------------------------------------
We cannot possibly supply the table complete for all areas in the world. We suggest that such a table kept up to date would reveal not only facts useful to illustrate the progress of the Christian faith, but also to show the progress of aggressive non-Christian religions such as Mohammedanism.
Then we want to know what is the emphasis put on different forms of missionary work, evangelistic, medical, educational. Here we come to a difficulty. Medical missionaries, thank God, do evangelistic work, and so do educational missionaries, and one day we shall learn that the evangelistic missionary, technically so called, is doing a most important educational work, and often truly medical, healing work. The division is a technical one and missionary-hearted men begin to resent it; they are all evangelic in their work, if not technically evangelistic, and the division seems unreal, unnatural, untrue. It would be a sad day for our missions if medical and educational missionaries ceased to be at heart evangelists, and were content to leave evangelistic work to others. Nevertheless, the technical distinction is a real one and must be expressed. Some men express their evangelistic fervour naturally and providentially in medical form, others in scholastic, others in teaching, preaching, and organising of the converts and the hearers. But how shall we divide them? The best plan seems to be to put each man into that category in which he spends most of his time, and in cases of doubt to use fractions, e.g. a doctor may be as keen an evangelist and may preach and strive to convert his patients as eagerly as his colleague who is called an evangelistic missionary. An evangelistic missionary is perhaps a doctor by training or experience, and heals the sick as eagerly as his colleague who is called a medical missionary. Each is unwilling to be catalogued in one column only. He feels, and feels rightly, that that single figure belies the facts. The evangelistic missionary may be the only doctor in the whole area who really understands the use of western drugs and implements, the doctor may be the only evangelist in the whole area who really knows how to preach the Gospel in language which the people can understand. Clearly, in such cases the only possible thing to do is to use a fraction, though the inner truth might be more easily expressed by figures which represented that one man as two or three.
The table then is as follows:--
------------------------------------------------------------------- Missionaries. | Paid | Amount of| Amount of | Total | Remarks | Native | Foreign | Native | Funds | and | Workers| Funds | Funds | including | Con- | | Spent | Spent | Government| clusions | | on: [1] | on: [2] | Grants. | -------------------------------------------------------------------- Evangelistic | | | | | -------------------------------------------------------------------- Medical. | | | | | -------------------------------------------------------------------- Educational | | | | | -------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Forms | | | | | of Work. | | | | | --------------------------------------------------------------------
[Footnote 1: All funds derived from foreigners except Government grants.]
[Footnote 2: Including fees and contributions.]
It will be observed that this table is designed, like all the others, to serve primarily one single purpose. Since that purpose is to show the relative weight thrown by the mission and the Christians into different forms of evangelistic expression, all missionaries, all native workers, all funds mainly occupied in each form are lumped together. There is no need at this stage to distinguish doctors from nurses, or Bible-women from pastors or priests.
From these tables we should hope to gain a general idea of the direction of the force at work.
We thrust in here an inquiry concerning a form of work upon which many missions lay great stress. It is exceedingly difficult to classify. It is not certainly evangelistic work, though it is commonly organised by evangelistic workers; it is not educational in the sense that educational missionaries accept it as a definitely recognised part of their work, though educational methods are employed and it often has a distinctly educational purpose. It is sometimes a form of Sunday service almost akin to a Church service. It is often a form of children's school where the religious teaching given, or neglected, during the week in the day school is supplemented: it is sometimes a form of elementary school for adults, Christian, or inquirers: it is a form of Bible school for adult Christian workers. It is a method of propaganda for the conversion of heathen children or adults. It is a form of work where untrained Christian voluntary workers find opportunity for expressing their religious zeal; it is a form of work in which experts in certain types of elementary religious teaching revel. It is educational work carried on by those who are not technically educationalists: it is evangelistic work carried on by those who are not technically evangelists.
What sort of information then are we to seek concerning it? It is so important that it cannot be omitted; it is so widespread that it almost demands special consideration; it is so protean that tables designed to reveal all its aspects and values would be with difficulty designed, and tediously minute. From the point of view of this survey it would be futile to ask, as most of the societies ask, simply for the number of Sunday schools, the number of teachers, and the number of scholars. From those bare numbers we can gain no information which really enlightens us. We want to know what the Sunday schools exist for, and whether they are accomplishing the object of their existence. But we cannot define, nor even enumerate all the objects. We therefore arbitrarily select three which are directly related to the establishment of a native Church, and make one table serve. We inquire: (1) How they are related to the Christian constituency; from this we hope to learn the extent to which Sunday schools are a part of the Church life. (2) How the teachers are related to the communicants (or full members); from this we hope to learn the extent to which the voluntary effort of the communicants finds expression in this work. (3) How the scholars are related to baptisms and confirmations (or admission as full members); from this we hope to learn to what extent the Sunday-schools are a recruiting ground for the Church.
The table then is as follows:--
+-------------------------------------------------------+-----+ District | | +-------------------------------------------------------+-----+ Number of Sunday Schools. | | +-------------------------------------------------------+-----+ Proportion of Sunday Schools to Christian Constituency. | | +-------------------------------------------------------+-----+ Sunday School Teachers. | | +-------------------------------------------------------+-----+ Proportion of Communicants. | | +-------------------------------------------------------+-----+ Sunday School Scholars. (M./F.) | | +-------------------------------------------------------+-----+ Proportion of Sunday School Scholars | | Baptised in the Year. | | +-------------------------------------------------------+-----+ Proportion of Scholars Confirmed | | or Admitted Full Members in the Year. | | +-------------------------------------------------------+-----+ Remarks and Conclusions. | | +-------------------------------------------------------+-----+


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 21: MEDICAL WORK IN THE STATION DISTRICT.
========================================================================

CHAPTER V.
MEDICAL WORK IN THE STATION DISTRICT.
Thus far of the force in its general aspect. When we turn to closer consideration of the medical and educational work we meet with a difficulty. Medical and educational work, as we have already pointed out, often, if not generally, have a definitely evangelistic character, but each, nevertheless, appears to be designed to meet a special need of the Church and people. There is a strong tendency in thought, and often in speech, to emphasise this special need and to make it a distinct, separate need. Herein lies a danger. Medical missions are sometimes urged upon our attention as though they were founded to meet a medical need of the people, as if it were the recognised and accepted duty of missionary societies and of missionaries to supplant the native medical practice by western scientific methods as certainly and fully as it is their recognised and accepted duty to supplant native religion by the faith of Christ. But that we for our part emphatically deny. The one may be a philanthropic duty; the other certainly is a religious duty. Consequently we deny that there is a medical need which it is the duty of missionaries to supply in the sense in which we affirm that there is a religious need which it is the duty of missionaries to supply. Medical missions are, and ought to be, evangelistic in their aim, mere handmaids[1] of evangelism. Similarly we deny a separate and distinct educational need which it is the duty of missionary societies to supply. The missionary societies ought not to take upon themselves the supply of every need. We think the Christian Church is misled when it allows the medical need of a country to be presented as a distinct need which it is the duty of missionaries to meet, and when it allows the ignorance of a country to be presented as a distinct need which it is the duty of missionaries to meet. From such a presentation educational missions become detached, medical missions become detached, each designed to meet a distinct and separate need of the people.
[Footnote 1: If any reader experiences a revulsion at this expression, he will know at once what we mean when we say that a distinction has been drawn between evangelistic, medical, and educational missions as though they were three co-equal and separate things. They are not co-equal and they ought not to be separate. Education does not necessarily reveal Christ, medical science does not necessarily reveal Christ, only as education and medicine assist the revelation of Christ are they proper subjects for Christian missionary enterprise, that is, only when they are clearly and unmistakably subordinate to an evangelistic purpose. Of course we do not undervalue medical and educational efficiency: efficiency should increase evangelistic power.]
One result of the sharp distinction which is drawn between medical and educational and evangelistic work is that in some countries there are distinct medical and educational associations which collect information about the state of medical and educational missions in the country, dealing with these missionary activities most prominently, if not wholly, from the point of view of medical and educational efficiency. These associations issue questionnaires and publish reports often more full, detailed, and carefully compiled than any evangelistic reports. Consequently it is peculiarly dangerous for a layman unacquainted with the working of these associations to trespass upon their preserves. These departmental surveys should be treated separately by experts. Nevertheless, since we are dealing with the work of the station in its area, and this work includes often medical and educational work, we cannot pass over it with no more than the general treatment which we have hitherto given. We need to know what is the medical and what the educational work carried on at the station, when these are viewed, as they are viewed, separately, as distinct expressions of missionary zeal.
Dealing first with medical missions we suppose that the question might be put in this form, What are the medical missionary resources available in the district in relation to the need which it is proposed to meet?
Here again there arises the difficulty that there is no common agreement as to the purpose of the medical work of the missionary societies. What are the doctors there for? What does the hospital exist to do? Who can tell? So diverse are the ideas of different men on this subject, so little thought out, that a man of unusual experience told us that he had met few missionary doctors who could answer the question: "On the basis of what facts ought the question of the establishment of a hospital to be decided?" Few could tell him whether in sending doctors the missionary societies ought to consider the duty of caring for the health of their missionaries first or last. Few could tell him whether the care of the health of the children in schools and institutions was the first duty, or the last, or any duty at all, of the medical missionary. Yet obviously, those two points if they were once admitted would influence largely the location of doctors and hospitals. Again, we hear it argued that missionary societies ought to establish medical schools, hospitals, and institutions of the finest possible type in order to show how the thing really ought to be done, to demonstrate the very best example of western medical work, and to train natives to a western efficiency. That would not only influence the location of doctors and hospitals, it would also affect the character of the buildings and would demand a special type of medical missionary. Or again, we hear it argued that medical missions are the point of the missionary sword; but if it is the point of the sword then it ought to be in front of the blade. That, too, would direct the location of the doctors and hospitals. It would also affect the character of the building unless the missionary sword is to become an immovable object, which having once cleft a rock remains fast in the breach until a God-sent hero, like King Arthur, appears to pull it out and set it to work again. We cannot state all the different aims. They are not simple and formulated; they are complex and confused. Very often the establishment of a medical mission turns upon no more thorough examination of the facts of the situation than the conviction of a capable missionary that there is need for medical work in his district, and that he must supply it if he can, and that he must persevere in appeals till he can supply it. When a man asks: "On the basis of what facts ought this or that to be done in the mission field?" he has got a long way into the complexity of the problem, and the need for survey, if a society is to act with wisdom, is already apparent to him. But most men in the past have acted simply, without much argument: they said, "Here is a need; I can supply it," and the societies were the feeders of such men. Naturally. So one hospital and a doctor was the point of a sword which in twenty years' time was stuck fast in the rock; and then the hospital was enlarged and became a medical school under the fervent direction of a doctor who was a natural teacher; and then it became an institution, and then part of a college. And in all this there may have been no definite policy, any more than there was any definite policy in the guidance of its twin brother, which, instead of changing its character, remained what it had always been, the point of a sword, only buried in a rock, competing feebly with a Government institution. When one writes of mixed motives, and mixed policies, and mixed methods, it is natural to use mixed metaphors.
But to return to our point. It is not easy to say what some hospitals are there for. If we knew, we could at least formulate tables to set out the progress which they have made towards the object proposed. That would be reasonable survey as we have defined it. To collect all possible information concerning all the things which the doctor or hospital might do, or may be doing, unrelated to any end, is to collect a mass of information which we cannot use; and that we have declined to do. What course then can we pursue? We propose first to accept the notion that the medical mission is there to supply a medical need of the people, and to consider how far it does that; and then to look at the medical work at the station as definitely designed to assist the evangelisation of the people, as evangelistic in its purpose. We have, therefore, designed a double set of tables to serve these two purposes.
First, tables to show the medical work in relation to the presumed need of the district for western medicine.
Here, as before for evangelistic work, so now for medical, we have expressed the relation between the medical work and the district in terms both of area and population in order that each table may be a check upon the other. Thus:--
(i) In terms of area.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- | |Number of| | | | | |Qualified|Number of |Number of |Number of|Number of | |Medicals.|Assistants.|Hospitals.| Nurses. |Dispens- | | | | | |aries. District.|Area.|---------|-----------|----------|---------|--------- | | M. | F. | M. | F. |For | For | M. | F. | | | | | | |men |women| | | ---------|-----|----|----|-----|-----|----|-----|----|----|--------- | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | -------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | | | | | | _______|___|__|__|___|___|__|___|__|__|________
(ii) In terms of population.
---------------------------------------------- District. |Population. | ---------------------------------------------| Proportion of | | | Medicals to | | | Population. | | | ---------------------------------------------- Proportion of | | | Assistants to | | | Population. | | | ---------------------------------------------- Proportion of | | | Nurses to | | | Population. | | | ---------------------------------------------- Proportion of | | | Beds to | | | Population. | | | ---------------------------------------------- Proportion of | | | Dispensaries to | | | Population. | | | ----------------------------------------------
It will be observed that in this second table the items are not identical with those in the preceding table. In the place of hospitals we have beds; because in relation to the area the thing of importance is the number of the hospitals; but in relation to population the thing of importance is the number of beds available. Two hospitals in a single area are probably not in the same place and imply more widespread influence; but if each has twenty beds, in proportion to population it is of no importance whether the forty beds are in one place or two: forty in-patients fill the beds.
But in medical work, when we are considering the need of the district, another factor of importance often enters. The medicals of the mission are often not the only men meeting that need. There are often others, Government officials, or private practitioners, who, from the point of view of medical practice, are doing the same work. The medical need of a district where the missionary doctor is the only exponent of western medicine is not the same as that of the district where he is competing with Government or private doctors fully trained as he is. Consequently it is essential in order to understand the position that we should know what other, non-missionary, medical assistance is available, and we need the following table:--
--------------------------------------------------------------------- |Hospitals.|Qualified|Assistants.|Nurses.|Dispensaries.|Beds. | |Practi- | | | | tioners. | | | | --------|----------|---------|-----------|-------|-------------|--- | | | | | | Mission-| | | | | | ary| __ | __ | __ | __ | __ | _-------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | | Non- | | | | | | Mission-| | | | | | ary| __ | __ | __ | __ | __ | _ | | | | | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
If any surveyor finds it difficult to fill in such a table, he must make an estimate, but he ought to realise that a table of the kind is a necessary part of any appeal for increased support; for support cannot be reasonably given to his work on the ground of this medical needunless these facts are known. Of course that does not mean that support ought to be given or withheld solely on the statistics so provided. There may be a thousand reasons for strengthening and enlarging work where this table would suggest less need; but no support should be given in ignorance of these facts.
Then we need tables to reveal, as far as such tables can reveal anything, the extent of the medical mission work done in the year.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- District|Area|Popul-|Hospital |Dispensary,|Total|Propor- |Remarks | |ation |Patients in|Patients in|Pat- |tion of |and | | |Year |Year |ients|Patients |Conclu- | | | | | |to Popul-|sions | | | | | |ation | --------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | | | | | |M.|F.|Child|M.|F.|Child| | | | | | | | | | | | | | --------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | | | | | | | ______|__|____|||___|||___|___|_______|______
Turning then from the medical need to be met, we proposed to inquire into the medical work as an evangelistic agency. This inquiry is hard to formulate; but we suggest that the three tables appended, taken in conjunction with the preceding, would throw certain light on this question, and would help towards a true understanding.
First, we inquire into the relative extent to which the medical workers make use of the assistance of evangelistic workers. This table would not reveal the evangelistic influence of the hospital. On the one hand, there is sometimes a tendency for the medical men and women to do medical work exclusively, and to leave all religious work to the evangelistic workers, and to give way to the temptation to imagine that if evangelistic workers read or preach in the waiting-room and visit the patients, the medicals can be satisfied that they have done their duty as medical missionaries. On the other hand, a medical who does his medical work in the Spirit, who speaks to and prays with his patients, exercises an evangelistic influence wider and deeper than that of many of the evangelistic workers directly so called, and in such a case the fact that the evangelistic workers are apparently lacking in the hospital does not at all show that the medical work is not a strong evangelistic force. But any danger of misguidance which might arise if this table stood alone must be counteracted by the other tables; for the three can be taken together. And when this allowance has been made the table is useful with the others, and lights one side of the question before us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- | Hospitals | Dispensaries | | (Where these | | are not attached to | | hospitals) -------------------------+--------------+---------------------------- Number of Medicals | | on Staff.[1] | | -------------------------+--------------+---------------------------- Proportion to Patients. | | -------------------------+--------------+---------------------------- Number of Evangelistic | | Workers on Staff.[1] | | -------------------------+--------------+---------------------------- Proportion to Patients. | | -------------------------+--------------+---------------------------- Remarks and Conclusions. | | -------------------------+--------------+----------------------------
[Footnote 1: By "on staff" we mean regularly attached to, or regularly visiting.]
When we have seen the extent to which the medicals use the evangelistic workers in their institutions, we need to know the extent to which the medicals assist the evangelistic workers outside the institutions. We put this in the form of a table designed to reveal the extent to which the medicals assist in evangelistic tours, helping the evangelistic workers on tour, either by healing the sick on the spot, or by sending them to the hospitals, or by preaching, or in all these ways.
------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of |Number of |Number of |Number of |Number of |Remarks Evange- |Evangelistic|Medicals |Days spent by|Days spent|and listic |Workers |Assisting.|Evangelistic |by |Conclu- Tours. |Assisting. | |Workers. |Medicals. |sions. ----------|------------|----------|-------------|----------|------- | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | ________|__________|________|___________|________|_____
Finally, we inquire how far the direct evangelistic influence of the hospitals and dispensaries can be traced. We might at first suppose that this could be done by asking the number of inquirers enrolled as a direct consequence of attendance at hospitals and dispensaries; but it is not surprising that patients are willing to enrol their names as inquirers simply to please the doctors or nurses, without any intention of pursuing the matter further when they leave the hospital; and consequently such a question by itself might be very misleading. We therefore add two further questions, the first, what number of communicants trace their conversion to their visits to hospitals or dispensaries, the second, what number of places have been opened to Christian teachers and preachers by the influence of doctors and patients. Some missionary doctors are much interested in this inquiry, and we all might well be interested in it. The answers would be a most important contribution to our study, and might go far to justify medical missions as an evangelistic agency.
+-------------------------------------------------------+-----+ Number of Inquirers Enrolled in the Year as a Direct | | Consequence of Attendance at Hospitals and Dispensaries.| | +-------------------------------------------------------+-----+ Proportion of Total Inquirers. | | +-------------------------------------------------------+-----+ Enrolled in the Year. | | +-------------------------------------------------------+-----+ Number of Communicants Derived from Attendance | | at Hospitals and Dispensaries in the Year. | | +-------------------------------------------------------+-----+ Proportion of Communicants Enrolled in the Year. | | +-------------------------------------------------------+-----+ Number of Places Opened to Christian Teachers through | | the Influence of Doctors or Patients in the Year. | | +-------------------------------------------------------+-----+ Proportion of Total Places Opened in the Year. | | +-------------------------------------------------------+-----+ Conclusions and Remarks. | | +-------------------------------------------------------+-----+


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 22: EDUCATIONAL WORK IN THE STATION DISTRICT.
========================================================================

CHAPTER VI.
EDUCATIONAL WORK IN THE STATION DISTRICT.
The difficulty of providing tables for the survey of educational work is as great as that of finding tables for medical work, and for the same reasons. There is the same separateness, the same diversity of immediate aim, the same alteration of character, the same uncertainty of policy.
Educational missions have been designed to convert the young whilst they were yet pliable, to influence the growing generation in order to prepare for a great advance of Christianity later, to Christianise society, to educate young Christians in a Christian atmosphere, to prepare leaders for the Christian Church, to elevate an ignorant and illiterate Christian Church. All these various objects have been set before us as the reasons for the establishment of schools, both separately, each in different circumstances, and unitedly, all at the same time, as though one school could fulfil all these different purposes without any confusion. At one and the same moment Christian children were to be educated in a Christian atmosphere, and non-Christian children in large numbers were admitted, and non-Christian teachers employed. At the same time non-Christian children were to be converted and not converted, but filled with Christian ideas.
All these aims and objects are confusedly set forth, each as its turn comes round, as the immediate aim of our educational missions; but the attempt to draw tables for a survey which shall embrace impartially all these objects is enough to satisfy the inquirer that they are not easily combined into one. We propose, therefore, in this bewildering maze of mixed purposes and ideas, to follow the line which seemed possible in the case of medical missions--to accept the idea that there is an educational need of the people which it is the business of the educational mission to meet so far as it can; and then to add a further inquiry concerning the direct evangelistic influence of the educational mission, and its relation to the evangelistic and medical work.
But in educational mission survey there is an added difficulty which arises from the fact that scholastic education is divided into many grades, and this division has no common standard in different countries, sometimes not even in the same country. We, then, who are seeking light not from one country only but from all, are compelled to simplify these grade distinctions as much as possible, and to accept the local definitions. This does not really invalidate comparisons between different areas so seriously as we might at the first glance be tempted to expect. There is in every country a grade which is primary; there is a secondary, or middle, or high school; there is a normal, or college, or arts course. The primary in one country may run into higher primary and be at its best far in advance of the primary in another country; and so far the two are incomparable; but, nevertheless, this primary grade is the lowest grade in each country, and if the inquiry is, what number of pupils are taught in this local first grade, then the comparison is admissible. Similarly of the second grade and the third. If the inquiry is understood to imply no more than it states, and no conclusion is drawn as to the relative stage or merits of the education in the two countries in relation to one another, it may justly be argued that the primary pupils in one country stand in relation to the illiterate and more highly educated pupils in their own country in a similar position to that in which the primary pupils in another country stand to the illiterate and more highly educated pupils in their own country; though the primary pupils in the one may be far more advanced than the primary pupils in the other. On this basis a possible comparison can be made.
But since colleges and normal schools generally serve a larger area than the station district, these are reserved for provincial survey, and the present tables deal with nothing above the secondary, or middle, or high school. In the station district area the matter of chief importance is the extent to which the need of the district for primary and secondary education is met, and the proportion in which the needs of the many and the few are met.
Of course where the surveyor has before him more elaborate tables prepared for some board, he can serve all purposes best by keeping those tables carefully and sending copies of them to those who may be interested. Our hasty division into primary and higher than primary is only designed to save trouble in those districts where no elaborate distinctions and definitions have been made. If it is desirable for purposes of comparison to reduce tables from different parts of the world to a common basis, so long as the tables supplied from any part do not contain less than the tables here suggested, the comparison can easily be made, for what it is worth.
We begin then with the educational work done in the station district as designed to meet a distinct educational need. The first tables, therefore, correspond to the first evangelistic and medical tables and set forth the quantitative extent of the educational work in relation to the area and to the population.
_____________________________________________________________ | | | Number of | | | Number of | Secondary or | Remarks and District.| Area.| Primary Schools.| Middle or | Conclusions. | | | High Schools.| _______|____|_______________|____________|___________ | | | | | | | | _______|____|_______________|____________|___________---------|------|-----------------|--------------|--------------
_______________________________________________________________ | | | Propor-| | Propor-| | | Number | tion | Number | tion | | Popula-| of | to | of | to | Re- District.| tion. | Primary | Popula-| Higher | Popula-|marks. | | Teachers.| tion. | Teachers.| tion. | _______|______|________|______|________|______|____ | | | | | | _______|______|________|______|________|______|_____
Here it will be noted that whereas in the area it is the number of schools which is considered, in relation to population it is the number of teachers, because in the area the point of importance is the accessibility of the schools; whilst in relation to the population it is the number of teachers which reveals to what extent the population is served.
Then similar reasons to those which led us to take into account the non-missionary medical assistance in the area force us to consider the non-missionary education. If we are to consider scholastic education as a need of the people at all, we must acknowledge that the presence of Government or private schools makes a great difference to the situation, and if an appeal for medical missions ought to be affected by the presence or absence of non-missionary medical assistance, equally ought an appeal for educational missions in any area to be affected by the presence or absence of non-missionary educational facilities.
It may be true that if the aim of educational missions were defined as the provision of educational facilities under Christian influence, the presence of non-Christian educational facilities, in proportion to their magnitude, might be a challenge to Christians to increase theirs. On this basis the mission would deliberately compete with Government schools where Government schools were strongest. But if the mission is designed to supply a liberal education for Christians, the presence of Government schools does not necessarily induce competition. We might well ponder the question put by a Christian convert in India, when discussing the use of educational missions by the missionary societies: "Hindus," he said, "are not deterred from sending their children to Christian schools by the fear that they will cease to be Hindus, and do the societies think so little of our religion that they are afraid that our children would cease to be Christians if they attended a Government school?" Whatever answer we give to that question, in either case the existence of non-Christian schools is a serious and important factor in the situation.
We therefore inquire into the non-missionary educational work done in the area. We are well aware that in many cases the surveyor will find it difficult to supply the required information, and may be driven to make an estimate; but the information ought to be provided for any true and just administration of educational mission funds, and estimates must be here regarded as at the best a poor substitute, though under existing circumstances perhaps a necessary one.
___________________________________________________________________ | | | | | |Propor- | Higher | | Propor- | |Primary| |tion of | or |Teach-| tion of |Re- |Schools|Teachers|Teachers| Second-| ers. | Teachers|marks. | | |to Popu-| ary | | to Popu-| | | |lation. |Schools.| | lation. | --------------------------------------------------------------------- Missionary| -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Non- | | | | | | | Missionary| -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Then we need to consider the extent to which the educational efforts of the mission are used to meet the needs of the better educated and of the more ignorant. This will be revealed by the average attendance in the different classes of schools.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Total | | |Propor-| | | Propor-| Re- Scholars| | |tion of| | | tion of|marks in |Primary |Scholars|Total |Secondary| Scho- | Total | and Mission |Schools.| | Scho-| Schools.| lars.| Scho- |Conclu- Schools.| | |lars. | | | lars. | sions. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | | | ______|______|______|_____|_______|_____|______|_____
Then we must inquire into the proportion in which the education given in the schools is given to boys and to girls. This is peculiarly important in considering the influence of school education upon the rising generation of Christians, since well-taught girls make intelligent and helpful wives and mothers, and this tends enormously to the advancement of the Christian community. And the same truth applies to the non-Christian population.
| Mission | Mission |Remarks and |Primary Schools.| Secondary Schools.| Conclusions. -----------------+----------------+---------------------------------- | Boys. | Girls. | Boys. | Girls. | -----------------+-------+--------+-------------------+-------------- Christian or | | | | | From | | | | | Christian homes. | | | | | -----------------+-------+--------+-------+-----------+-------------- Non-Christian | | | | | -----------------+-------+--------+-------+-----------+
Here we divided Christians from non-Christians, and thus the table serves a double purpose. It tells us the division of the scholars by sex and also by faith. It throws light upon the condition of the Christian community and upon the extent to which mission school education is given to Christians and non-Christians.
One other point must be considered in connection with mission schools because it throws great light upon the character of the schools and their purpose. It is the extent to which the educational mission receives Government support. If there is any doubt as to the dominant aim and purpose of a school, the fact that it receives Government aid reveals at once that in the eyes of the Government it stands for the general enlightenment of the population rather than for any direct evangelisation. The dominant aim of the Government is general enlightenment, and the Government gives no grant without some sort of control. If then a school receives a Government grant the dominant idea of general enlightenment will certainly exercise great influence over its direction. Consequently, if we know what proportion of the schools in any mission receive a Government grant, we have at least some guidance as to the extent to which the mission accepts the aim of general enlightenment. We have also some assurance that the schools reach the Government standard of efficiency in the teaching of secular subjects.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Primary | Proportion | Higher | Proportion | Remarks Schools | Receiving | Schools. | Receiving | and | Government | | Government | Conclusions. | Grant, if any. | | Grant. | --------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | ______|______________|________|__________|_________________
Hitherto we have dealt only with schools in which the pupils are probably for the most part children; but in some countries the mission makes a great effort to enlighten the illiterate adults, especially the illiterate adult Christians, and thus, as in China, missionaries propagate simplified systems of writing the language, or in other countries have reduced to writing, languages which possessed no script.
We have already set out the reason why this appeals especially to Protestant missionaries. The reading of the Bible is a keystone in their evangelistic system, and with them Christianity and reading go hand in hand. We must then make room in our survey for a movement so profound, so widespread, and so vitally important, and a movement of this character deserves and demands a separate table. It cannot be confounded with the establishment of ordinary primary schools. It is essential that we should inquire what education is given to the illiterate adults of the area; and we must inquire in what proportion this teaching is given to Christians and non-Christians, because this proportion is very significant. The teaching of reading to the illiterate is by some missionaries viewed as a means preparatory to the preaching of the gospel, a gift to be given as widely as possible, in the belief that the more who can read, the better will be the hearing given to the preachers of Christ; by others the teaching is given rather to illiterate inquirers and converts, and it is given to them as a definitely Christian gift for the edification of the individual and of the Church.
By the one this teaching would be classed with the general work of Christian educational missions for the whole community, the meeting of the general intellectual need of the district; by the other it would be classed as a part of the work done by the educational mission for the enlightenment of the Church, the meeting of a need of the Church. By the one it would be classed with the tables which deal with the relation of the educational to the evangelistic work; by the other with the tables which deal with the educational work viewed as meeting a special need. The table suggested is:--
--------------------------------------------------------+------| Population. | | --------------------------------------------------------+------| Illiterate Population. | | --------------------------------------------------------+------| Number of Teachers of Illiterate Adults. | | --------------------------------------------------------+------| Number of Illiterate Adult Scholars. | --------------------------------------------------------+------| Christian. | | --------------------------------------------------------+------| Non-Christian | | --------------------------------------------------------+------| Proportion of Illiterate Population. | --------------------------------------------------------+------| Proportion of Teachers to Illiterate Population. | | --------------------------------------------------------+------| Remarks and Conclusions. | | --------------------------------------------------------+------|
This table leads us naturally to consider the educational work done in the station area from an evangelistic point of view. We must inquire then into the extent to which evangelistic missionaries assist in the schools, and educational missionaries assist in evangelistic work, and the evangelistic results so far as they can be traced of the work in schools.
We ask first the extent to which educationalists employ the services of evangelistic workers in their schools and institutions. As we pointed out in dealing with the relation between medical and evangelistic work, so here we would insist that this particular table is not by itself a good guide. There is a serious danger in an institution, whether medical or educational, of dividing the work in this way. We have already asserted our conviction that medical missionaries should be evangelistic, and educational missionaries evangelistic also. But when evangelistic workers distinctly so called are on the staff of hospitals or schools, there is a danger lest the medicals and the educationalists should consider themselves absolved from personal effort by the occasional presence of an evangelist. "Let him do the religious preaching, and let me do the secular teaching. Preaching is his job, teaching is mine." Thus a division is created which reacts seriously upon the work of both. The pupils learn to distinguish the one work from the other, as separate and distinct departments. They prefer the one, they are bored by the other. No man can serve two masters; and if the religious teaching is plainly in the hands of one teacher and the secular teaching plainly in the hands of the other, they will tend to think that they can hold to the one and despise the other. This we say is a danger, but it is not an unavoidable danger. Only we must not judge that an institution is doing good evangelistic work because evangelistic services are held in it. The table is as follows:--
------------------------------------------------------------------- Schools. | Number of Schools | Proportion of Schools | Remarks and | Regularly Visited | Visited by | Conclusions. | by Evangelists. | Evangelists. | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | _______|_________________|_____________________|__________
Then there is a most important work which the educational evangelist does, or might do, outside the school. Perhaps we ought to explain this; for many supporters of missions are unfamiliar with the idea. They think of the work of educational missionaries as necessarily bound up with schools and institutions. A teacher without a school, or outside a school, seems to them rather like a gunner without a gun. If an educational missionary goes on an evangelistic tour it is, they think, as an evangelist that he goes, not as an educationalist. Yet, if we understood the work of an evangelistic educationalist, we should not think it strange to meet an educational missionary on tour, doing evangelistic educational work. Evangelistic work is educational to the core, and it leads to educational results. No evangelistic work amongst an illiterate, or a literate, people can be really complete, if it does not lead at once to the organisation of education amongst the converts and hearers. The illiterate must be taught to read the Gospels, and it demands an expert in the teaching of illiterates to direct their studies; the illiterate and the literate converts alike must be taught to transform that education which they all give daily to their children, whether in the home or in a school, into Christian education, and this too demands the attention of a skilled educationalist. This work is invaluable and most exciting and interesting work, and must produce results which, for the establishment of the Church, are almost incalculably important. As then for the medical missionaries, so for the educationalists we ask:--
------------+------------+---------------+-------------+------------ Evangelistic| Number of | Number of | Number of |Conclusions Tours. |Evangelistic|Educationalists|Days Spent by|and Remarks. | Workers. | Assisting. | Evangelists | | | | on Tour. | ------------+------------+---------------+-------------+------------ | | | | ------------+------------+---------------+-------------+------------
When we turn to the immediate evangelistic results of the education given in the station district, we labour under difficulties even greater than those which we met when we tried to formulate tables to reveal the extent to which medical missions were effective as an evangelistic agency.
The difficulty lies in the fact that the educational missionaries who set before themselves as the aim of their work a far distant goal to be attained by the cumulative effect of Christian influence brought to bear upon generation after generation of children who do not themselves become Christians, naturally resent a table which seems to demand a present, immediate, result in the tabulation of baptisms, and we fear that the other tables will hardly reconcile them, because we are afraid that few educational missionaries have yet learned to understand what a vast and important and absorbingly interesting work the education of the converts outside the schools affords. Consequently we shiver when we think of the reception which these tables are likely to receive at the hands of some of our friends in foreign countries, and our ears tingle in anticipation.
Nevertheless, if we are to be told, and to act on the hearing, that Christian schools are founded because it is easier to convert the young than the old, and the twig can be bent while the tree resists till it breaks, we must inquire how far this saying is justified by experience. A survey which neglected the factors which throw light upon it would be a partial and unjust one.
Hence we ask first--
--------------------------------------------------------------------- | Scholars | Baptism | Baptism | Confirmation | Remarks | | of | of | or Admission | and | | Scholars | Parents | as Full | Conclusions | | | | Members | --------------------------------------------------------------------- Primary | | | | | Schools | | | | | --------------------------------------------------------------------- Secondary| | | | | Schools | | | | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
and secondly--
---------------------------------------------------------------- Number of Places Opened to | | Remarks Christian Teachers by the | Proportion of Total | and Influence of Scholars. | Places Occupied. | Conclusions. ---------------------------------------------------------------- | | _________________________|___________________|____________
These two tables will give us some idea of the direct influence of the educational mission as an evangelistic force.
Some are anxious to know what support the educational and medical work call forth from the natives for whom these are set in hand. They want this information, we suppose, as a help towards an understanding of the influence exercised by these different forms of work. If the natives support them generously then they have obviously been impressed by them favourably. And perhaps the extent of native support may suggest the measure to which our work as medical and educational missionaries is approaching a successful end.
We therefore include a table identical for medical and educational workers:--
--------------------------------------------------------------------- | Total | Total | Total Native | Volunteers | Expense | Foreign | Contribution | for | of Work in | Contribution. | Fees and | Training. | Station | | Donations. | | Area. | | | --------------------------------------------------------------------- Medical | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- ------------|------------|---------------|--------------|------------ Educational | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- ---------------------------------------------------------------------


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 23: CO-OPERATION BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT ELEMENTS IN THE MISSION.
========================================================================

CHAPTER VII.
CO-OPERATION BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT ELEMENTS IN THE MISSION.
We have now surveyed the evangelistic, medical, and educational work in the station district, viewed separately. It remains to unify the results, that we may get, if possible, a definite conception of the whole. The effectiveness of the mission machinery largely depends upon the relation of these parts to one another. The mission ought not to be three separate things but one thing; for the impression produced upon the non-Christian population is the result of the combination of all the various forms in which the one missionary spirit expresses itself. The spirit which produces them all is one, and it is that one spirit which influences and converts the heathen.
Now we already know the proportion in which workers and funds are divided between the three branches (p. 68). We already know something of the work done by evangelists in hospitals (p. 83), and by doctors in evangelistic tours (p. 84); and of the extent to which the work in the hospitals opens up the way for evangelists (p. 85). We already know something of the work done by evangelists in schools (p. 99), and of the evangelistic influence of the educational work (p. 102, 103), and of the extent to which educationalists assist in evangelistic tours (p. 101).
If then we now add tables to show the help given by the medicals in the schools and the work done by the educationalists in the hospitals we shall be able to gain a fairly complete idea of the co-operation between the three branches.
But it is just at this point, the relation between the medical and educational work, that we shall probably find most difficulty. This relationship has not been carefully thought out in the past, and co-operation between medicals and educationalists is, we fancy, somewhat rare. Few men could tell us exactly what policy is followed, or ought to be followed. This is partly due to that confusion of purpose of which we spoke in the first chapter, a confusion which obscures and confounds our medical and educational missions. If both medical and educational missions had had one common dominant purpose, the relation between them would have been more easily seen; but since they were separated in thought, each having its own particular and separate objects to pursue, they naturally worked along parallel lines and consequently did not meet. If they had had one common dominant object they would have met. But generally speaking there is no clear understanding whether the medical mission has any definite relation to the educational mission, or the educational mission to the medical.
On the medical side, it is not clearly understood whether it is the first duty, or the last duty, of medicals to attend to the children whom we gather together in such large numbers, whether the medicals ought to inspect all the children, whether they ought to be at hand to treat children who are obviously sick, whether these considerations ought to influence the location of the hospital, or of the place of residence of the medical missionaries, or whether this work, if they really gave much time to it, should be considered as withdrawing them from their properwork. Consequently, the health of the children in mission schools has often suffered, and the work of the school been hindered. In one school something approaching to a revolution was produced by the constant care and attention of a doctor. Phthisis, which had been a continual source of trouble and weakness, was reduced considerably, and the whole work and tone of the school improved enormously. If medical missionaries and educational missionaries always realised that they were engaged in a common work, this experience would be almost universal.
In our tables we cannot possibly enter into any details. The work of medicals in schools cannot be exactly stated, it varies greatly in extent and character; but it would, we suppose, always include attention to the health of the children and consultation with the teachers, both about the welfare of the school as a whole and of the care of individual pupils. It might also include lectures in hygiene and kindred topics, sanitation of buildings, and other assistance too varied to specify.
The table can only include visits and inspection of pupils.
----------------------------------------------------------------- Total | Number | Total | Number | Remarks Number | Regularly | Number | Regularly | and of Schools. | Visited by | of | Inspected. | Conclusions. | Medicals. | Scholars. | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | | | | -----------------------------------------------------------------
The relation of the educational mission to the medical has not been thought out any more carefully. There is in hospitals an opportunity of extraordinary importance, a field of great fruitfulness which is largely neglected. If the hospital is a missionary hospital, founded to heal the souls as well as the bodies of men, ought not the patients in them to be taught as well as medically treated? Have they any claim upon the care of educational missionaries? Have the educational missionaries any duty in hospitals? Very few, we think, have given much attention to these questions: no society, so far as we know, has followed any definite policy in regard to them. A single instance will reveal how important they may be. A doctor who was deeply interested in the teaching of Chinese illiterates took steps to have the illiterate convalescents in his hospital taught to read. The average time which these patients spent in the hospital was three weeks, and in that time they could learn to read the Gospels in simplified script fluently. They thus left the hospital not only healed in body, but with a new interest in life, and a considerable knowledge of Christian truth, and a power to advance in it, and a power also to instruct others. In a hospital for Chinese coolies in France this doctor taught one patient to read the Gospel. The patient was then removed to another hospital where he taught no less than forty of his fellow-patients to read. If such results can be obtained, it would be well to consider whether we are making full use of the opportunities afforded by the gathering of large numbers of patients into hospitals all over the world. Illiterates are not the only people who might profit by Christian teaching, classes for literates might be equally valuable. Large numbers might leave our hospitals with a considerable knowledge of Christian truth, and a new interest in life, with power to advance and to teach others, if they were systematically taught. In one missionary hospital regular courses were given on Christian Evidences, and courses on the education of children might well be given to parents in hospitals.
Here again a table cannot reveal the type and character of the work done: it can only tabulate visits. The work would include the teaching of illiterates to read, and instructing convalescents of higher education either in classes or individually.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Total | Number | Total | Number | Remarks Number of | Regularly | Number of | of | and Hospitals. | Visited by | Patients. | Scholars | Conclusions. | Educationalists. | | Taught. | --------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | | | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
We might now sum up this branch of our inquiry thus:--
--------------------------------------------------------------------- | Foreign | Native |Assisting|Assisting|Assisting|Remarks | Mission | Assist | in |in |in | and | -aries. | ants. | Evangel-|Hosp- |Schools. |Conclusions. | | | istic |itals. | | | | | Tours. | | | --------------------------------------------------------------------- Evange-| | | | | | listic | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Medical| ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Educa | | | | | | -tional| ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Then we shall surely have some idea of the extent to which the whole force works together towards one end.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 24: THE NATIVE CHURCH.
========================================================================

CHAPTER VIII.
THE NATIVE CHURCH.
In the Introduction we pointed out that the end for which the work surveyed is undertaken ought to govern the survey of the work. Now we are constantly told that the end for which the station is founded is the establishment of a Christian Church in the district so strongly that if the station with its foreign staff disappeared, the Church would remain and bring up each generation in the Christian Faith.
This proposal sets before us a real end for the mission station. It suggests a point at which the station will have done its work; the mission would then have no more place in those parts. The station has thus an end, not only in the sense that it has an object at which it aims, but a point at which it ceases. But this end is not simply a point in the far distant future; it is a condition, or state of the Church in the district, into which it must be growing. Then the growth of the native Church is more important than the growth of the mission, and all things should be directed primarily to that end, so that as the native Church waxed the mission should wane, and thus the end should be reached naturally and easily and not by a catastrophe. If that is the end, then the survey of the station and its district cannot fail to take the form of an inquiry how far progress in this direction has been made.
Since our ideas of missionary work are wrapped up with the establishment of mission stations and consequently with the purchase of land and buildings, since we rely almost wholly upon paid workers for the prosecution of the work, since we employ most expensive methods of propaganda, such as the establishment of great medical and educational institutions, since our societies at home are almost wholly absorbed in the effort to procure funds to pay for all these things, it is not surprising that money takes a supremely important position in our thought of all missionary work. Consequently, when we think of the growth of the native Church in power to carry on the work which we have begun we naturally think first of self-support.
Self-support is now one of the most common missionary catchwords. We hear it on every platform at home; we hear it in the mouths of large numbers of our converts abroad. There exist in the mission field large numbers of what are called "self-supporting churches". Our missionaries often set this self-support before their converts as a status of honour, and offer them encouragements of various kinds to induce them to become self-supporting as soon as possible. At home, if we ask concerning the progress of the native Church, they often answer us by telling us the numbers of these self-supporting churches.
What then is meant by a self-supporting Church? We might naturally suppose that a self-supporting Church was a Church which was independent of external support; we might suppose that it could maintain itself without any assistance from mission funds; we might suppose that, when a Church became self-supporting, the mission, so far as finance was concerned, could withdraw and move to some fresh place. That is sometimes the case, but very rarely. We know, for instance, a case where fourteen Christians in a small town provided their own chapel and its furnishing and upkeep, and all subsidiary expenses without any assistance. They had no paid ministers and therefore no salaries to pay. They were from the very beginning entirely self-supporting, and the missionary could, and did, leave them and go to others who needed him more. But in this case there was no mission compound, no elaborate system of mission education, and no mission fund from which the chapel could be built and a pastor provided, before the converts were ready to provide these things for themselves.
Most commonly the mission does all these things, and then self-support does not necessarily imply independence of foreign support. We have met native Christians who assured us in one breath that they were members of a self-supporting Church and that their Church did not receive its fair share of mission funds. Self-support does not necessarily mean independence of external pecuniary aid.
What then does the status of a self-supporting Church imply? Nothing certain, but just what the society, or the missionary, chooses. Take a case. In a newly opened outstation the converts subscribed $5 Mexican, a head, per annum. The missionary in charge of the district estimated that $500 per annum would pay the rent and upkeep of the chapel, and the salary of the pastor. Therefore he calculated that when the membership of the chapel reached 100, the congregation would be self-supporting. But if a school were founded and fees paid, then the day of self-support would be very far off.
Hence it is obvious that self-support is an arbitrary standard fixed on no certain grounds; and progress towards self-support is simply a progress towards a line which the foreigner prescribes. Just as each father among us here in England, according to his class and standard of living, fixes a standard for his son, saying, "When he earns so much he will be able to maintain himself," so the society, or the individual missionary, fixes the standard for converts. In this case, the foreigner insisted on the salary for the pastor, he created the building, its ornaments and expenses; and where this is done the day of self-support must be more or less delayed. More or less, for what one man considers abundant another thinks hardly decent, simply because each has learnt in a different school different ideas of what is necessary or desirable. Consequently one man makes the day of self-support easy of attainment, another loudly proclaims that his people are so poor that they cannot possibly be expected to provide for themselves.
Furthermore, we must observe that in the first case the converts arrived speedily at self-support because the foreign missionary never for a moment allowed them to be anything else, whilst in the second the missionary provided what he thought necessary until such time as the Church was sufficiently wealthy to pay for it. The one Church decided for itself what it needed, and what it needed it took the necessary steps to supply: the other accepted what was given to it and was asked to subscribe more and more to pay for it. But when the provision is first made largely from some more or less mysterious foreign source, the converts will never subscribe to a fund so organised as they will to a fund which they raise and administer themselves to supply what they themselves want, and cannot have unless they provide the necessary money to get it. Self-support then, as the word is most commonly used, means anything but genuine self-support, and does not represent the power of the people to supply their needs. It means only the subscription of money sufficient to pay for certain things which are more or less arbitrarily fixed by the missionary or his society.
Neither is it any sure evidence of the zeal and liberality of the Church which is called self-supporting. The existence of self-supporting churches is indeed sometimes used as an argument to show that the Church is growing in this Christian virtue. But this is largely deceptive. The existence of self-supporting churches does not necessarily prove Christian liberality. Take the case which we quoted above where the Christians subscribed $5 a head. It was said that when they numbered 100 members they would be self-supporting. But, if they still subscribed $5 a head, there would be no more liberality in the Church of 100, which was self-supporting, than in the Church of ten, which was not self-supporting. There might be more, if the ninety members added were very poor; there might be less if one wealthy man joined the Church. Since the status of a self-supporting Church is one of honour and privilege, the members might even be tempted to admit an unworthy member who was well off in the hope that his subscriptions might aid them to attain that glorious position without much self-denial or effort on their own part.
Moreover, the collection of money is a highly developed art. It is extraordinary what pressure men can bring to bear upon converts to induce them to subscribe, so that the contribution is in many cases little different from the payment of a tax. It is truly amazing to read how many forms of appeals and fees can be invented to collect money from more or less unwilling givers.[1] We cannot then accept the existence of self-supporting churches as an evidence of liberality, nor base our calculation on the sum subscribed for the upkeep of such churches.
[Footnote 1: This is a list of the means employed to raise money by one missionary in order to assist the people in his district to arrive at self-support:--
(1) Sunday collections. (2) Share of first fruits (crop seasons). (3) Monthly membership family assessment. (4) Special missionary or harvest thanksgiving (twice a year). (5) Pinch of rice at every meal as thanksgiving (women's share). (6) Box in houses for prayer meetings, etc. (7) Church box. (8) Dedication of special pepper or cocoa-nut trees for church repair. (9) Bible society collections. (10) Hospital collection. (11) Baptism offerings. (12) Marriage offerings. (13) Lord's Supper offerings. (14) Special gifts for church building or equipment.
It is not surprising that he adds that he is told that some of the new converts have gone back because they see the regularity and frequency of giving.]
Nevertheless, seeing that self-supporting churches are widely recognised, let us begin with these and seek to find out what information a table of inquiry might supply. We should ask first for the number of self-supporting churches in relation to (a) the number of communicants (or full members) in the district, and (b) the number of Christian Churches organised, but not self-supporting. By an organised Church we understand a body of Christians in any place who hold regular religious services, and may send delegates to any council which may exist for the whole station district.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Communicants.|Proportion of |Organised|Proportion of |Remarks |Communicants |Churches.|Organised |and |connected with | |Churches |Conclusions. |Self-supporting| |Self-supporting.| |Churches. | | | --------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | ___________|_____________|_______|______________|__________
From this we should learn briefly, and as a starting-point, the proportion of the self-supporting churches, and that might help us to understand the progress made towards self-support as it is understood in the district, and enable us to compare it with that of other districts. But this by itself would not be of any great value in assisting us to understand what progress had been made towards the establishment of a Church which could stand alone, if the station with its foreign staff were withdrawn. No Church which does not advance can stand, and the mere attainment of this arbitrary standard does not necessarily prove capacity to advance or to stand. The effort to attain it sometimes leads the converts to concentrate their attention upon themselves. They set self-support before their eyes as an end to be attained for their own sake. It has consequently sometimes happened that native churches, established on this self-supporting basis, have become self-absorbed, self-seeking. They have so looked on their own things that they have tended to lose sight of the things of others. They have become, like many little Christian communities at home, so entangled in the effort to maintain their own dignity, their own services, their own progress in outward prosperity, that they have forgotten the real purpose of their existence, and, instead of becoming centres of light and attraction and active zeal for the spread of the gospel, have degenerated into self-contained units indulging a self-satisfied pride in the glorious position to which they have attained as self-supporting churches. The history of some churches on the West Coast of Africa and in South India suggests the need for such a warning, and urges us to pursue the inquiry further.
We should inquire, then, what number of inquirers, adherents, hearers, catechumens, etc., are seeking entrance into the Church in connection with the self-supporting churches as compared with the total number of such inquirers, adherents, etc., in the district and compared with the number of communicants in connection with those churches.
---------------------------------------------------------|-----| In District (excluding Self-supporting Churches). | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Communicants. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Inquirers and Adherents. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Proportion of Inquirers to Communicants. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| In Self-supporting Churches. | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Communicants. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Inquirers and Adherents. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Proportion of Inquirers to Communicants. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Remarks and Conclusions. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----|
Such a table should, we think, prove illuminating as revealing the influence and zeal of the members of the self-supporting churches.
A further light on this subject might be gained by comparing the number of unpaid workers connected with the self-supporting churches with the number of such workers in the whole district, excluding the self-supporting churches.
---------------------------------------------------------|-----| In District (excluding Self-supporting Churches). | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Communicants. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Unpaid Workers. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Proportion of Unpaid Workers to Communicants. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| In Self-supporting Churches. | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Communicants. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Unpaid Workers. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Proportion of Unpaid Workers to Communicants. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Remarks and Conclusions. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----|
This would supplement the previous table and tend to correct any mistakes to which it might give rise.
Thus far of the missions which recognise self-supporting churches. As for the mission districts in which no such distinctions have been made, all that I think we need to do is to recall the tables which we made when considering the native force (p. 54 sqq.), and to supplement them with tables designed to reveal (1) the power of the Christians to conduct their own religious services independently of the foreigner; (2) their power to direct their own Church government; (3) their power to supply the material needs of their organisation according to the ideas which they have received and hold.
With regard to the first question, all that we need to know is what proportion of the Christians are in a position to carry on their own religious life independently of foreign help. In the Anglican Communion that involves the presence of a duly ordained priest: in some societies which deny the necessity of ordination, yet give a position not unlike that of the priest to their ordained men, it would involve the presence of a pastor. Others deny the necessity or advantage of any ordained ministers. Under these circumstances we cannot use accepted ecclesiastical terms; but by capacity for conducting their own religious services we must certainly at least mean capacity to perform all necessary religious rites, and that, for Anglicans at any rate, must include Baptism and Holy Communion. Suppose then that we accepted the "organised churches" as a basis and inquired what proportion of these organised churches could, and did, perform all necessary religious rites, we should indeed omit the floating and isolated members of the unorganised Christian community which in some districts might be very large, but we should nevertheless, we hope, get a definite and common basis which would really give us some light on this difficult but important problem, and if we added a question as to the proportion of the Christian constituency connected with these organised churches we should have some check upon a serious misunderstanding.
---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Number of Organised Churches. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Proportion of Christian Constituency | | Connected with these. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Number of Churches Capable of Performing all | | Necessary Religious Rites without External Assistance. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Proportion of these to Number of Organised Churches. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Remarks and Conclusions. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----|
The second question is, How far the Church in the district can direct its own life and order its own government. The difficulty here arises from the very diverse forms of Church government which have been taught to the natives by their foreign teachers, some of them late and difficult representative systems, not easily grasped even by educated men. Is there then any general question which will suffice to throw light on this problem, where the people are in the midst of the process of learning an unfamiliar form of government?
Were very simple and almost universal ideas always followed, as for instance in episcopacy, which naturally adapts itself to the simplest and most common conceptions and experiences of men, in that the bishop is closely related in idea to the father of the family, or the head man of a village, or the governor of a province, or a chief of a tribe, or an autocratic emperor, or a constitutional monarch, according to the notions and experience of the people--so that a bishop is as easily understood by a nomad family, or a village community, as by a democratic nation, according to its stage of development, and if native bishops were universal, as they are not, the problem would be comparatively simple. Indeed then we need scarcely ask the question at all. Either patriarchal episcopacy, or monarchical episcopacy, or constitutional episcopacy all men can understand, whether the bishop is elected by his people, or appointed by his predecessor, or by his fellows, or both elected by his people and confirmed by his fellows--such things all men can understand and maintain, each the form suited to their own stage. But constitutional episcopacy when the people are at the patriarchal stage of development, or republicanism when the people are at the monarchical stage, they cannot understand, until they have learnt to understand it by long and slow experience. But many of the systems introduced by us are the latest and most advanced systems. How then can we discover to what extent the Christians have mastered them? We can find no question which solves this problem. We can only suggest the bare questions, what proportion of the people take a proper and active part in the system of Church government under which they live; and what proportion of the congregations take an active part as congregations in that system of Church government.
---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Number of Christians who take any part in Church | | Government by Vote or Voice. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Proportion of Total Christian Constituency | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Number of Congregations who take a share as | | Congregations in Church Government. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Proportion of Christian Congregations. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Remarks and Conclusions. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----|
By the first question we understand the number of Christians who vote or speak or act in any way, either personally or by electing representatives, in the direction of the common action of the whole Christian community viewed as a unity; by the second question we understand the number of congregations which are represented at any council higher than the council of their own congregation.
We think these questions most unsatisfactory, but we can devise no others. We have no doubt that, if all the foreigners disappeared suddenly, the native Christians would either perish or would speedily adopt a form of Church government which they understood. The whole necessity for these questions arises from the fact that we have foisted upon them foreign systems and are uncertain to what extent they have really grasped them. The consequence is that when we think of a Church capable of standing alone we are in doubt. We do not feel certain that the converts could carry on their government; and some of us think a change in the form of Church government as serious a matter as the change from Paganism to Christianity: it is an excommunicating matter. Inevitably then in an inquiry such as ours we must try to discover how far the people are advanced in the understanding of the organisation which they have been taught. Until they are quite sound in this faith and fully trained in this system, whether it is a circuit or a presbytery or a democratic episcopacy, or a papacy, they cannot possibly stand alone. Who would dare to suggest such a revolutionary idea! Why, they might adopt a native governmental system--something which they understood at once, quite easily, and then where should we be? We know how to administer the system in which we were brought up: it is better that they should learn that.
Finally we make an inquiry concerning the power of the Christians to supply the material needs of their religious organisation. We want to know to what extent they are really dependent on foreign funds, and to what extent they can stand alone financially.
It is tempting to imagine that we can discover this by a mere calculation of the total expenditure on all work carried on in the district and comparing this either with the number of Christians and their relative wealth or poverty, or simply with the contribution which they actually make, concluding that the difference between their contribution, or their estimated power to give, and the cost of the work carried on in the area is the difference between their power to supply their needs and their real needs. But foreign funds are largely spent upon things which, however excellent they may be in themselves, are not really necessary for the religious life of the Christians, such as missionaries' salaries, high schools, colleges, medical institutions, and expensive buildings. Consequently to know the total expenditure in the area is not to know the necessary expenditure. The native Church might maintain its life and conquer the whole district without spending in actual money a tithe of that which we spend on providing the people with medicine and education and buildings and foreign missionaries.
Yet the question cannot be avoided. Missionaries all over the world carefully count every penny which the converts subscribe, and search diligently for some new method of doubling it, in order to lead their converts towards the goal of self-support. What that goal is we do not know. We cannot tell how far the Christians can supply their own needs, if we do not know what the needs really are. And that we do not know. In a certain very real sense Christians can always provide what is necessary for their religious life. They could all always be self-supporting, if we did not invent needs and insist upon them; and what we insist upon depends entirely upon the school in which we were brought up. The standard set, as we have already explained, is purely arbitrary.
Under these circumstances how can we express the position of the native Church with any approximation to truth? We can only suggest that these arbitrary standards should be accepted, and ask that they should be defined in every case. We should ask the missionaries, or the societies, to estimate the amount required to supply that minimum upon which they insist. If we did that, remembering always that the estimate made must be doubtful and arbitrary, and that the native contribution, whilst comparatively large funds are regularly supplied from a foreign source, will never represent the power of the Christian community to supply its own needs, we should at least have some standard by which we might estimate the position of the Christian Church in the country, and its progress. We suggest then that three items should be included in the table: (1) the total expense of carrying on all the work in the station district, whether the funds were provided from foreign or native sources; (2) the amount estimated to cover the necessary expenses of the native Christian Church; and (3) the amount subscribed by the native Christian community. We think these three items taken together would help us to understand the situation.
---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Total Expense of Church and Mission in the Area | | per Head of Christian Constituency. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Amount Estimated to Cover all Necessary Expenses of the | | Native Christian Constituency per Head. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Amount Subscribed for all Purposes by the Native | | Christian Constituency per Head. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----| Remarks and Conclusions. | | ---------------------------------------------------------|-----|
We have now, we hope, some light on the question how far we are really succeeding in attaining a purpose which we hear constantly proclaimed, as if it were indeed a governing object of our work, the creation of an independent native Church.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 25: SURVEY OF DISTRICTS WHERE TWO OR MORE SOCIETIES ARE AT WORK
========================================================================

CHAPTER IX. SURVEY OF DISTRICTS WHERE TWO OR MORE SOCIETIES ARE AT WORK AND
SURVEY OF MISSIONS WITH NO DEFINED DISTRICTS. I. Districts in which Two or more
Societies are at Work. Hitherto we have taken for granted that only one
missionary society is at work in the district and that the survey is therefore
simple; but in many mission station districts some other society is also at
work. Occasionally the district of one station overlaps part of the district of
a station of another society. In many districts Roman Catholics are at work, and
certain forms of their work cannot be ignored, and no form of their work ought
to be ignored in surveying the district. If two missions sent by different
societies are at work in the samedistrict then, it would be an immense advantage
if the survey of the district could be made a joint production. Union for study
is often possible, when union in work is impossible, and the common
understanding of the situation is most useful. But if that is impossible, then
each society must survey the whole district, and, what an immense amount of
labour would be wasted in the preliminary survey, the physical toil of
travelling over the country to see the villages and towns, which must be seen to
be known, and must be known to reveal the secret of the task which the mission
is founded to fulfil, that labour is known only to one who has undertaken such a
task, and will soon be known to anyone who starts out conscientiously to survey
any district. But it is helpful and illuminating labour, and it would be far
better that the heads of two missions should survey the whole of the same
district separately than that neither should survey any of it. If both feel that
in any real sense that is "their district," then they ought both to survey it
all; for to call a district mine which I have not even surveyed and do not know
even by sight is absurd; but it would lighten their labour and help their mutual
understanding if they surveyed it together. If a part of the district overlaps
part of another mission district, that part should be surveyed together if
possible, or if that is not possible, by each separately. In this survey the
work of no Christian society, however remote ecclesiastically or theologically
from the surveyor's point of view, should be omitted. Ignorance of the work done
by others is the worst possible form of separation. There is a sense in which it
is true that the more remote the ecclesiastical position of another is from our
own, the more near we are to definite opposition, the more important it is that
we should know what his work is. We may find in it so much to admire that our
annoyance at what seem to us his ecclesiastical absurdities may be softened. If
we survey the district together we shall perhaps find there is room for both,
even if we each start with the persuasion that there is no room for the other
anywhere in the world. On no account must we fail to consider another's work. In
educational or medical work we must recognise that a school or a hospital which
exists, by whomsoever created, in the district makes a difference to the
situation. To deal with the district as if that school or hospital did not exist
is to deal with an imaginary district, not with the real one; and no one
supposes that there is any advantage in dealing with things that are what they
are as if they were something else. We have observed a certain tendency to
recognise this truth in the matter of education and medicine, and to introduce
into survey proposals a note, when the educational and medical tables were
reached, to remind the surveyor that the educational and medical work of some
society of which he is afraid, or from which he thinks himself widely separated,
as extreme Protestants from Roman Catholics, must not be ignored; but in the
evangelistic and Church tables no such note is inserted. This is, we suppose, a
tacit acceptance of the idea that the opposite party's evangelical and church
building work can be ignored with trifling loss--that to ignore it does not much
matter. But if a man is surveying what he calls habitually "his" district, he is
surveying it presumably to get at the facts, and one of the most important facts
which he needs to know is how far the preaching of Christ has extended and where
Christian churches have been established. Unless then he is prepared to deny the
name of Christ to the opposite party (and that is a very serious thing to do),
he cannot ignore their churches. The people claim to be Christians and declare
that they believe in Christ. If the surveyor without further inquiry rejects
them because they belong to a society which he does not like, that may be an
exhibition of ecclesiastical zeal, but it is not the science of surveying.
Whatever he may think of them, as a surveyor he has no right to ignore them. He
is surveying "his district". There are in it so many persons of various
religious belief, amongst them his own converts and these Christians of the
opposite party. He perhaps refuses to recognise the latter as Christians; but
they are undoubtedly neither Moslems nor Confucianists, nor Buddhists, nor
Hindoos, nor do they belong to any of the non-Christian religions. He cannot
ignore them. He must take count of them. Therefore if in a district the
Protestant and the Roman Catholic cannot survey together, the Protestant who
does survey must carefully consider the facts before his face, and endeavour to
find out what the facts really are as well as he possibly can. The facts are
that Roman Catholics are working in what he calls "his district"; the facts are
that there are churches here, and here, and here, and people who call themselves
Christians so many, and that the heathen population is by so many less. And
there are so many mission priests, and they win converts, and the converts won
by them cease to be heathen, for they are sometimes persecuted by their heathen
neighbours, even as his own converts are persecuted. Happily all leading
surveyors are realising these obvious facts and are now taking these things into
serious account; but it is still necessary to insist on their importance. In
these tables, when other missions are at work in the district, all that is
necessary is to add one column of the work of the other missions so far as it is
known, or can be ascertained. We are well aware that that easy phrase covers in
many cases great practical difficulty. Here is one of the places where estimates
may be inevitable. If they are inevitable, they should be estimates, not
guesses, and a note should be made of the process by which they were reached.
The difference between an estimate and a guess is that an estimate is the result
of a definite train of reasoned calculation and a guess is not. For an estimate
reasons can be given, for a guess none other than--it occurred to me. II. The
Mission which has no Defined District. We believe that the vast majority of
missions accept a territorial district; but there are missions where the station
district has not and cannot be defined. The idea of the mission is not
territorial. The object proposed is not to cover any area with mission stations,
nor to establish in every town and village a church or chapel, but to create at
a centre a Church of living sons trained and educated by many years, perhaps
generations, of care to become the centre of a movement which may cover the
whole country; or it may be to influence movements which arise in the religious,
political, or social life of the people, and to direct these into Christian
channels. In such cases a territorial foundation is impossible. The mission
exists in the midst of a people and influences the people; it makes converts, it
establishes them in the faith, it cares for them in mind and body, it prepares
them to set the moral and religious standard for any Church of the future. It is
not concerned directly with the widest possible preaching of the Gospel. When
the native Christians whom it is painfully and slowly educating and training
come to maturity they will spread the Gospel throughout the length and breadth
of the land. It is not, we are told, the business of the Foreign Mission to
preach the Gospel in every village of a defined area nor to make itself
responsible for such preaching directly: it should give to converts in every
country the highest and best and fullest teaching of Christian civilisation, in
order that by so doing it may show to all the people of the country an example,
by which they may be attracted and influenced. If we take the widest expression
of such mission activity we find that to estimate the true value of such work we
should be compelled to survey not only the mission and its activities but the
social, moral, material, and spiritual state of the people among whom the
mission was planted, and seek for signs of a change which we could trace with
some certainty to the influence of the mission. That would be a stupendous and
most intricate undertaking. Where innumerable forces are at work such as are
implied in the impact of western civilisation upon the peoples of the East, or
of Africa, it would be extremely difficult to state the exact impression made by
the mission, even if we could survey the whole state of the people at regular
and definite periods. We do not for a moment doubt that all Christian missions
do exercise an influence of this wide and far-reaching character, and from time
to time we can see results which clearly spring from it, but we cannot think it
wise to set out this vague influence as the primary purpose of a mission. We
believe that the Christian missions which aim directly and primarily at the
conversion of men and the establishment of a living native Church produce this
fruit by the way. If, however, we take the narrower expressions in the statement
of aim which we have set out above, we find in it the purpose of establishing a
Church, but the establishment is viewed as the result of a long and elaborate
training and cultivation of a comparatively small body of Christians, rather
than as the immediate result of widespread work. In such a case we ought to be
able to trace progress and to place these missions in a common scheme. The early
tables of work to be done and of the force in relation to that work on a
territorial basis certainly fail. The leaders of the mission have not the
information and do not want it, but they could almost certainly provide the
facts concerning the force at work contained in the tables without the
proportions for the district, and they would perhaps be able to fill up most of
the other tables omitting proportions to area and population. Now if they did
that we should be able to see the force at work and the type of work in which
the mission was strongest and weakest, and the relation of the different types
of work to each other, though it is probable that the tables dealing with the
native Church as distinct from the Mission would not be filled up. With that
information we could almost certainly define more or less exactly the place of
the mission in a large area such as the province, or the country; for in dealing
with the province or the country we must necessarily mass figures, and we have
there a known, or estimated, area and population, to use as a basis for
calculation of proportions and comparison, and we are aiming at placing each
mission in a larger whole and trying to see what part each takes in the
performance of a great work which is world wide in its scope. If the missions
then which decline a territorial basis for their work would fill up those tables
which reveal the nature of their work and the force engaged in it we should be
able to advance to the next stage. This is what we meant when at an earlier
stage we remarked that we had drawn our tables to serve a definite purpose, but
that we had not ignored the case of the man whose idea of the purpose of a
mission differed from our own.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 26: SURVEY OF THE WORK IN A PROVINCE.
========================================================================

CHAPTER X.
SURVEY OF THE WORK IN A PROVINCE.
In few parts of the world is a mission station really an isolated unit. In most of the countries to which we go there are many stations of many different missions, all aiming more or less definitely at the establishment of a native Church, whatever their conception of the Church may be. In the vast majority of cases these stations have some relationship to one another. The definition of districts for the mission stations is commonly recognised, and in planning new work directors of missions frequently allow themselves to be influenced, in some way and in some degree, by the position of existing mission stations. There are also in some parts of the world bodies composed of leading members of many of the missions that work in the country, who meet to consider the progress of the Christian faith in the province or the country as a whole, and deliberately plan their work with some consideration of the position and character of the work done by the others. Now in all this there is a manifest approach to the idea that mission work in the country or province is a common work, and that the various missions engaged in it are not antagonists, but allies. It is certainly true that we are far from having reached the stage of a common direction and a real unification of work Rivalry and antagonism are still rampant, but the recognition of the fact that we must consider the position and character of other missions in directing our own is a most important advance; and it implies that we ought, in some measure at least, to be able to express the work of any mission station in relation to all the mission work done in the province or country, and to understand, at any rate in some degree, what place it takes in the mission work in the province viewed as a whole. It is true that a great many missionaries would refuse to admit that the recognition of other stations in the planting of our own is an acknowledgment of the unity of our work; but whether they acknowledge it, or whether they do not, it is so, and we for our part recognise it with thankfulness and look forward to a day when missions will not only recognise others by avoiding them, but by planning missions deliberately to assist each other. For that seems to us the necessary conclusion. The moment we recognise a station as a Christian mission station which we must not disturb, we have gone a long way towards recognising it as a mission station which our own must not only not disturb, but must complement; and when we know that one mission must complement another we are really not far removed from establishing our missions with common consultation each to supply what is lacking to the other.
Holding this view, we desire to discover what place each mission station occupies when we take a wider view and survey the province or country. Here we shall be able to adjust many apparent inequalities in the mission stations viewed by themselves. From our previous survey of the mission stations one by one we may have got the impression that some of them as mission stations designed for work in a district were very ill-balanced. The medical work, or institutional work of some kind, may have seemed to be out of all proportion to the other forms of the work, and this impression may remain when we view the province. But on the other hand it may be seriously modified; because when we review the work of the province as a whole, we may find that the institutional work of the province as a whole is out of proportion to the evangelistic work, and in that case we should think the disproportion at the station more serious. On the other hand we might find the institutional work in the province inadequate, and in that case the emphasis which seemed undue in the one place, and may really be improper in that one place, nevertheless, in view of the situation in the whole province, may be shown to be reasonable in relation to the whole province. How then can we gather together the returns from all the stations so as to present a view of the work in the province? For that is the first thing. We cannot put the station into its proper place in the province until we have a view of the work in the province treated as a unity.
In provinces, large cities and towns, which are not reckoned as part of any mission station district, have to be taken into account. These large cities, capitals of provinces, countries, or empires, need special consideration, and must often be surveyed separately. They are centres in which many societies have their head-quarters, and many missionaries live, yet the work done in them is not always so impressive or extensive as the numbers of missionaries might suggest: occasionally the missionaries are all congregated in one quarter of the city, and large portions are practically untouched. In them, too, are sometimes large city congregations, self-supporting indeed and self-governing, but sucking into themselves all the more vigorous elements of the Christian community and employing them within a somewhat narrow circle. The problem of the evangelisation of these cities is a very serious one.
We suggest that these great cities might be treated either as one district or as several, and that they ought to be surveyed systematically by a body representative of all the missions in each city. If a proper survey were made and the facts tabulated, the statistical tables would be similar to those for the station district, and we could use them to complete a survey of the work done in the province treated as a unity.
But to view the work in the province as a unity we do not need all the detail of the station districts, indeed we should only find the multiplication of detail confusing. To gain a general view of work in a large area such as a province or a small country we must first of all select those features which are common to all the parts and vitally important. We venture to suggest that the important features to be represented are five. (1) The work to be done in the whole area. (2) The strength of the whole force at work in relation to the work to be done. (3) The extent to which emphasis is laid on various forms of work. (4) The extent to which different classes, races, and religions in the area are reached. (5) The extent to which the Church has attained to self-support.
1. If the mission stations and their allotted districts covered the whole country, we should need to do no more than add together the returns obtained from the station statistics which we have already drawn up. But in most countries there are large unoccupied areas of the size and population of which we are more or less ignorant. What we have is, either a census return for the whole province, or an estimate of its area and population. In dealing with the whole province then we must treat the station returns of towns and villages occupied and of the numbers of the Christian constituency as work done; and then we must find out the relation of these to the whole area and population. This would have to be done probably first on a large scale map which would show the density of the population in different parts of the area, and would show the stations and the strength of the Christian constituency in relation to the area and population. These facts could then be expressed in a table, and we should gain at once an idea of the extent to which the missions were in a position to reach the population. The table would be exceedingly simple and give us no more than the barest idea of the work to be done in its vaguest expression.
------------------------------------------------------------------ | | | Christian Con- | Non-Christian Province. | Area. | Population. | stituency. | Population. ------------------------------------------------------------------ | | | | ________|______|____________|______________|__________
If, in addition to this, there was either a census return or a credible estimate of the cities, towns, and villages, in the area, a table could be drawn of the cities, towns, and villages occupied, in the sense that there were Christians resident in them, and the work could be expressed in that form also, which would greatly assist the understanding of the other.
______________________________________________________________ | | | Occupied. | Unoccupied. Province.|________________________|_________________________ | | | | | | |Cities.| Towns.| Villages.| Cities.| Towns.| Villages. _______|_____|_____|________|______|_____|________ | | | | | | _______|_____|_____|________|______|_____|________
We ought here to repeat that we do not imagine for a moment that the Foreign Missions are to occupy all the villages or even all the cities and towns. We believe that a careful statement of work to be done in this form would very speedily force us to realise, with a clearness and power never before experienced, the truth which we often repeat, that the conversion of the country must be the work of native Christians.
2. The force at work in relation to the work to be done. Here again it would not be sufficient to add together the figures returned from the stations, because in a large area like a province or a small country there are often many missionaries not at mission stations but at some large centre engaged in work for the whole province rather than for any particular mission district; as, for instance, translators or journalists; men engaged in hostels or Y.M.C.A. work; or in large institutions, such as training colleges, medical or educational or industrial; or in some special form of Christian philanthropy, such as work amongst lepers, blind, deaf and dumb, and other infirm or defective persons; or men engaged in assisting the missionaries all over the country as directors, or forwarding agents; and all these must be taken into account in considering the foreign force in the province. Including all these we should get a table for the foreign force similar to that which we had for the station, and that force we could relate directly to the work to be done.
__________________________________________________________________ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re- | | | | | | | |marks Popu- | Total |Propor-| |Propor-| |Single|Propor-| and lation.|Foreign|tion to| Men. |tion to| Wives.|Women.|tion to| Con- | Force.| Popu- | | Popu- | | | Popu- | clu- | |lation.| |lation.| | |lation.|sions. _____|_____|_____|____|_____|_____|____|_____|____ | | | | | | | | _____|_____|_____|____|_____|_____|____|_____|____
We cannot sacrifice the proportions, because the life is in them. Comparison of conditions in different areas can only be made on proportions. The mere statement of the figures with the suggestion that anyone can work out the proportions would reveal a singular ignorance of human nature.
For the native force all that we need for the present purpose is a table that will show us the Christian constituency, communicants, and workers in the whole province in proportion to one another. Here also we must include many workers and some congregations in large towns which the station district survey may have omitted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- |Total.| Proportion| Proportion |Proportion |Remarks | |of |of Christian |of |and | |Population.| Constituency. |Communicants.|Conclu- | | | | | sions. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Christian | | | | | constituency| ---- | ---- | | | --------------------------------------------------------------------- Communicants| ---- | ---- | ---- | | --------------------------------------------------------------------- Paid workers| ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | --------------------------------------------------------------------- Unpaid | | | | | Workers | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
3. It is important to consider carefully the proportions in which the force is engaged in different forms of work since, as we have already explained, these different forms are often, if not generally, treated as distinct and separate methods of propaganda, and men want to know what is the effectiveness of each. They ask, what are the fruits of medical and educational work, and they expect an answer in terms of additions to the Church. If the dominant object of missions is the establishment of a native Church this is indeed not unnatural; but, as we have already said, many educational and medical missionaries might resent this demand, for they have other ideas of the nature and purpose of their work. Nevertheless, since this native Church is constantly presented to us as the dominant purpose of all our efforts, it is only right that we should make the inquiry here, as we did in the earlier chapters, and ask how the force in the field is divided. It seems almost absurd that we should have no idea in what proportion medicals, educationalists, and evangelists should be employed in any field. In some countries medical work is by far the most effective, if not the only possible form of propaganda; in some fields the evangelists can work effectively almost alone, and medical institutions are not the same necessity, and their establishment does not produce great results in the building of the Church when compared with the work of evangelists and educationalists. In some places their aid was at first apparently necessary to success, but as time went on that first desperate importance ceased. We have not so large a medical force that we can afford to use it for any but the most important and necessary purposes; yet, if the establishment of a native Church is the dominant purpose, large numbers of medicals are doing work which is (from this point of view only) of second-rate importance, whilst work which only they could do is left undone, and cries aloud for their assistance. Similarly, if the establishment of a native Church is really the dominant object, educationalists are often wrongly directed and placed. They are not producing fruit in this regard (of course in this regard only) in anything like the abundance which they might produce if they were free to attack the real questions of the education of the native Church. In many centres they are doing splendid work for the enlightenment of the people, but close beside them are large bodies of Christians who from the point of view of the establishment of a native Church need their help much more.
We ought then to know in each province how the force is divided and what is the fruit of the labours of each class of missionaries viewed from the standpoint of the building up of the native Church.
Now if we know the proportions of the workers in each class in each country, and if we could have a table which told us with any degree of accuracy the numbers of the inquirers, communicants, and places opened by the labours of each class, we should surely have some facts from which we might gain light on this most practical question, in what proportion the work of each class of workers was most effective in each country as an evangelistic and church-building agency. We propose then two tables (see opposite page).
(i)
___________________________________________________________________ | | Paid |Amount of| Amount of | Remarks | Mission-| Native | Foreign | Native | and Con- | aries | Workers.| Funds. |Contributions. | clusions. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Evangelistic| -- | -- | -- | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------- Medical | -- | -- | -- | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------- Educational | -- | -- | -- | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------- Other forms | | | | | of work. | -- | -- | -- | -- | ___________________________________________________________________
(ii)
___________________________________________________________________ | Inquirers | | Places Opened | Remarks | Derived | Communicants | Directly Through | and Con- | From | Derived from | Influence of | clusions. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Evangelistic| -- | -- | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------- Medical | -- | -- | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------- Educational | -- | -- | -- | ___________________________________________________________________
If we desire to know the influence of our medical and educational work upon the native Church we ought certainly to have a table which, for the schools at least, would show us what proportion of the pupils who passed through the schools became valuable members of the Church. But every one who has had any scholastic experience, and has tried to follow the after-history of his pupils, knows that that is not easy, even in external and material affairs, and when the inquiry is concerned with internal convictions and religious influence that difficulty is insuperable. A few specially endowed and devoted educationalists could indeed tell the after-history of a considerable number of their pupils, and ideally all schools ought to have a record of the history of pupils for at least a few years after leaving the school; but there would always be a percentage of loss; in many cases that percentage would be very high, and we doubt whether many schools have any record at all. Under these circumstances to put into an inquiry such as that which we propose a question concerning the after-life of scholars or patients seems almost impossible. Yet we cannot be content. There are mission schools which go on year after year educating boys for a business career, and generation after generation of boys pass through the school, large sums of mission money are expended on them, and the results from a missionary point of view are shrouded in Cimmerian gloom; or the general darkness is relieved by one or two exceptional pupils who, because they do very well, appear to justify the existence of the institution in which they were educated, though they would probably have been as valuable Christians if they had been educated in any other school. In this way a very low average is often concealed. If a school is judged by a few exceptionally good scholars, it should also be judged by a few exceptionally bad ones. It is indeed of serious importance that the missionary value of some of our medical and educational, especially the educational, institutions should be carefully examined and tested by an appeal to indisputable facts. It is generally supposed that education in mission schools must necessarily produce a strong, enlightened, and zealous Christian community. That it produces a large number of Christians intellectually enlightened is certain: that they are zealous evangelists is not as certain. We want a statistical table to reveal the missionary value, not the commercial value, of the education given. But what table can we draw? The preceding table which sets forth inquirers and communicants is clearly insufficient though it is better than nothing. Until every school keeps a careful record of the after-history of at least a large number of its pupils it seems impossible to get any clear light on the question.
4. With regard to the extent to which different races and classes are reached by the missions, we may safely assume that the Christian missions ought to extend their benefits to all classes and races in the area, and that there ought to be some proportion between the efforts made in each case. If, and when, the responsible leaders of the missions decided that the time had come to concentrate on one particular kind of work for one particular class, we may be perfectly certain that they would have no difficulty in justifying their action. But in any case action should not be taken without consideration of proportions, and, therefore, it is important that the proportions should be known.
But in dealing with work in the province or small country we cannot simply repeat the table prepared for the mission district. In the province or country there are often missionaries at work who give themselves up wholly to one class. It is difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish every possible form of work; but seeing that very considerable work is done amongst students, we have thought it well to add one column in which the proportion of the children of different classes who are attending Christian schools or living in Christian hostels is set forth:--
___________________________________________________________________ | | Agri- | | | |Remarks Percentage Stud-|Offi- |cultural|Traders.|Labourers.| Crafts-|and of: ents.|cials.|Small- | | | men. |Conclu- | |Holders.| | | |sions. ______________|____|______|______|________|______|_____In Population -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | ______________|____|______|______|_________________________In Christian -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | Constituency | | | | | | ______________|____|______|______|________|______|_____In Christian | | | | | | schools and | | | | | | hostels, -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | percentage | | | | | | of children | | | | | | of | | | | | | ______________|____|______|______|________|______|_____
With respect to work among different races, castes, etc., no addition to the table prepared for the district seems necessary, and we therefore repeat it:--
--------------|-----------------------------------------|------------ | Races, Religious Castes, etc., whatever| Remarks | they may be. | And | |Conclusions. --------------|-----------------------------------------|------------ In Population | ---- | --------------|-----------------------------------------|------------ In Christian | ---- | Constituency | | --------------|-----------------------------------------|------------
5. Concerning self-support, one table should, we think, suffice. We cannot possibly adopt any estimated necessary expenditure such as we proposed in the table for the station district because in the province that estimate would be almost impossible to make. Different missions have different ideas, and their estimates have for themselves some reality; but they have no reality for others, and a mere average of the estimates given for all the missions of the province would have still less reality. It would be an absurd guess, meaning nothing. If we want to judge progress in self-support we must have some definite key figure by which to judge it. What figure then can we use? The total cost of all the work carried on in the province is an impossible figure.[1] The mere contribution of the native Christians by itself means nothing. That is the figure generally given. The native Christian subscribed $6000 last year, $7000 this year. Here is progress. The progress is an addition of $1000. But does that tell us their progress towards self-support unless we know what self-support implies? In the year the Church ought to have increased in numbers, and the $7000 may represent exactly the same position as the $6000 represented last year. Expenses may have increased: the $7000 may be actually further removed from self-support than the $6000 last year. We must have a proportion of which we can trace the variation if we want to see progress. But is there any expense which we can use to strike the proportion? Suppose then we suggest the pay of all evangelistic and pastoral workers and provision and upkeep of churches, chapels, and preaching rooms. That would at least give us something to work by. But it might be difficult to calculate. We would propose then, as a secondary item, some easily calculable and known expense, something which every missionary accountant knows, such as the pay of all native pastors and evangelistic workers, and then compare with these the contributions of the Christians for Church and evangelistic work only, excluding all fees for education and medicine. That would, we think, give us a standard which we could apply without having to consider complications introduced by such things as Government grants to schools or hospitals. We propose then to judge progress in self-support thus:--
--------------------------------------------------------------------- | Total Cost | Total | Total | | of all | Salaries of | Native | | Evangelistic | all Paid | Contribution, | Province.| and | Native | excluding | Remarks and | Pastoral | Evangelistic | School or | Conclusions. | Work, Men | Workers, | Hospital | | and Material. | including | Fees or | | | Pastors. | Donations. | --------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
[Footnote 1: In Dr. Eugene Stock's "History of the C.M.S.," vol. ii., p. 420, we are told that "In 1863,... 400 families raised 1371 rupees, equal then to £137. These families consisted mainly of labourers earning (say) 2s. a week; so that a corresponding sum for 400 families of English labourers earning 12s. a week would be £137 x 6 = £822, or over £2 a year from each family. A few years later, taking the whole of the C.M.S. districts in Tinnevelly and reckoning catechumens as well as baptised Christians, their contributions were such that, supposing the whole thirty millions of people in England were poor labourers earning 12s. a week, and there were no other source of wealth, their corresponding contributions should amount to £6,000,000 per annum." Yet he says on the very next page that "It was not possible for the native Church, liberal as its contributions were, to maintain its pastors and meet its other expenses (he does not say what the other expenses were) entirely. The society must necessarily help for a while.... This grant, in the first instance, had to be large enough to cover much more than half the expenditure."
If this was the case in one part of a province, what would happen if we took the whole expense of all work carried on in a whole province or country and used that as a standard by which to test progress in self-support?]
Turning now from the force at work we must consider the force in training, for this is prophetic. Let us then take first a table which shows the proportion in which students are being trained for pastoral and evangelistic work, for medical mission work, and for educational mission work, in the province or country, regardless of the place at which they are being trained, whether that place is inside or outside the area under consideration. This ought to show us on what lines we may expect the work to develop in the near future.
___________________________________________________________________Total |For Evangel- | | | | | Students |istic Work, |Propor- |For |Propor-|For Educa-|Remarks in |including the |tion of|Medical|tion of|tional |and Training.|Pastorate. |Total. |Work. |Total. |Work. |Conclu- | | | | | |sions _______|____________|______|_____|_____|________|______ | | | | | | _______|____________|______|_____|_____|________|______
Then we must examine more closely, if we can;--and first of the evangelistic workers. The difficulty is to classify, because ecclesiastical nomenclature is so confused that it is almost impossible to use any terms which would be widely recognised. The best we can do is to distinguish grades of training, beginning from the top thus:--
1st grade, college or university. 2nd " high school. 3rd " regular Bible school. 4th " intermittent, irregular Bible instruction.
It will probably be found that the first grade is commonly prepared for, and looks forward to, the charge of a settled congregation, or of an organised church, and the lower grades do the pioneer work, and it may well suggest itself to thoughtful men whether this is rightly so.
Then, educationalists in training: again we divide by grades roughly:--
1st grade, college or university. 2nd " normal school. 3rd " high school. 4th " teachers of illiterates.
The college students presumably look forward to work in the high schools, or colleges, or normal schools; the normal school pupils to work in normal schools, high schools, and large primary schools; the high school pupils to work in village schools; and the teachers of illiterates to village work, or work among the poor in the towns. Of medicals the generally recognised distinctions seem to be, qualified practitioners, assistants, and nurses.
Following these lines we should obtain simple prophetic tables for each of the three branches of work.
(i) Students in Training for Evangelistic Work.
---------------------------------------------------------- 1st Grade. | 2nd. | 3rd. | 4th. College. | High School. | Regular | Intermittent. | Bible School | Teaching | ------------------------------------------- -------------- | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------
(ii) For Educational Work.
---------------------------------------------------------- 1st Grade. | 2nd. | 3rd. | Teachers of College. | Normal. | High School. | Illiterates. ------------------------------------------- -------------- | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------
(iii) For Medical Work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1st Grade. | 2nd. | 3rd. To be Qualified Doctors. | Assistants, including Dispensers, |Nurses. | etc. | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------
If we had those tables for men and women we should see fairly plainly how the work might be expected to develop.
But here we ought to remember the difficulty which we set forth earlier in discussing the missionary influence of our various activities, medical and educational, from a Church building point of view. A great many boys are educated and trained at mission expense to be evangelists, medicals, and teachers in mission employ, who serve indeed for a period according to their contract and then disappear into Government service or private practice. It is a serious question whether missionaries can be raised up successfully in this way. "I will give you training if you will promise to serve the mission," is not a very certain way of securing ready, wholehearted, zealous service of Christ. We have found out its uncertainty in many cases at home; we have found it out in still more frequent cases in the mission field. Unless we keep a very careful record of the after-life of those whom we train, and a very honest one, we are apt to ignore the failure, a failure which we cannot properly afford, and consequently we cannot know what we are really doing by our training. We ought to know the truth in this matter, both for our encouragement and our admonition. Happily here, we think, we can find an easy and a valuable test. If we ask what proportion of those whom we train continue in their missionary work after the end of their first term of service, we shall certainly have some enlightenment; for it is true of medicals and educationalists, and of evangelists, though in a much less degree, that if any man continues in missionary work after he has fulfilled the letter of his contract, it will generally be because he has his heart in the work; for missionary work seldom, if ever, offers the emoluments of Government service, or of private practice. We ask then--
SURVEY OF WORK IN A PROVINCE
--------------------------------------------------------------------- |Evangelistic | Medical | Educational --------------------------------+-------------+---------+------------ Total Students | | | --------------------------------+-------------+---------+------------ Trained at Mission Expense, | | | Wholly or in Part. | | | --------------------------------+-------------+---------+------------ Number who Continue in | | | Mission Work after the end | | | of the Term of their Contract. | | | --------------------------------+-------------+---------+------------ Proportion of Total Students | | | who so Continue. | | | --------------------------------+-------------+---------+------------ Remarks and Conclusions. | | | --------------------------------+-------------+---------+------------
If the institutions in which the training is actually carried on lie within the province, then we ought to have tables such as we have for the schools in the station area for these institutions. We need no elaborate statistics in this place, because the work of these institutions should be specially treated in departmental surveys. Here, all that we need is to relate the work of the schools or hospitals which were omitted in the station district survey, because they served a larger area than the station area, to the work done in the province or country. The educational returns from each station area must be added together and the returns of these larger institutions added to the total educational statistics; that will give us the work done in the larger area in proportion to population.
But in the province it is important to consider the relation in which the different grade schools stand to one another; because if the aim of the missionary educational system is the education of the Christian community, and the higher schools are designed primarily for Christian pupils from the lower schools, this relation is of importance. It is possible to build an organisation too narrow at the base and too heavy at the top, and then to fill the higher schools with non-Christian pupils without any definite understanding of the way in which that practice is to serve the main purpose of the mission. Then these schools stand on a distinct and separate basis from the rest of the mission activities, and the work of Christian missions in the country is split, part aiming directly at the establishment of a native Christian Church, and part "aiming at the general improvement of morals, and social, religious, and political enlightenment. Thus we arrive at that chaotic state in which the mission as a whole is not subordinate to any dominant idea of the purpose for which it exists, which alone can unify the work of all its members. But if the colleges and schools are designed for mutual support, and if the higher have any relation to the lower grades, then there must be some proportion between the base and the superstructure, and that proportion must be known and expressed in any survey worthy of the name. We include, therefore, the following table:--
--------------------------------------------------------------------- | Mission | Proportion | Proportion | Remarks | Schools, | to | to | and | Number | Population. | High | Conclusions. | of. | | Schools. | --------------------------------------------------------------------- Primary | | | | Schools | | | | --------------------------------------------------------------------- High | | | | Schools | | | | --------------------------------------------------------------------- Normal | | | | Schools | | | | --------------------------------------------------------------------- Colleges| | | | --------+-----------+--------------+-------------+-------------------
In the province also we must know the educational facilities afforded by non-missionary agencies, if we are to have any true conception of the work of the educational missions. We must therefore add a table for these schools.
------------------------------------------------------------ | Non- | Proportion | Remarks. | | Missionary | to | | | Schools, | Population. | | | Number of. | | | ------------------------------------------------------------- Primary Schools | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------- High Schools. | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------- Normal School | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------- Colleges. | | | | -------------------------------------------------------------
Here it is not necessary for us to find the proportion between the higher and lower grade schools, because we are not surveying the non-missionary educational work, and their scheme of proportions is not our business.
A comparatively slight addition to the tables for medical work in the various station districts will suffice to give an adequate impression of the medical work done in the whole area. We need not go into details, for the medical work should be, and generally is, reviewed by Medical Boards in their reports. For us now, all that is needed is the addition of tables, similar to those which we used for hospitals in the station area, for hospitals excluded from any station survey.
Two other subjects ought to be included in this provincial survey, namely, literature and industrial work. First, we must try to find a table which will express the work done by those important missionaries who are engaged in providing Christian literature, both for the Christian community and the heathen outside. Here we find once more the difficulty that, whilst a few missionaries are wholly engaged in this form of missionary work, much is produced by missionaries who have already been included in the tables as either evangelistic or educational or medical missionaries, and we also touch bookselling and other kindred commercial questions. With the commercial aspect of this work we cannot deal. The following tables will throw light on the extent to which Christian literature is being produced and read:--
(i)
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of Missionaries wholly Engaged | Proportion of Total in Literary Work. | Missionaries. ---------------------------------------+----------------------------- | ---------------------------------------+-----------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of Vernacular | Number of | Proportion of Sales Christian Books Produced | Christian Books | to Population. in the Year. | Sold in the Year.| --------------------------------------------------------------------- | Bibles or | | Bibles or | | Scripture | Other | Scripture | Other | Portions. | Books.| Portions. | Books. -------------------------+-----------+--------+------------+--------- | | | | -------------------------+-----------+--------+------------+---------
If the business side of literary work is difficult, the whole position of industrial missions is still more difficult. In some countries industrial missions seem to be trading ventures with a Christian intention, in others industrial missions are really almost entirely educational establishments. The best tables which we have ever seen dealing with this subject were those drawn by Mr. Sidney Clark in one of his papers, "From a Layman to a Layman".[1] All that we can do is to suggest that industrial missions which are in the main clearly and unmistakably educational should be included in the educational work, and that the missions with large commercial interests, even if they are doing a valuable educational work for the community, should be treated separately, thus:--
[Footnote 1: Printed for private distribution by Mr. S.J.W. Clark, 3 Tudor Street, Blackfriars, London, E.C. 4.]
Industrial Missions,
(a)
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Province. | Number of | Amount of Mission | Proportion of | Industrial | Funds Allotted to | Total Mission | Missions. | such Work. | Funds. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | ________|____________|___________________|___________________
(b)
--------------------------------------------------------------------- | Number of | Number of Missionaries | Proportion of Province. | Industrial | Engaged in such | Total | Institutions. | Institutions. | Missionaries --------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | ________|______________|______________________|______________
(c)
------------------------------------------------------------- | Number of | Number of | Proportion of Province. | Industrial | Native Agents | Native Christian | Missions. | Employed. | Workers Employed. ------------------------------------------------------------- | | | ________|___________|______________|_________________
In some missions the proportion of missionaries and native workers so employed would be very small; in others they would be very considerable. There is now a tendency to hand over some of the industrial work as it develops along commercial lines to Boards of Christian men who are interested in the social and spiritual aspect of the work.
In the province we must also consider union work, work done in common by two or more societies,[1] sometimes evangelistic, sometimes medical or educational training, sometimes the establishment, or enlargement of an educational or medical institution; or sometimes, as in Kwangtung in South China, several societies unite in a "Board of Co-operation". This union of societies for the better and more efficient performance of their work is a most important development of the last few years: important both to the workers on the field and to us at home. We ought, therefore, to have a short table to show what is being done.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- | Number of Societies | | Number | Co-operating in |Number of | of |--------------------------------| Societies |Remarks Societies|Evangelistic|Medical|Educational| Co-operating| and at Work. | Work. | Work. | Work. | in all Work.|Conclusions. ---------+------------+-------+-----------+-------------+------------ | | | | | ---------+------------+-------+-----------+-------------+------------
[Footnote 1: The larger and more important movements towards corporate union, such as those now taking place in S. India, China, and E. Africa, lie outside the scope of this survey until their completion affects their statistical returns. Then the importance of them will speedily appear.]


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 27: THE RELATION OF THE STATION TO THE WORLD.
========================================================================

CHAPTER XI.
THE RELATION OF THE STATION TO THE WORLD.
We have now dealt with the survey of the station and of the province or small country, but the final end of missionary work is the attainment of a world-wide purpose. The Gospel is for the whole world, not for a fragment of it, however big. Missionary work cannot properly be carried on in any place except by means and methods designed with a view to the whole, and missions can never be properly presented to us at home so long as we are taught to fix our eyes on small areas; because the great characteristic of missions is their vastness. This is what is so uplifting and ennobling in the work. Every little piece of mission work ought to be directed on principles capable of bearing the weight of the whole. We ought to be able to say, "The whole world can be converted by these means and on these principles which we are here employing in this little village". If the methods and the principles are so narrow that we can build no great world-wide structure on them, we can take little more interest in them than we do in the petty politics of some little parish at home.
We have then yet to demand that we shall be able to put every little station into its proper place in this larger whole, and to see how its principles and methods are illumined by the vision of the whole, being established with the design of accomplishing the whole task. We turn then now to this larger view of mission work. The tables which we have drawn for a province or small country would enable us to compare the work in each area with another such area in the larger whole, and to judge whether we were unduly neglecting any; where the Church was strongest and where it was least established; where it was more capable and where it was less capable of taking over that work which rightly belongs to it, of extending its own boundaries, and of maintaining its own life. We should not send hasty missions here or there because some interesting political event attracts the eyes of men to this or that particular country, but on definite missionary principles, acting on a clear and reasonable understanding of the missionary situation in the world.
The commission of Christ is world-wide, the claim of Christ is world-wide, the work of Christ, the Spirit of Christ are all-embracing; and the work which missionaries do in His name should be all-embracing to. We should conduct all our work, and plan all our work, at home and abroad, with our eyes fixed on the final goal, which is for us, so long as we are on this earth, coterminous only with the limits of the habitable globe. We cannot be content to approach even the largest areas as though our action was limited by them. All our policy in every part should be part of a policy designed for the whole. If it is not designed to accomplish the whole it is not adequate for any part.
How then could we gain a vision of the whole, a whole composed of such vast and diverse parts? Obviously we must have for every country in which any missionary work is carried on some common returns, either those which we venture to suggest or others which some abler minds might suggest; but that they must be common to all, and fundamental in character, is obvious; and they must be reduced to proportions on a common basis, or comparison and combination will be impossible; and they must be as few as possible in order to avoid confusion.
We suggest, then, that if we had the four tables which follow we should possess a reasonable basis, sufficient for our present needs, especially since we suppose they would be supported by the tables for the different provinces, countries, and stations which we have already suggested, and they ought to be supplemented by surveys made by each society of its own work and by departmental surveys of medical, educational, industrial, and literary work made for the special direction of each of these branches. But for a first general view of the whole we propose:--
(1) A table showing the force at work in the area in relation to the population:--
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Proportion to Population. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Province| Popula-| Total | Chris- | Com- | | or | tion. | Foreign | tian | municants | Paid | Unpaid Country| | Mission-| Constitu-| or Full |Workers.| Workers. Area. | | aries. | ents. | Members | | --------|--------|---------|----------|-----------|--------|--------- | | | | | | ______|______|_______|________|_________|______|_______---------------------------------------------------------------------
That would give us a general view of the force at work in relation to the work to be done and of the proportions between its constituent parts. Then (2):--
--------------------------------------------------------------------- | Proportion of Paid | Proportion of | Workers | Unpaid Workers -------------------|------------------------|------------------------ Propor- | | Christian tion |-----------|------------|-------------|---------- Constitu- of | | To | |To ency. Liter- | To | Christian | To |Christian ates. | Com- | Constitu- | Com- |Constitu- | municants.| ency |municants. |ency. -------------------|-----------|------------|-------------|---------- | | | | -------------------+-----------+------------+-------------+----------
That would give us an idea of the character and power of the force. (3)
--------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | Percentage | Percentage | | Paid | of Total | of Total | Missionaries.| Native | Foreign Funds| Native | | Workers.| Employed in. | Contributions | | | | Employed in. -------------+--------------+---------+--------------+--------------- Evangelistic | -- | -- | -- | -- ----------------------------+---------+--------------+--------------- Medical | -- | -- | -- | -- ----------------------------+---------+--------------+--------------- Educational | -- | -- | -- | -- ----------------------------+---------+--------------+--------------- Other forms | -- | -- | -- | -- of work | -- | -- | -- | -- -------------+--------------+---------+--------------+---------------
That would give us relative emphasis on different forms of work.
(4)
-------------+---------------------+--------------+------------------ | Total Amount Paid | |Relation of Native Christian | to Native Evangel- | Total Native | Contribution to Constituency.| istic Workers In- | Contribution.| Pay of Workers. | cluding all Pastors.| | -------------+---------------------+--------------+------------------ | | | ___________|___________________|____________|_________________
That would give us some idea of the extent to which the native Christians support the existing work.
Now if we could form some idea of the force at work in relation to the country in which it is working; and some idea of the character of the force; and some idea of the relative emphasis laid on different forms of work, and some idea of the extent to which the native Christians support the work, we should, we hope, be able to form a reasonable estimate of the extent and progress of our efforts in the world. The whole number of forms would not be very large, for there would only be about 150 areas from which such forms would be required, and these could be combined so as to give us a view of the situation in the world such as the mind could grasp.
This is, we admit, rather a hasty and tentative expression of the way in which we might satisfy the present need; but it seems to us that the time is ripe for the consideration of this great subject, and we can think of no better plan than to propose tables, and then to leave others to criticise and amend them, or to suggest better ones, or better methods of attaining an object which few would deny to be desirable.
With proper tables, these or others, we should then be able to trace the meaning and results of each station which we founded and to put it into its place in a reasoned scheme of things, and that is the crying need.
End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Missionary Survey As An Aid To Intelligent Co-Operation In Foreign Missions, by Roland Allen
*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MISSIONARY SURVEY ***
***** This file should be named 13360-8.txt or 13360-8.zip ***** This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: http://www.gutenberg.net/1/3/3/6/13360/
Produced by Ted Garvin, Josephine Paolucci and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team.
Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will be renamed.
Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at http://gutenberg.net/license).
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg-tm License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.net), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided that
- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.
- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY
- You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official page at http://pglaf.org
For additional contact information: Dr. Gregory B. Newby Chief Executive and Director gbnewby@pglaf.org
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit http://pglaf.org
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works.
Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
http://www.gutenberg.net
This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
Missionary Survey As An Aid To Intelligent
by Roland Allen
A free ebook from http://manybooks.net/


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 28: - TITLE/CONTENT
========================================================================

Roland Allen Library

Allen, Roland - Missionary Methods| CHAPTER I Introduction| CHAPTER 2 Strategic
Points| CHAPTER 3 Class| CHAPTER 4 Moral and Social Condition| CHAPTER 5
Miracles| CHAPTER 6 Finance| CHAPTER 7 The Substance of St. Paul's Preaching|
CHAPTER 8 The Teaching| CHAPTER 9 The Training of Candidates for Baptism and
Ordination| CHAPTER 10 Authority and Discipline| CHAPTER 11 Unity| CHAPTER 12
Principles and Spirit| CHAPTER 13 Application| Allen, Roland - Missionary Survey
As An Aid| CHAPTER I. THE IMPORTANCE OF A DOMINANT PURPOSE.| CHAPTER II.
PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS.| CHAPTER III. STATION DISTRICT SURVEY.| CHAPTER IV.
THE EMPHASIS LAID UPON DIFFERENT TYPES OF WORK.| CHAPTER V. MEDICAL WORK IN THE
STATION DISTRICT.| CHAPTER VI. EDUCATIONAL WORK IN THE STATION DISTRICT.|
CHAPTER VII. CO-OPERATION BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT ELEMENTS IN THE MISSION.|
CHAPTER VIII. THE NATIVE CHURCH.| CHAPTER IX. SURVEY OF DISTRICTS WHERE TWO OR
MORE SOCIETIES ARE AT WORK…..| CHAPTER X. SURVEY OF THE WORK IN A PROVINCE.|
CHAPTER XI. THE RELATION OF THE STATION TO THE WORLD.|


========================================================================
Source: https://sermonindex.net/books/writings-of-roland-allen/
========================================================================