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.