Missionary Survey As An Aid To Intelligent Co-Operation In Foreign Missions - Roland Allen; Thomas Cochrane

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:—

By "occupied" we mean places where there are resident Christians, few or many.

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.