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

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.