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.