NO QUESTION IS MORE DISTURBING in gathering missionary statistics or in preparing maps of missions than that of scope. In certain fields of the Western Hemisphere (Mexico, Cuba, etc.) both foreign and home missionary societies, having their headquarters within the United States, are at work. Clearly a field cannot be judged as within or without the scope of the Atlas solely on the basis of the names of the organizations carrying on the work or on that of the label the work itself carries. Nor can the decision be made always on the basis of the place where the work is done. Thus certain Young Men's Christian Associations, as in Calcutta or Hong Kong, serving groups from the West, are scarcely to be reckoned within the scope of missionary statistics, even though they are within territories usually regarded as mission fields. And if the decision as to scope is made on the basis of the kind of work done, or on that of the type of population reached, again we are in difficulties. One important church body regards work with and for the half-castes in the Cape of Good Hope Province as not being missionary, while the same church body in another part of the Union of South Africa regards work for half-castes as being missionary in nature. One British nonconformist body regards its work in the West Indies as missionary, and lists its British-born workers in Jamaica as foreign missionaries, while the Church of England leaders in Jamaica insist that Anglican clergy from Great Britain who are at work in Jamaica must be listed with the native Church.
In general, the scope of the Atlas is that of the World Missionary Conference at Edinburgh, namely, work for non-Christians wherever found, this being enlarged to include the scope of the work of the Committee on Co-operation in Latin America, which has within its purview not only the aboriginal population of Latin America along with the Asiatic immigrants, but also the nominal and lapsed Christians of the Latin American republics. This twofold scope leaves out at least three groups of missions: efforts at church extension and aid on the continent of Europe carried on from an American or other base; home missions within the United States, and Canada other than those for American Indians and Asiatic immigrants; and the diaspora missions from so-called Christian lands among nationals of these lands who have scattered over the earth seeking homes or economic opportunity.
In spite of persistent efforts at clear definition of scope, many inconsistencies arise. Thus, work for Italians in Argentina is included, but not work for Italians in Italy or in America, because the work in Argentina is within the scope of the Committee of Co-operation in Latin America, while American work in Europe or among European immigrants in the United States is not. Mexico is included, but not work among Mexicans long resident, or only recently arrived, in the south-western states of the United States.
No treatment of the problem of scope has proved possible that is consistently inclusive or exclusive with respect to every type of mission throughout the world. Sooner or later, in order to achieve practicability of process, this or that problem has to be dealt with by fiat. Complete consistency is out of the question. It simply cannot be brought about amid present-day complexities. A reasonable approximation to it is all that can be hoped for.
In general, the scope of the Atlas is that of the World Missionary Conference at Edinburgh, namely, work for non-Christians wherever found, this being enlarged to include the scope of the work of the Committee on Co-operation in Latin America, which has within its purview not only the aboriginal population of Latin America along with the Asiatic immigrants, but also the nominal and lapsed Christians of the Latin American republics. This twofold scope leaves out at least three groups of missions: efforts at church extension and aid on the continent of Europe carried on from an American or other base; home missions within the United States, and Canada other than those for American Indians and Asiatic immigrants; and the diaspora missions from so-called Christian lands among nationals of these lands who have scattered over the earth seeking homes or economic opportunity.
In spite of persistent efforts at clear definition of scope, many inconsistencies arise. Thus, work for Italians in Argentina is included, but not work for Italians in Italy or in America, because the work in Argentina is within the scope of the Committee of Co-operation in Latin America, while American work in Europe or among European immigrants in the United States is not. Mexico is included, but not work among Mexicans long resident, or only recently arrived, in the south-western states of the United States.
No treatment of the problem of scope has proved possible that is consistently inclusive or exclusive with respect to every type of mission throughout the world. Sooner or later, in order to achieve practicability of process, this or that problem has to be dealt with by fiat. Complete consistency is out of the question. It simply cannot be brought about amid present-day complexities. A reasonable approximation to it is all that can be hoped for.
