Got your steel-toed boots on? It’s possible that I’ll be stepping on some toes here. That’s not my intent, it really isn’t. Nor am I trying to offend anyone, especially my missionary friends. But I have to ask these questions that have been plaguing my thoughts in the areas of overseas missions and missionary support.
My first post on missionary support asked how missionaries could raise support outside of institutional church. The original question was talking about sending Western missionaries overseas. The comments were great, and the discussion really got me to thinking; thinking hard about a lot of things. A few commenters mentioned the relative wealth of people in the Western world and imagined how much could be given to missionaries if they gave more. I completely agree with them – but their comments lead me to this next question. Why is so much money going to Western missionaries in the first place? Oh boy, this is loaded, I know. Bear with me.
Last year I read a book titled Revolution in World Missions by K.P. Yohannan. Has anyone else read it? I don’t have the book with me right now, so I can’t give any excerpts, but it really rocked my boat with regard to missions in general. One thing the author pointed out was that to send a Western missionary to another country requires a huge investment of money (airline tickets and setting up a home for starters) and time (to become acclimated to the language, money, customs, culture, etc.). On the other hand, native believers are already in the area, know the language, and are familiar with the intricacies of the customs, local governments, and culture. They are already WAY ahead of the game.
For many, many years, the Western world has sent missionaries all over the world, and God has done amazing things through them. I think God still does. But, are things changing? Is there another way?
I’m not saying that the day of the Western missionary is over. Let me repeat that in bold: I’m not saying that the day of the Western missionary is over. I know that God calls people to go overseas. I also know there is incredible value in experiencing other cultures and learning from them. But in re-examining missionary support and missions in general, I think we have to look at this. I think we must look at this. No sacred cows allowed.
Have we gotten into some traditional mindsets with regards to overseas missions? Are we asking the right questions? Using the best strategies? Are we willing to change? How can Western missionaries, churches, and communities work with native believers (to partner with each other – to be the Body of Christ – to be brothers and sisters with a common vision) to find the best ways to use finances, resources, experiences, gifting, etc. in their target areas? What if it means that fewer Western missionaries are sent overseas and more money is given to native believers?
Hard questions, for sure. If I’m behind the times or off base here, please let me know. I want to learn and understand.
20 comments:
It's interesting that you mention KP Yohannan's book because that is one of the things I was thinking about when I read your first post. I think that sometimes Americans in particular have an idea about mission work, that we are needed in every case. Revolution in World Missions makes a great point about the wisdom of indigenous missionaries being a great way to invest in missions. I'm all for it.
One idea from a church that my aunt and uncle helped plant several years ago about missions was this: Their church decided to invest heavily in one missionary family, rather than smaller amounts going to a wider range. Their thinking was that if they could do 50-100% of a missionary's funding, that it would give their missionary a deeper meaning within the church family, and it would give the missionary less to worry about when on furlough, etc. since they didn't have to go visit dozens of supporting churches. Instead they could actually rest and regroup before returning to the mission field. I thought that was a great idea.
However, a close friend of mine is a missionary and her opinion on this idea was different. She felt that the prayer support from all of their various supporting churches was very important, and she was glad for all of the churches involved even though it meant more work for her when she was in the US. (she also mentioned that if something happened and the church pulled their support, they would be totally down the tubes, which obviously wouldn't be very good) They have now been on the mission field for 5 years so I will have to see if her opinion is the same.
A couple of people have mentioned the high costs of sending organizations. I wanted to mention that was have two personal friends and their families that work with Frontiers. This organization has a very low admin cost. At the time when our first missionary friends went on the field it was the lowest cost admin they could find. I'm not sure if that is still true today.
Good thoughts!
Mary,
I believe that there are times when the money would actually be better sent to the ministry or people in need rather than to fund sending a person to them.
The person giving must discern where the Lord is directing their giving. A person asking for support must also discern whether their going on the mission is a good stewardship of the money required to send them.
I agree with dollymama that funding indigenous missionaries is a great investment of mission funds. Also, I believe it is a more missional model than the old Western imperial mentality.
We personally focus more of our giving on ministers (missionaries) who are living among rather than ministers who are going to.
Much of what has been called missions has really been westerners going overseas to experience and learn other cultures. Not that it isn't valuable, but it is sometimes more about education rather than mission.
Perhaps I am still reactionary about this after funding institutions for so long, but whether local or overseas, we are attempting to give in ways where the money we give goes to people in need.
Hopefully I haven't stepped on toes either. I just think that it is important for both those giving and those going to steward well the resources that are available.
I second the recommendation of Bosch's Transforming Mission for some important ways to think through mission. Constants in Context by Bevans & Schroeder provides another way to analyze mission, with a bit of a Catholic bend. And lastly, there was a marvelous issue of the journal Missiology that addresses "short term" mission trips aka spare tire missions. A must read!
Many of my conservative friends think of mission as solely evangelism, and many of my liberals as social improvements. both approaches have some interesting problems caused by our ethnocentrism. Indigenous missionaries solve this problem for places where there are enough Christians. (Great work on tracking the various ethnic and linguistic groups who have not been reached is being done out of Gordon Conwell Seminary.)
What I have discovered in my studies under a brilliant professor of World Christianity is that mission is most biblical when it results in mutual transformation. Think of Peter and Cornelius - each experienced profound change as a result of the other! If a congregation is to sustain mutual tranformation as a result of mission, a continuing relationship with specific missionaries in specific places is important - and the relationship should be marked by reflection on the transformation of one's own group.
-two cents from a seminarien in the northeast!
Though I do agree that indigenous missionaries and supporting them is perhaps the best way to use mission money. However, we have had numerous short term mission projects (working both at home and abroad) that included youth, adults, and families in which they went and came alongside already established local churches and essentially blessed them with their presence, prayers, funds, and help.
In some cases they gave the locals a break in routine by leading a Sunday school (or vacation bible school) experience (sometimes in the town square even). They often helped construct a worship space for those who lacked one. They brought money to give the local pastor a motor bike so he could visit the many villages he served in much less time than by walking. In Guyana a group helped lead local teachers through an abstinence curriculum so that they could teach it on their own in the coming year (this was very well received even by the national government there because of the high AIDS rate). The local Christians were very encouraged to have ordinary folks like themselves come so far away to fellowship with and help them. Those non-Christians who were on the receiving end of the help also took notice that here were people from far away who did not believe as they did and yet still blessed them.
dollymama,
It's interesting what you said about being fully supported by one church vs. partially supported by several. I always thought it would be nice to be supported by one church, but I see the point your friend makes. Thanks for the comment!
Grace,
Thanks for stopping by! Gosh, you articulated this so well. I might be a little reactionary myself, but I agree that discernment is key. If I have a heart for a certain people group, I should ask God if that means that I'm supposed to go (which may very well be the case) or if I'm supposed to support those who are already there.
anonymous,
I absolutely love what you said about mutual transformation and continuing relationship. Those are pieces that have been missing for me in the missionary experience I've had. Thanks for the reading recommendations, too.
inheritor,
I agree that short-term missions can be an incredible blessing and have seen mirror images of the examples you gave. I think it's also important to ask God if this $8000 (for example) is best spent on a few plane tickets or on things such as several motorbikes for those who are already there (I'm not saying that you wouldn't agree - just clarifying my thoughts). I appreciate your input - it gives me more to consider.
Mary
I think you are right to question this and to do this. It is amazing how cheaply I can live once I am in a third world country. I, even though I am living on the support of others, sent $250 to a missionary in Uganda because I knew that it would take care of him for a great while there.
I am a Western missionary. However, one thing you already know inherently. It is more difficult for a prophet to be accepted in their own land. People struggle often to share the message in a way that people will accept it when they are in their home town. Take them to India and suddenly they have doors thrown open to them. Sometimes it is for the wrong reasons, but once they are in the door and sharing Jesus... it is amazing how God can use them.
And, for example, in India, if you are an indigenous missionary, you can only go to those in your social strata because of the bondage of the caste system. The same is true in other areas of the world, even the Western world. But an American enjoys broad access. Children like ours, who are very blonde, are welcomed everywhere.
Finally, obedience should never be about money. Not even as a last factor. Money is simply not a factor. If you have heard God say go, go in faith. He will provide. If you have heard God say give, give in faith; he will multiply the gift. God doesn't need yoru money and definitely doesn't need you to consider whether it is a "wise" investment to buy an airplane ticket. Simply listen for His direction on going and giving and then obey in faith.
Oh, and having read some of the above comments... giving to ministries is great, but giving to missionaries who truly are called and are ministering I think is even better. People minister. Ministries don't. If the missionaries are truly being sent and are following God's lead, they will also be looking for ways to give, serve, work, etc. A missionary isn't just a preacher of the gospel, they also are builders of wells, caretakers of widows and orphans, builders of roads and homes, teachers of medicine, teachers of sanitation and health, and so on. Don't believe the lie that a missionary is just a person who goes and preaches in foreign churches. A missionary is any Christian actively walking in the Spirit who will by definition be taking the Kingdom of God wherever he or she goes, looking for ways to serve and love those God takes him or her to in the name of Jesus.
My toes don't feel stepped on at all. I think it is important to educate all of us on what missions is, what it isn't, and how we can best be a part of God's mission. (I can't imagine lower administrative costs than organizations like Frontiers or YWAM - where it is all support based). And, ask the indigenous people if they feel ministered to by missionaries or if they just felt like they were on a tourist trip. The need is great! The workers are still frightfully few.
Bryan,
Thanks for weighing in. I appreciate your perspective, and I definitely see the points you made. And you're right, obedience is not dependent upon having enough finances.
I also think we need to be good stewards of the resources given to us - be it finances, expertise, time, whatever and always asking God the best ways to use them. I'm not saying that you don't agree; just trying to organize my thoughts. But I also know that we need to rely on God's wisdom and not our own and that God can ask things of us that don't make any sense. So, I'll keep praying and learning.
By the way, I like your definition of a missionary. Thanks for your insights.
Mary
Once again, an excellent post worth wrestling with. Before I start in my response, I want to say that I am in agreement with you that there is a great need to indigenous leadership within the global missional movement. We do need to rethink who and how we send people from the West into missions. That being said, we do risk over-simplifying a very complex issue.
First, Yohanan's book is good, but many of us have seen challenges on the field with his organization application of these principles. Local missionary can, in some areas, become nothing more than a paid position, where anyone (hopefully a Christian) rides around on a bike all day handing out tracks. This doesn't undermine the merits of the principles of the book, but it does demonstrate that application is far more challenging.
Further, there is the concern of producing ethnocentric faith communities. Ironically, the response to this issue within Western Christianity (that is, as we realize our own ethnocentric Christian expressions) is to push for indigenously lead faith communities abroad. While this intention is good, it can unintentionally produce different cultural versions of the very problem it seeks to overcome- that is, churches that are too narrowly defined their singular culture. After all, Scripture clearly shows us that God's Church is a diverse one. To that end, cross-cultural missions offers that benefit, both for the sending and receiving cultures.
Neither can we deny that we have sown the seeds of colonialism throughout the world, where deep roots have taken hold. We consistently find ourselves in cultures that, despite our best attempts to change things, still buy into the lies. Most recently our team was in Uganda and many still embraced the mythology about Western Christianity being an ideal to pursue (and their own "inferiority"). The reality is that we will have to play a role to undo much of this damage (albeit a supporting role), even as they play a role in undoing the same damage here in our contexts.
Connected to the previous point is the need for Western Christians and churches to have their eyes opened to the global reality they live in. They need to see the complexity of God's people and Creation, recognizing how the simplest of our choices can have devastating or positive impact half the planet away. Our own Christian worldview is too narrow, therefore cross-cultural relationships are crucial.
Despite the many mistakes and failures of Western Christianity, we must humbly acknowledge our strengths as well. We have a rich history of religious practice and freedom (of course fraught with all kinds of problems) that means we have a great deal to offer other cultures. I want to be careful not to suggest we have more to offer, but to recognize that, especially given our massive wealth and freedom (often enjoyed at the expense of the very people we are sending missionaries to), we do have a great deal to offer. Where much is given, much is required. Our methods and stance need to change drastically, but indigenous missions is not a sufficient model.
Finally, while not underestimating the importances and power of financial resources, nor wanting to understate the embarrassment of our excessive wealth in the West, we do not to recognize that money is but one aspect to this issue.
I fully affirm the need for better stewardship and greater generosity, all of which (in my opinion) demands that we live simpler lives as Christians, counter-culturally I might add. However, God is our provider and His calling to us may not always be the most financially efficient approach. This is not as excuse for irresponsibility or excess, but through the fear of God and sensitivity to His Spirit, we must recognize that the financial merits of our models are not enough to really inform the change that needs to take place.
I hope this wasn't too long. Great discussion!
Peace,
Jamie
I should clarify, I meant to say "indigenous missions is not, in and of itself, a sufficient model"
Jamie
I'm still hearing a lot of uni-directional mission work here. Missionaries and/or monies moving from the "rich" theological "source" of the West with very little interest in return from the South and East.
If you ask me, rather than "supporting indigenous" leaders, I'd like to see an exchange of leaders throughout the world. I think the South and Easy have a lot to offer to help transform (reform?) the consumerist, Ameri-centric theology of the West. I don't know but I perceive that the South and East (which have bypassed the Enlightenment in many ways) have a lot to teach post-Enlightenment Western culture.
Our technology has separated us. We need to relearn "village life" and rich relationships in the countries we're supposedly missionizing.
Jamie,
Nope, not too long at all. Thanks for wrestling with this. I don't want to oversimplify this issue either and have taken the points you made to heart as I wrestle with this myself. I think that change is coming to missions, and that excites me.
Bob,
You caught my attention with the idea of "an exchange of leaders throughout the world." I wonder what that would look like. I agree that, in general, the East and South have a deeper and richer understanding of relationship than the West does. There is much that they can teach us.
Mary
I too like Bob's comment on "an exchange of leaders across throughout the world" I think that represents not only the heart of mission but also the reality of globalization. Leadership from all nations to all nations.
Thanks Mary for these posts, I think you wrestle with a very important issue. I think I have seen a bit of this dilemma from both sides. As a Caribbean church leader, I have worked with many North American missionaries. Post-Colonial sentiment is strong in the caribbean and therefore it's not easy for these missionaries. Some of this is justified in my opinion. However, I also told my fellow Caribbean workers that humility is also needed on our part. Through history "other-cultural" influence can either bring a civilization forward or colonize it in various forms. I think a culture often can't see it's own blindspots. So even though indigenous workers might be more effective in so many ways. I witnessed first hand how "genuinely humble" cross-cultural missionaries were able to see things we couldn't see in our own culture and help tremendously. That's important for all to remember.
It's not only imperative for Western Missionaries to be humble in their endeavours but for indigenous countries to be humble in their reception. Indigenous cultures are tested in their reception of "the stranger" to use OT lingo as well.
Now I am a leader in Canada. For me in a sense the roles are reversed. For sure one of Canada's great strengths is welcoming the stranger. I think I have some things to contribute to this great country as I try to listen and learn as well.
So again I see a powerful model in leaders from all to all nations.
peace,
Anderson
Mary,
I wonder what it would look like as well. The one place I've seen it done is in the Roman Catholic church. They have the advantage of being a denomination with a presence in most of the world. They have ordained priests who live as servants of the larger church--as opposed to being employed by a single congregation. My parents just said "good bye" to a priest from Malawi who had served in their parish for the past year and a half.
It would take a special sort of person, though. Someone who would be willing to live their culture in the face of another (so the congregants can learn) while at the same time living humbly as a neophyte in the host culture (so they can be transformed themselves).
I suppose if smaller, independent churches can lay down their shibboleths of division and humble themselves to accept worship of God in another context, certain exceptionally generous-minded individuals could participate.
On a side note, the thing that troubles me is that we (Western folks) plainly see the problems caused by our culture (economic, social, interpersonal, religious) yet we have no qualms with exporting our consumer-driven, development-minded paradigms to the rest of the world.
I'm reminded of a story of an American businessman talking to an African fisherman. The fisherman fished each day and caught enough for his family to eat. Then he spent the rest of his day in his village talking.
The businessman was trying to encourage him to fish more so he could sell the rest of the fish. Make money. But good things for his family. Maybe hire some people to work for him. Build his business. Export. The world could be his.
The African was puzzled. He couldn't understand why. The world was already his. It fed him each day. Provided for his family. Provided for his village.
The American businessman went away feeling sorry for the fisherman. "He's missing the big picture..." He said.
The African fisherman went away feeling sorry for the businessman. "He's missing the big picture..."
Anderson,
I really appreciate the perspective and insight that you brought to this discussion. And I still really like the idea of "leaders from all nations to all nations." I also think that you made a great point about the need for humility on both sides. I think that humility will be required for missions to change.
Bob,
I'll admit that I don't know a lot about the Roman Catholic church in this area. I'd be interested to hear more about the priest from Malawi and his experience. Was he considered a missionary? Please forgine my ignorance.
Mary
Please forgive me for posting anonymously. However, I travel to areas closed to "missionaries" on a regular basis and do not wish to compromise my ability to do so.
While I think there remains a place for missionaries from one country going to another country and for indigenous "missionaries" being financially supported by those outside that country, I think Bryan has hinted at an idea that may be the most insightful. He stated, "A missionary is any Christian actively walking in the Spirit who will by definition be taking the Kingdom of God wherever he or she goes, looking for ways to serve and love those God takes him or her to in the name of Jesus."
I think we are far too narrow in our thinking when we consider only those who are sent with financial support by an institution, church(es) or individuals. When each of us who follow Jesus think of ourselves as being sent by the Father then wherever we are we will be showing the presence of Jesus to those around us. For some this will mean being sent in these more formal ways that most of us think of when "missions" comes to mind. However, with a world that has never been smaller it becomes clearer to me that these ways of missions that have predominated in Modernity will likely pass away over time. The replacement, in my view, will mean people who have so-called "secular" work being the "missionaries" of Post-Modernity. Indeed, this is precisely what is happening in North America as a part of the "emerging church" and the abondonment of the dualism of secular and sacred. Living in a university community I see this already with so many students who are following Jesus by looking for work outside North America because they wish to be the presence of the Kingdom around the world, yet they have no desire to be bound by the constraints of many institutions.
We live in one of the most important transitional periods in the history of humanity. It will have a profound effect on what the ecclesia, and equally "missions", looks like over the next century. Nothing could be more exciting than to see God at work in this transition.
Thank you, Mary, for raising an important question for all of us. We will need God's wisdom in making choices on this in the years ahead.
anonymous,
No problem about commenting anonymously - I definitely understand.
I agree that missions is in a period of transition, and I don't know what it will look like. I wonder what would happen if we all really saw ourselves as missionaries wherever we are. I then wonder how we would handle financial support.
I agree, too, that we will need God's wisdom to navigate this time of transition. Without it, we'll surely mess it up.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Mary
Great discussion, and much needed. My family and I are missionaries in Kenya and we operate outside of traditional church structures as far as fund raising goes. Basicaly we just rely upon God to introduce us to folks and if they want to give then great. Relationships are key for us not fund raising.
It has taken some time to realy trust him on this, but we are seeing it work out now.
Johnny,
Thanks for adding your experience. I agree that relationships are key. I'm not quite sure what I think about traditional fund raising, and I like your approach - trusting God and building relationships.
Post a Comment