The Many Voices of Missions
I have been encouraged by several who know me and others who only know of me through this blog to continue the discussion of the differences between missions and ministry as well as the R.I.N. Strategy of Missions. For some background, please refer to my earlier posts entitled: The Morphing of Missions & Ministry and "Missions and The Missionary Task.".DISCLAIMER: If you are easily offended by straightforward and honest discussions of highly emotional topics dealing with missions and mission activities, please be aware that this post and the subsequent comments will more than likely challenge current thinking and practice. It is not the intent of our discussion to be offensive, but to hopefully shed light on an issue that literally holds the eternal destiny of millions in the balance.
The February / March 2005 issue of SBC Life featured a two page spread entitled, "Fulfilling God's Mission for Your Family". Overall the article is an excellent treatment of how to involve the entire family in mission focused activities. The issue that concerned me when I first read this piece was the definition of missions given by the author. In his fuller explanation of missions he comes back around hits some key points that we all would agree as being part of the missions task. However, it is the thinking behind and the application of the following quote from the article that I would like to address in this post.
Page 12 - "Simply put, missions is living out your faith in obedience to what God has gifted and called you to do. It's fulfilling the God-given passions of your heart. Missions is Christianity -- in action -- where you live, work, and play."
To be fair to our SBC constituency, they are bombarded with a multitude of voices and messages that many times are contradictory. This is especially true when it comes to missions and understanding the missionary task. Today, modern missions education is primarily based in two areas of church life. The occasional appearance by an RLM - real live missionary and the volunteer missions trip. The challenge for us this that of these situations offer more of an emotional perspective of missions rather than dealing with the reality of missions.
Add to this the conflicting voices about what missions is and how one can participate in missions activities. If you go to the Baptist Press article entitled, Families on Mission, you will read one perspective of missions. If you take that perspective to an IMB missionary in most places in the world, they will probably look at you as if you are from Mars. The focus and practice of "missions" in the U.S. context stands in stark contrast to principles and strategies being employed around the world. Here are some other examples of what I am hoping to communicate.
1. How does someone who has spent years working on "mission" construction projects in the U.S. adjust what they know and do to an international setting focused on church planting movement strategies where buildings are either not allowed or desired?
2. How do we convince people who are accustom to taking pictures of what they did at the end of the week that Prayerwalking is a needed and strategic missions endeavor?
3. Does it not confuse people when one model of missions is presented and practiced in the states and a completely different model is practiced overseas? On another blog recently a discussion was held concerning the merging of the SBC's two missions agencies into one. Putting aside the politics of such an endeavor, the challenge of which missions philosophy and practice would prevail would indeed raise many voices.
Even when you get past both mission sending agencies of the SBC, state conventions have their perspective of missions, local associations have their perspective of missions, and even some churches determine what and how they will be involved in missions. The challenge again is that each one of these can be completely different from the other. And you don't think this is a issue? And I have not even put on the table para-church mission organizations that are increasing their presence and influence in churches.
Several years ago my regional leader and I drafted a letter to our missionaries stating that we wanted to begin moving away from using temple construction as our primary church planting strategy. That we needed to look for strategies that would accelerate the spread of the Gospel. One or our dear colleagues felt it was important to share this with some volunteers who then sent it through a larger volunteer communication network. Whoa! The response both my RL and I received was emotionally charged and filled with anger. Once you got past the emotion, the issued really boiled down to the fact that these good-hearted men and women of God knew only one way to do missions and to suggest another was on the verge of heresy.
The reality is that when IMB missionaries who are committed to CPM strategies begin to advocate for this view of missions, we are swimming upstream in waters of differing and contradictory positions. Go to the internet and look up mission projects or volunteer mission opportunities and read what is being published. Missions has shifted from what does our efforts do to impact the lostness of others to how am I going to feel if I get involved with this project. The "it's all about me" virus has definitely taken control of much of the missions promotion and education. And this is the pool from which we draw volunteers and missionaries. This is why the above definition of missions scares me. The focus is on me, not a lost world.
It is also true that in the late 90's we made a major shift in how we implement mission strategy at the IMB. Unfortunately, most of our SBC churches still have no clue as to what that shift was and its implications on how we do missions. So let me close this post by saying, it is not my intention to point fingers or throw stones, but to simply say that it seems imperative that we find more venues for mission strategy discussions and find a way to increase the level of missions education in our local churches. If we don't, the level of discontent and discord over how to do missions will only grow and work to separate us as the body of Christ rather than being a rallying point.
If missions continues to be defined as "anything I want to do in the name of Jesus", the impact of this position is that less people hear about the good news message of salvation rather than more and missions continues down the road of being more about me and less about those who still have not heard. Missions has to be focused on taking the Gospel where there are no Christians and where there is no vibrant church. Read Mark 1:32-39, Romans 10, The book of Jonah, Romans 15:18-21, and finally, 1 Corinthians 10:33
"just as I also please all men in all things not seeking my own profit but the profit of the many, so that they may be saved."
Missions Is Not About Me!
posted by Ken Sorrell @ 9:15 AM
7 comments
links to this post
7 Comments:
As usual, very provoking post. You mention the difference between the two missions organizations within the IMB but what about the differences one finds within the IMB. Even within the same organization you find very differing missiologies. As much as we try to standardize training across the board, you still find very differing missiologies influencing missionaries within the same organization.
Churches in the states hear different opinions from not only the parachurch organizations but from within the same board. If a church wants to do a particular type of missions and shops around long enough, that church will find an IMB missionary willing to do that task... good missiology or not, they are out there.
Until a missiology of church planting movements really takes hold within the IMB missionary force, this will continue to be a big problem.
As big of a problem that re-educating US churches is, it is a greater problem really re-educating IMB missionaries. Missionaries can sit through hours upon hours of training only to come out of that training doing thet same old stuff that they have been doing for 20 years. Why? I believe that there are several reasons. Here is my top 10 list for why some missionaries and volunteers still have bad missiology even after receiving the best of training.
1) Because bad missiology is easier than doing what it really takes to reach people in other cultures. Living like the people, with the people is not easy.
2) Volunteers stroke that missionary ego. All of a sudden, you are the next best thing to the Apostle Paul to most stateside volunteers. In their eyes, because you can order at McDonalds, you speak perfect Spanish (substitute language here). You are so much more spiritual than everyone else because you are suffering for Jesus. Need I mention the gifts that the poor missionary receives from these stateside volunteers?
3) Many missionaries just don't have a clue as to how to do anything differently. Because no one has shown them how to do it, it is easier just to stay busy doing less than best activities.
4) CPM methodology is an Asian methodology that will not work in other parts of the world (not true, but often said).
5) This is just the latest IMB fad, it will turn around and we will be back to human needs, hospitals, seminaries, and buildings soon. (again, not true, but often said)
6) It is my responsibility to offer Southern Baptists a venue to "experience" missions. - I really don't like this one. I do not believe that this is an excuse for bad missiology. If you can find a way to use volunteers in a reproducible way, go for it. Charles Brock once said that he never used volunteers because he never found a way that they could be used without creating dependency. Maybe that is an extreme, but much of what volunteers are doing is something that nationals could do (probably better).
7) The american way, money solves everything. There is a belief that if we can just use some money, things will get going quicker. - There is no substitute for hard work.
8) It feels good. As already pointed out in your post. We need to be able to take a picture of it in order to have really experienced it. How do you take a picture of prayer?
9) The tail wags the dog. Missionaries just can't say no.
10) Program driven missiology. Many missionaries are looking for short cuts. There is no short cut to CPMs. You must be dedicated to heart language, contextualization, and incarnational missions.
Our motto should be, "We will do as little as possble to bring about a CPM amongst our people group." Take it the right way, it doesn't mean we are lazy, we just leave all of the extraneous stuff behind and concentrate on the few things that should be occupying our time.
One more thing... You inspired me to get my blog up and going again. I tried one several months ago and it never got anywhere. I recently started another missions blog (I know, how many do we need?)
Check out http://klinebergklippings.blogspot.com/ and let me know what you think.
Keep blogging and drinking coke!
Great Post! We need a CPM in the states. Too many churches are "me" focused about their own ministry, instead of wanting to impact lostness. Many pastors have no concern for the Kingdom of God, but only trying to build their church attendance role. Once this changes, so will the attitude of missions.
OKpreacher
George,
Very insightful comments. Thanks for your input on this topic. Let me respond to some of your points.
You are absolutely correct in saying that within our own organization we have some differing positions among missionaries. And you can still do whatever you want to do if you find the right missionary on the field. My onl caveat to this point is that "officially" the IMB's strategy for missions is based upon CPM principles. At the same time, you can find folks working with NAMB, state conventions, associations, and other places that feel very strong about this principles. Good point nonetheless.
After reading your top 10 resons it sounds like you have sat through some of our meetings. :-]
I believe it was Stuart McAllister who stated, "People do what they value, not what they believe." This is so true in the case of missions. There is a higher value placed on being able to report something than to do what needs to be done in many cases. I still believe it boils down to a lack of knowledge and understanding for most. We say that we want the whole world to know Christ, but our actions do not match that statement. Again, we do what we value.
I also want to be sure we say many times that even with folks we may not agree with, none of what is done is from a heart that is looking for ways to slow down the Gospel. I do not believe volunteers or missionaries think, let's see what we can do to mess things up on this trip or this project. We are finding that through our Frontliners Conferences in the states, many people are seeing missions and their involvement from a new and fresh perspective. I do believe there is hope to make changes, but it will take time.
okpreacher,
I do believe CPM strategies will work in the states. We just need to reinsert the DNA of church multiplication in the church growth process. I believe it is a both and and not an either or. One of the things that we need to avoid if possible is painting the issues surrounding this topic with too broad of brush. There are some churches that are "Me" focused and some pastors that have other agendas, but I do not believe it is the majority and that for most they are sincere doing what they feel is right under the leadership of the Holy Spirit. As Paul stated in Romans 10:12 and following that we need to take care when judging other brothers and sisters. They, like us will have to give an account to God. You are correct that attitudes and thinking will need to change before we see changes in actions. Thanks for your thoughts on this.
To be fair to our SBC constituency, they are bombarded with a multitude of voices and messages that many times are contradictory...
What you go on to say about modern missions education being primarily based on the occasional appearance by an RLM and the volunteer missions trip is right on the money.
One of the things I truly regret was when the IMB stopped the print version of The Commission magazine. Whatever it cost to get it back into print would be a worthwhile investment in world missions. The mag not only was an excellent missions educator, but it inspired me every time I read about the things God is doing around the world.
The whole missions education matter needs to be moved from the back-burner to front-burner.
George, good comment as well. I'll have to check out your blog!
Sorry that I have been a little preoccupied with other things of late... But, this is a great post. Just as you note what Paul writes at the end of the post, Jesus also said in John 17, in His prayer for unity, that the point of the unity isn't for us or for all the lovely things that we will experience from the unity; instead, the prayer is so that the world will know that He really was the Son of God! Missions is not about me... It is about God and His glory!!!
Bryan,
Good word!
Others, let's keep this on the front burner with our RIN discussion.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home