Missions Misunderstood

I've spent quite a bit of time talking with leaders of small, nontraditional churches in major urban centers in the United States. Many of them are just getting started in ministry and planting churches. I understand that starting a church takes time and energy.

So when I ask these guys about their vision for involvement in international missions, their answers tend to be something along the lines of,

"We're just getting started. Once we're a little more established, we'll launch into something like that."

or,

"We're small and don't have the resources that those big seeker churches do. For now, we're just going to stay local."

What do you want your church to be about? What message are you sending to your people by putting off missions off until you're older? Do you really think it will be easier for your people to get a vision for global involvement when you've been established for a while? Are resources an obstacle for God?

I say, start now. Start a church by rallying support for an international missions endeavor. Prayerfully select a place, a people group, or a missionary who is already on the field. Work together to develop a missional strategy to engage people with the gospel. If you don't have money, come part-time, associate with other churches and groups, or come and get jobs. Intentionally engage people on vacation, in the States, or online.

Start with global ministry, and watch what it does for your local ministry.

Starting now will establish missions as a priority for your church. It will help keep your focus outward, and give you something to work toward that has lasting kingdom significance. Not that you're "attractional," but global involvement is appealing for the kinds of people your church is meant for.

Besides, you're who we need in Western Europe. Forget the big churches who want to set up franchises around the world. We're looking for missional, relational believers who have some understanding of ministry in a post Christian culture. We need people who are creative, teachable, and anti-establishment. You're perfect for the job, so what are you waiting for?

If you were waiting for an invitation, here it is.

Lately it seems that everyone I talk to is tired of church. Some are actively involved- teaching Sunday School, attending Bible Studies, even leading worship. Others have given up church altogether, opting instead for isolated and lonely personal ministries outside any organized body of believers.

These people are not where they need to be, but not because they are in sin. They aren't rebellious or angry. They are discouraged because the church as they know it looks nothing like the community of faith that we read about in the scriptures.

Churches are all about programs, events, and activities. You're a twenty-something married couple? Thirty and single? We have a program for you. Mothers of Preschoolers. Parents of Teens. Businessmen breakfasts, Scrapbooking, Golf, Church-league softball. The more you do, the holier you are. If we haven't seen you in a while, we question your spiritual maturity.

Church leaders desperate to grow their congregations don't know the people already in the pews. The gospel has become an invitation to church, and discipleship an altar-call. Why doesn't anyone ever say, "Wow, they must be doing something wrong for God to be cursing them with all those people in attendance."?

The result of the programs- and numbers-focus is a growing number of people who are churched-out. These are faithful people who have taught the Bible studies, led the mission trips, given their money, and visited the visitors. They know what goes into each big campaign (and how little comes out), and they don't have it in them to "put-on" another one. Now they are finished. Many drop out altogether because they don't see an alternative.

Maybe your mega-church should start a program for them.

My team had an interesting discussion over the last couple of days. This isn't as remarkable as it might sound, but while most people spend Christmas talking about football and shopping, our team talks about ecclesiology. Who says we aren't committed to our jobs? (And no, there is no truth to the rumor that we deliberately discussed "work" issues in an attempt to justify paying for a turkey dinner out of our "Office Expense" accounts.)

I've posted before about my frustrations with communication and word definitions. It seems like every attempt we make at defining or describing what we believe (and why) is lost as the words we use are co-opted by others who use those same words to put a new face on traditionalisms. We've even confused ourselves as we struggle to work through the implications of what we say we're about. Our conversation this week, for example, began with this question: When one of our friends becomes a believer, can we really disciple him/her in their existing social structure?

Conventional missionaries today have begun to adopt the terms "relational," "incarnational," and "missional," but their thought on evangelism and discipleship is usually something like this: Missionaries share the gospel, nationals hear it, some reject it, others respond. Those who respond are then grouped together to form the beginnings of a "church." Another school proposes to switch the order to "group them and win them," in order to disciple people within community.

Our collective experience has taught us that although this sort of "winning/grouping" approach to church planting sounds like a good strategy, it actually does quite a bit to hinder the "indigenousness" of the foundation that we lay. Individual believers are separated from their natural social groups and placed into these artificial, "Christian" ones for the sake of support and encouragement. But that separation greatly reduces the new believer's influence in the relationships he/she had, and because the bulk of his/her spiritual transformation takes place in private (church), it has little positive impact on the community. It doesn't take long for these new Christians to be so far removed from their own culture that they need to be trained to interact with their lost friends.

So we, despite using the same words, have tried to do things a little differently. Our team's idea has always been to disciple people from wherever they are spiritually to maturity in Christ, without removing them from their existing social environment. Our discussion this week began with a current situation. A friend has recently shown some interest in Jesus. We can see him opening up to us and to the faith we're always talking about. We pray that he will soon be saved. Naturally, this friend lives a lifestyle that does not honor God. He is addicted to drugs and he regularly participates in "trance parties" (Raves put on by "Shaman" DJs who use techno music to entrance partygoers in a pagan spiritual frenzy that sometimes last days and days). Let's say he becomes a believer- can we leave him in that environment and expect him to grow in his faith and be an effecting witness to the people around him?

Again, most people would say no. They would argue that this friend needs to be removed from the dangerous situation so that he can overcome the sin that has bound him, and grow in his faith. I disagree (You expected as much).

I say that the role of the missionary (and yes, this is different from what most would say,) is to serve as spiritual "life-support" for the new believer as they struggle to work out their salvation within their own cultural context. This might mean that we meet with a national believer to disciple and encourage them, but we never "invite them to church." Instead, we pray for God to move among the new believer's circle of friends. We instruct him/her in righteousness, allowing the Holy Spirit to convict them of sin. We encourage him/her to share their faith, and pray for the day when God moves among his/her sphere of influence to plant a church there.

But nobody does it this way. For most of us, this approach is too messy, too limited, and it takes too long. What if they never feel convicted about certain sins? What if they never know another believer? What if, ten years down the road, they're still struggling with basic holiness and remedial theology. How long can a believer survive on only spiritual milk?

It seems to me that our discomfort with Christians who are struggling to make sense of their faith has led us to impose a behavioral conformity that ignores the personal tension that salvation brings. When drug addicts and homosexuals get saved, we require that they immediately stop being those things, and start acting "Christianly." From the outside, it would seem that we interpret the word "repentance" to mean that upon salvation, a person must suddenly exchange public sins for private ones. You cannot be a drug-using, foul-mouthed, homosexual Christian, but an over-eating, gossip who struggles with lust just has "a few things to work on." Is Christianity only about (openly) sinning less?

Leaving a drug addict in a circle of drug addicted friends might seem like a bad idea, but it would allow the addict to see how his newfound faith applies to his real life. It would also allow his friends to see his personal transformation first-hand and allow them to actually participate in it. The power of salvation is most evident when it contrasts with the stark reality of the situation from which we are saved. The soil in which a seed takes root is sufficient for that new plant.

Continuing the thoughts of my previous post: what we need is not more Christians trying to "reach" the "people of the world," but more "people of the world" trying to work out what it means for them to be a Christian.