Missions Misunderstood

Seth Godin says that all marketers are liars. If that's true (I think it is), then whoever produces those infomercials is the worst of them. I've never seen an infomercial that didn't insult our intelligence at every level- from the poor "acting" to the pseudo-talkshow format, it just reeks of disingenuousness.

The worst part of an infomercial isn't the lie they tell (namely, that for five easy payments of $19.99, whatever garage sale fodder they're hawking will make your life easier, healthier, and more effecient), it's the lie they don't even bother to tell: that the testimonial of their "celebrity" spokesperson is anything more than a paid advertisment.

Why does a paid endorsement mean less than one that is volunteered? Why is it considered an ethical issue when an author of a review fails to disclose his relationship to the product?

Sometimes I feel like my life is an infomercial for Jesus.

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.

When it comes to promoting missions and mobilizing missionaries, we rely on photos. In casting a vision for what God is doing around the world to bring people into right relationships with Himself, a picture really is worth a thousand words.

Or, in my case, about four blog posts.

It's unfortunate, but we often fall into the trap of resorting to stereotypes to illustrate our work. You've seen the photos; a thin, wrinkled old man, whose dark skin contrasts with his cotton beard, reaches for the Bible offered by a tall white fortysomething in khaki pants. A small group of smiling black ragamuffin children playfully hug a white lady with her hair in a bun.

I would love to see missional churches pay to send poor, inner-city believers from the States to minister to poor, inner-city families in other parts of the world.

I think that if we were serious about incarnation, it wouldn't be so easy to tell the difference between the "Missionary" and the "heathen" in a picture.

Many of us on the field are active recruiters. We are always looking for people who would be especially suited for ministry in Western Europe. Many strategists find new partners by talking about their people group. They describe the beauty of the culture, the proud history of the people, and the great spiritual need among them. The idea, I suppose, is that God would use the stories to stir the hearts of listeners and get them excited about being part of ministry overseas. 

How are you involved in international missions? In the past, mission agencies gave you three options: pray, give, or go. Hopefully, you're doing at least one of these things.

I'd like to invite you to a fourth way to participate in what God is doing around the world. You may not be aware of this, but there is a way for you to build a personal relationship with an unbelieving person from an unreached people group that is free, requires no training or time off work, and doesn't require you to learn another language.

You can be a pen pal.

Thankfully, the internet has taken the old idea of corresponding with a complete stranger on another continent and made it, well, faster, cheaper, and more fun. Here's how you can get started:

1. Visit an international classifieds website like kijiji.com, craigslist.org, or tribe.net
or a social networking site like facebook.com, myspace.com, or any of the hundreds of similar sites listed here.
Classified sites tend to be a bit easier to manage (London's gumtree.com, for example, actually has a section titled "pen pals.") and are especially good if you already have an idea of what people group or city you'd like to connect with. For now, let's assume you're using kijiji.com.

2. Scroll to the bottom of the site, and select the local site of your desired country. Many countries have classified ad sites, but it people in Western Europe are so web-connected, these countries are a great place to find someone who is likely to correspond with you.

3. Register a username and password, if necessary.

4. Search through the classified ads to find someone with whom you have something in common. Amateur authors in Wales? A guitar player in Spain? How about moms in Dublin?

5. Post a response to an ad. Or, post an ad of your own. Maybe you'd like to swap recipes with someone in Basel or find a pen pal in Berlin who likes NASCAR. (Good luck with that one). Just be yourself! Remember: for you, this may be a strange and frightening way to make friends, but for them, meeting people online is a pretty normal thing to do.

6. Wait for someone to answer your ad. Many of theses sites will email you when you receive a response. Be sure to keep security in mind as you introduce yourself and get to know the person. Don't make promises you won't be able to keep.

7. Share life with your new friend. Don't treat this as a confrontational evangelism tool- let the person get to know you. For many Western Europeans, you may be the only practicing believer with whom they've had contact. Even those who know about Jesus are unlikely to have seen life in Christ lived out before them. They need to hear what a follower of Jesus thinks about all sorts of things. Tell your stories. Listen to theirs. Send photos. Have a voice conversation on Skype. You may eventually get to meet your pen pal in person some day.

Now, this isn't for everyone. If you're the type who can't stand to talk with someone with whom you disagree, please don't bother. If you're not willing or able to personally invest in a "virtual friend," this isn't for you.

I think there are a lot of believers out there who didn't even know this is an option. I imagine many of you that don't have the time or money or desire to go on a mission trip may be intrigued my the idea of meeting someone online for the sake of sharing life intentionally.

Who knows? God may use you to start an online church planting movement.

As a missionary, I am tempted to lie on a regular basis. It may or may not surprise you to read
that statement, but its true nonetheless. What's more, I find the temptation strongest when I'm talking with a coworker, partner, or supporter. It all starts out innocently enough; someone asks, "How is your ministry going?" or "What are you seeing God do among your people groups?" For some reason, it's always difficult for me to know how to respond to these questions. And for some reason, I'm often tempted to offer a less-than-honest answer.

The lies that pop into my mind aren't usually grandiose- I'm not talking about making up a church planting movement or a new great awakening. No, my temptation is to elaborate with, um, ministerial hyperbole the things that are actually happening. You know, for effect. Perhaps what I'm tempted to offer isn't a lie, per se, but the result is the same. The only examples I share are those I've carefully selected. Certain details are emphasized. Some information is conveniently left out. Our small seeker group of four suddenly becomes a viable church plant of six. My casual interaction with national leaders grows into a full-blown partnership. I find myself taking credit for the successes of others by frequent use of the collective "we." Everything suddenly becomes over-spiritualized.

The temptation isn't limited to embellishing our successes. There's something super-spiritual about suffering on the missions field, so I often feel the urge to overstate the modest struggles we face in Western Europe. Poor customer service becomes enemy opposition, and a hard time at the immigration office is persecution. If life here is too easy, my obedience is somehow less pleasing to God and fellow believers.

Maybe the temptation to stretch the truth is rooted in our performance-based culture that encourages us to value activity over identity. Maybe it's my desire to be important or well-known. Whatever the reason, exaggerations and half-truths are trouble. Lying is one of those sins that tends to have the "snowball effect;" the liar quickly finds himself having to compose bigger, more elaborate, and (if it were possible,) more deceitful lies to cover the first one.

It occurs to me that a great deal of the misunderstanding is my own fault. How can I expect others to know and relate to my experience if I'm not being completely forthright? Besides, God's constant and protection and provision for my life means that there is always a truth to be told.

Statistics. Demographics.
Lostness. Evangelization.
Need. Opportunity.
Resources. Support.
Trends. Movements. Reaction.
Creativity. Good ideas.
Common sense.
Duty. Tradition.
Ease. Difficulty.
Guilt, pity, fear.
Passion, compassion, desire.
Love.

We are constantly tempted to allow these things to dictate our missions activities. In many cases, these are the motives that were used to recruit us into sacrificial giving and to service. We all participate in different ways and for different reasons, but the things listed above can easily get us "ahead of God" and out of tune with what He is doing. As far as I can tell, the best- the only- sure foundation for how to know what missions is and how it ought to be done in my context is this:

Step-by-step obedience to the Spirit of the Most High God.

God called me to missions in Western Europe by giving me a vision for what He could (would?) do among the people here. I was excited about being part of God's interaction with the postmodern, postchristian people of Europe. I really believed that God was going to start a church planting movement here, and I trusted that He was going to use me to somehow be part of that. That certainty of calling and purpose is what has kept me on the field.

But something is bothering me.

We still haven't seen it. Despite our efforts, prayers, and desires, we have yet to see God move in the ways we envisioned years ago. No city-wide house church networks. No major unity movements among the believers here. Years of studying the language and culture, sowing the gospel, building relationships, and speaking truth into people's lives hasn't produced the kind of fruit I thought we were called to.

Don't get me wrong; I know that the work isn't something that we do, and that God will do His will in His sovereign timing. Please don't remind me of William Carey or Adoniram Judson. I'm not discouraged about the number of people who are being saved.

I've spent months in introspective prayer and meditation, asking God if there might be sin in my life, or if my actions might be disqualifying me from His service. I'm begging Him to use me. I'm open to whatever He has for us.

I guess I'm just a little disappointed, that's all.

Missions- (mish-uh ns) -noun: 1. a group of persons sent by a church to carry on religious work, esp. evangelization in foreign lands, and often to establish schools, hospitals, etc. 2. missionary duty or work 3. organized missionary work or activities in any country or region 4. a church or a region dependent on a larger church or denomination 5. a series of special religious services for increasing religious devotion and converting unbelievers: to preach a mission 5. an assigned or self-imposed duty or task; calling; vocation 6. a sending or being sent for some duty or purpose 7. those sent

I'm starting to realize that the greatest problem facing Christian missions today is not money, not manpower, not strategy, and not even the physical and spiritual opposition to our work. The problem with missions is that we don't know what it is. The concept, the very definition of the word, is interpreted and applied by so many people in so many ways, I think we've lost the plot.

To the world, missions is church people feeding the poor and building church buildings. To the casual churchgoer, missions are those trips the youth group takes every summer. To the volunteer missionary missions is sacrificing time and hard-earned money to travel to a distant place to conduct sports camps and backyard Bible clubs. To the long-term and career missionary- well... they obviously have no idea what it is.

For the sake of my calling and work, I'm going to work on defining the ministry and role of the missionary.

So I've had a couple of inquiries about the "new" "trend"(it's really neither, but more on that later) away from full-time, professional missionaries and toward volunteer and short-term mission endeavors. I've made no secret of my own discomfort with being a professional missionary, so some of my readers ask if I'm excited by the potential shift toward an alternative that might facilitate broader involvement.

I'm not.

What I do is not something you can do on a week-long visit to the Old World, no matter how many language-courses-on-tape you've listened through. The cultural immersion required for relational and incarnational ministry is a long-term investment. I believe in the short-term involvement of volunteers, and I expect divine appointments through which God can affect tremendous change, but I believe that hit-and-run evangelism will not communicate the gospel to Western European peoples better than sharing life with people over time. We need both long and short-term people on the mission field in order to be effective in contextually-appropriate ministry. I'm not special, but I'm here.

With that said, people (especially those who support me) need to realize that I'm not doing what I do so that they don't have to. Sending money to me (through my organization, of course) is not what you get to do instead of being a missionary yourself. The Commission is not one you can or should hire out, and I'm not your stand-in. In fact, if you give to missions for any reason other than obedience to God, please stop. We don't need your money.

A missions organization asking about the "trend" toward volunteers is like a travel agency asking about the "trend" of customers using the internet to make travel arrangements. The democratization of missions activities means that the professionals no longer have a corner on the market. We need to take extra measures to spell out the benefit (relevance?) of career missions. If people don't see the point, or see better way (say, missional expatiratism, or incarnational immigration?), of course they're going to pursue it.

Heck, if we've got professional missionaries wondering about the validity of professional missions, maybe we're not doing a very good job of rationalizing our system.

I've always been taught to do what Jesus would do. So much so, that the question of "what" Jesus would do completely eclipsed the concept of "why." Jesus was selfless and always put other people's needs before His own. He spent time in public with people who were known as sinners and drunks. Jesus kept the law, turned the other cheek, and kicked the capitalists out of the temple. Why did He do these things?

"What?" is the question of the obedient. "What do you want me to do?" "What is right?" "What does the Bible say?" It is vital that we know the "what," but for the past couple of years, it's the "why" that's haunted me.

"Why?" is the rebel's question. It implies conditional obedience pending personal approval. That's why frustrated parents answer "why?" with "Because I said so!" Leaders answer it with "Because I'm the boss." People who are interested in maintaining the status quo consider "why?" to be disrespectful and insubordinate.

"Why?" threatens the authority of a leader (especially if he doesn't know the answer!) Addressing it can be difficult, time-consuming, and can reveal shortcomings and inconsistencies. Nevertheless, "why?" is a question we should be asking, because the power is in the "why."

Asking why is how we come to know God in a personal way. We don't really know Him until we begin to understand why He does what He does.

Once we start asking "why," we shouldn't ever stop. Too often, we settle on a reason or explanation and never revisit the question. We accept a logical and well-presented argument and move on. This is why people in the pew believe that we should do missions will bring Jesus back and why people on the field buy into the lie that anyone's eternity depends on missionaries. Questioning "why" protects us from legalism, complacency, and meaningless tradition.

Why not ask "why?"

Since the demise of the short-sleeve pastel "missionary shirt" (you know- the one with two pockets on the breast and two at the waist), the button-down Oxford shirt with casual chinos has been the uniform of missionaries around the world. Some people like to spice it up a bit with an embroidered logo. Others dress it up with a shiny belt and pinstriped shirt. More than a few dress it down with hiking boots (or white sneakers) and a baseball cap. The outfit would seem to be the perfect attire for any situation that a missionary might find himself in.

Should missionaries dress like the people to whom they are ministering?

As foreigners, we will always be different from the people around us. But if some of those differences can be minimized by changing our shirts, shouldn't we do it? When the bright, colorful sneakers with the white tube socks come walking up, most European nationals check out. What if dressing the part makes our message and transformed lives seem a little less foreign? I'm not talking about allowing missionaries to dress provocatively or immodestly (both concepts extremely relative, by the way) in the name of contextualization. By writing this post, I'm not refusing to submit to the authority of IMB leadership. I have nothing against my Dockers-wearing colleagues. I'm not a liberal.

I'm just asking.

In some cases, it seems clear that adopting the traditional style of dress is a necessary part of incarnation and cultural integration. Wearing robes, dashikis, muʻumuʻus, burqas, and whatever they call those barber-smocks that Pakistanis wear, all seem like the price of admission into the culture for missionaries. But those are all cases where the people wear more clothing than we typically do in the States. What about those cases where it is the custom of the nationals to wear a loincloth or less?

What if dressing like the nationals means wearing Hugo Boss, Prada, or Dolce & Gabanna? In Western Europe, fitting in can be expensive. What if dressing appropriately for the cultural context means having to upgrade from Old Navy to Burberry?

In the U.S., our supporters tell us that being a missionary is the highest calling. They say that moving overseas to plant churches is of eternal significance. To them, missions is telling people about Jesus. That's what they ask about when we talk: How many people have become Christians? How many churches have you planted? They see missions as a spiritual endeavor with spiritual effects.

Here in Western Europe, if I were to tell people that I'm a missionary, they'd ask me why I'm not in Africa or India passing out food to starving children. They'd assume that I'm a bleeding heart who wants to build schools and educate people about HIV. To them, missions is about meeting physical needs out of a spiritual motivation.

Two different understandings of missions. The goal of the first is to change people; the aim of the second is to enrich them. I've decided to be the second type of missionary.

I'm not buying into the idea that we can separate out the spiritual needs from the physical ones, or that it's okay to focus on one and ignore the other. I don't think a preaching a sermon is better than giving diapers to a poor mother. I think that passing out water to thirsty people is good evangelism, even if the bottles don't have tracts attached.

Don't get me wrong. Making people's live better doesn't just mean passing out coats and blankets. It means boldly speaking truth in every conversation. It means teaching, encouraging, challenging, giving, and serving. I believe that God can use me to bless people to repentance.

As goals, "change" and "enrichment" make for very different approaches to missions.

I appreciate all the encouraging notes and comments I've received during my unplanned blog silence the last couple of weeks (months?). I'm sure I've lost some readers by not posting in a while; after all, who wants to keep up with a blog that is never updated? If you're still watching this space, thank you.

A couple of months ago, I experienced something that has never happened to me. I sat down in front of the computer intending to write another soul-searching, thought-provoking post (thought-provoking for me, anyway), and the strangest thing happened: nothing. I couldn't write. For some reason, everything that I wanted to write seemed boring, redundant, petty, annoying, worthless, or just silly.

My newfound writer's block may have been due, in part anyway, to several conversations I had with readers. One was asking for my advice on starting his own blog. "How should I do it if I don't want mine to be as focused on denominational politics as yours?" he asked. That got me thinking; Is my blog about denominational politics? That's certainly not what I ever intended!

Another faithful reader told me that lately my posts had been lacking the "edge" that he had originally found so attractive. "I used to love when you'd really let people have it on your blog!" he said. I've never wanted my blog to be that, ever. I'm not trying to sling accusations or publicly challenge anyone about anything. This guy obviously hadn't perused the comments sections of any of my posts; if he had, he would have seen what an inept debater I am.

The most interesting comment I've received lately about my blog was from a new reader who told me that he had stayed up all night one night reading every post I had ever written. "You kind of repeat yourself a lot." he said. "Your posts are good, but you seem to be saying the same thing over and over." I tried not to point out that his two-sentence comment was itself redundant.

The thing that bothered me about his comment was that I agree with him. What's the point of writing once a week about how uncomfortable I am as a missionary, and how much I think the people in the churches back home misunderstand me? Why fill the (virtual) pages of a blog with complaints and things that only serve to discourage those within my organization?

So until I come up with something worth writing, I won't be posting here. Thank you for reading, and for participating in the discussion.

In keeping with my complete inability to leave well enough alone, I'd like to illustrate the point of my last post. Some of you will be surprised to learn that there was, in fact, a point to my last post.

"Church planting movement" is the term we've adopted to describe a phenomena in which many, many churches are sort of spontaneously planted and those churches quickly turn and plant other church-planting churches. In many ways, a CPM is like a storm (or an earthquake, or a drought, or any other "act of God"), in that it is something only God can do. We cannot cause a CPM to happen any more than we can cause a tidal wave or instigate a hurricane.

It makes no sense, then, to set as our goal something that we cannot do. Yes, I've heard about the importance of having a "God-sized" vision, but a vision and a goal are not the same thing. To continue with the illustration:

We can prepare for a storm. When the weatherman warns us and the sky turns dark, people run to the store and buy water, plastic, duct tape, and granola bars. This is how many of us "prepare" for a movement of God, CPM or otherwise. We get a hint that God is working somewhere, and we rush to get ready. We write requests for volunteers and we notify the prayer networks that we're going to need extra coverage. We put unresponsive people on the back burner and concentrate our energy where the action is. The problem, in my opinion, is that rushing to facilitate a CPM is not the kind of strategy that called people should depend on.

Why not? Because only God knows when and where He's going to make it rain, and whether it will be a slight drizzle or a torrential downpour. I think that's why he called me to Western Europe well in advance of whatever it is He's going to do. This wasn't a "priority" area for the IMB. There were places with more "strategic significance" and higher "concentrations of lostness." But He know what He was doing, and I trusted Him, even though I haven't seen the results I'd hoped for.

Which brings me to another type of readiness that we should consider. It's the long-term, not a cloud in the sky, "wait for it... wait for it..." sort of approach. It is modeled for us by Noah in Genesis 6-8. When people saw this old man building a giant boat in the middle of the desert I'm sure they called it insanity. I think we should apply it to missions, and call it "nonstrategic obedience."

God gave Noah a vision of the deadly waters that would flood the earth. That was something only God could do. Noah's goal, then, was not to create a storm, but to build the boat. His goal was a big boat full of the people and animals God told him to take inside. His strategy was to build the boat exactly according to God's detailed instructions.

Church Planting Movements are a vision, not a goal. Proclaiming the gospel, teaching people to obey, living as incarnational witnesses- these are goals. Our strategies need to get us to these goals. Focusing on Church planting movements distracts us from doing the things God has instructed us to do because we assume that we know how God wants to take us to the vision He's given us. We start to see our goals as means. We should make disciples because God told us to, not so that we can facilitate a greater movement.

Getting ahead of ourselves (and God, if it were possible) is pretty common for us. We love people in order to share the gospel with them, and we share the gospel with them in order to plant a church. We plant a church in order to start a CPM, and we do that in order to "finish the task" and glorify God (and bring Jesus back). I say, let's let go of all the "next things" that we think may happen. Let's focus our attention on who God has brought us today. Let's obey regardless of whether a CPM starts or not. It would be like building an ark whether the floodwaters came or not.

Now I'm left with the question of the vision. Are we sure that God told us that He was going to start church planting movements all around the world? How long do you suppose Noah would have worked on the ark without seeing evidence that God was getting ready to bring the storm? How long will our people (trusting the vision as it's been cast by our organization) continue to pursue a church planting movement before they should start to question that vision? If it's from God, we should never give up. If it's just a good idea, we should change course immediately.

Our regional (and organization-wide) mission and strategy is to "facilitate a Church Planting movement among people groups and/or population segments greater than 100,000 people and less than 2% evangelized. In past posts, I've taken issue with the definitions of "people groups" and "evangelized," and I've voiced my confusion over the seemingly random numbers that guide our strategic decisions.

My question today is this: where are the church planting movements?

Church planting movement (CPM) is a term the refers to those instances in which multiple church-planting churches are planted among a people group. Such an occurrence would certainly be an act of Almighty God, and would transcend any program or campaign that we could initiate. This is how it happened in certain parts of Asia fifteen years ago.

Eleven years have passed since the CPM strategy was adopted by the board. Faithful men and women have poured their lives into the people to whom they've been called. They have been trained, equipped, led, encouraged, and prayed for. They have learned language(s), adapted to culture, and made efforts to partner with other Great Commission Christians in an effort to facilitate a CPM. Despite all their efforts, the IMB's missionaries to Western Europe have not yet seen such a movement.

Where are the CPMs?

Everyone seems to have a theory as to why we haven't been effective at fulfilling this vision. "We don't pray enough," many have said, or "we've gone about it the wrong way." Some have suggested that we haven't cooperated enough, others say we've cooperated too much. I've heard our current situation blamed on poor language skill, not enough "broad seed sowing," and sin.

These theories are usually followed up with solutions. A book to read. A model to study. A formula to follow. We need to fast, pray, repent, work harder, or bring over more personnel. "If we only had 50,000 more people praying, then we'd see a CPM."

I refuse to believe that the reason we aren't seeing Church Planting Movements is that we just haven't gotten it right yet. I'm tired of seeing good, faithful people feel pressure to produce something that is totally out of their control. We have people on the field that feel like complete failures because they haven't seen God re-create what He did in Asia, and it weighs heavily on them. It's time to re-evaluate our strategy and goals.

One of the things I've noticed over the years is how much more accepting missionaries are of spiritual things than are most of the people in the pews back home. I'm pretty sure this has to do with the fact that here on the field, we're forced to rely on God for everything; we depend on Him for understanding, direction, and personal identity. Few of us have big churches or strong Bible study groups for support. When God moves in the States, He's competing with all the other "Christian stuff" that the church is into. When we see Him at work on the field, we take note; God allowing us to see what He's doing is affirmation to our calling and motivation for our perseverance.

So to the Godly (yet sheltered) people at home, us missionaries might come across as a little bit "charismatic." Just a little "liberal." Anyone who has struggled to learn a second (or third, or fourth) language believes that God still moves supernaturally through languages. If you were to ask the majority of Southern Baptists in the U.S. whether God still does miracles, I bet most would say yes, but few would be able to give examples from their own lives.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything here. I know that there are people in the States who are very much in tune with the Holy Spirit, and see supernatural things all the time. I just wanted to point out another are where I feel misunderstood.

So does God still do miracles? Real miracles? Make time stand still? Raise people from the dead? Plagues? Restore sight? Smite deceitful, disobedient people? I think He does.

What do we mean when we talk about "reaching people?" Is it the same as telling them about Jesus? What makes a people group "reached?" Having heard the gospel? Having access to it? Having a viable church planted among them?

The IMB's current strategy is to "engage" (send missionaries to) people groups that we classify as "unreached" (less than 2% evangelical) and that also have populations of 100,000. Using the 2% rule, there are thousands of unreached people groups that number lower than the 100k minimum. Nevertheless, the IMB does not actively seek to send missionaries to work among these smaller groups. Why not?

It seems to me that these numbers were picked by IMB marketers to provide a goal for our organization that was ambitious, yet attainable.

"No one has the right to hear the gospel twice, while there remains someone who has not heard it once." - Oswald J. Smith

I ran across this quote on a colleague's website. I'm not sure who Oswald J. Smith is/was, and I'm not particularly interested. His sort of guilt-inspired, task-oriented, logic-based, marketing-ploy, pop missiology is exactly the sort of thing I was referring to in my last post. It has infected our understanding of what missions is, who God is, and how He works.

Let me be clear: My concern is not necessarily with current missions strategy, it's with our missiology. What, you might ask, is the difference? It has to do with motivation; both ours- in what guides us in service, and God's- in what He's doing globally and why. Just as the practice of our faith is determined by our theology, our mission strategies are derived from our missiology. So I'm not talking here about whether we use tracts or Jesus Films or relational approaches to church planting. I'm not even talking about whether we should even be trying to plant churches. My contention is this: We have bad missiology.

For starters, we make an unnecessary distinction between "missions," and, well, everything else. Why do we apply Luke 10:2 ("the harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few") to missions, but not Luke 10:27 ("love your neighbor as yourself")? Where does our understanding of missions come from?

Take the quote above, for example: "No one has the right..."? What does that mean? Is hearing the gospel a right? Is it a privilege? I guess Mr. Smith would say that the first time is a right, and the second a privilege. What biblical support do we have for either?

Is the goal of missions that people hear? What about incarnation? Discipleship? Is missions nothing more than proclaiming the gospel, giving people "a chance to hear" it? Many missionaries approach their work as though missions was about spreading information. Surely we need proclaimers, and it is a vital part of missions, but I believe it is only a part.

(Another part, one that we rarely focus on, is worship as missions. John 12:32 -"I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself." I get that He's alluding to the cross, but I think that worship is underrated as a missional activity. Maybe that's another post...)

Back to the quote: is it really ours to decide who should hear and who should not? Even after years of proclamation, are we ever in a position to say whether a person (or people group) has heard the good news in a way that they can understand and respond to? I believe that the Spirit should guide all of our evangelistic efforts, and that He should be the one to lead us in when to share, and with whom (and when to keep quiet!)

I cannot accept a missiology that essentially puts us on "auto-pilot" in terms of to whom we should go. The second we assume where and in whom God is going to work, we get ahead of Him and disqualify ourselves from full participation in what He's doing. This missiology is essentially either/or; missions is either relating to those people that God leads us to, or it is targeting the next "lostest" people group according to our statistics and research. It cannot be both, because the second assumes a monopoly on the first. How else can we explain so many of our workers feeling called to work among "reached" peoples?

God is at work redeeming humankind to Himself. I believe that missions is crossing cultural barriers to be part of that. Until we seriously rethink our missiology, we will continue to build our strategies on a broken foundation.

Every six months or so, I have to post my thoughts on "the missionary task." In my opinion, this is the single most important topic that no one is talking about. In another attempt to incite some discussion, I've also posted this to the Church Planting Forum.

Below is an outline of my current thoughts on "the Task." Please forgive my over-use of quotation marks.

Since my appointment and move to Western Europe, I've wrestled with the conventional understanding of what has come to be known as "the Missionary Task." I've prayed about it, read about it, googled it, and blogged about it, but there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of discussion on the topic. I'm sure this is due to the fact that most of us (Christians, that is) already have the thing clearly sorted out in our heads.

I begin by admitting that my current perspective on the subject is likely wrong and would certainly be improved by some honest discussion with brothers and sisters who are obediently participating in the task. My question is simple: what is the nature of "the task?"

The question is important because most of us are heavily involved in ministries that have been planned around a particular understanding of our calling, goals, and purpose. "The Task" is the missiological idea that has led us to concepts such as the "10/40 Window" and "Frontier missions." It's led us to move our focus and resources from "reached" areas (despite the harvest) to "unreached" ones. It's led us to rely heavily on statistics and models for our missions strategies. I'm not sure we've got it right. Here's why:

-The Great Commission is a call to Go and make disciples. Does it necessarily have to be a "finishable" task? When I was a kid, my mom was always telling me to make my bed and pick up my room and eat my vegetables. Turns out she wanted me to do it every day. It would have been silly of me to say (as I'm sure I did), "Mom, I'm almost finished with the task you assigned me."

-Some of you will want to pull out your Greek lexicons and start chanting, "ponta ta ethne" or something like that. I see the use of the term "all nations" (Matthew 24:14, 28:19-20, Luke 24:46-47) as a descriptive term, not a prescriptive one. Here's a blog post about this.

One verse that also uses the "all nations/every nation" terminology is this one that tells about the Day of Pentecost:

"Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nationunder heaven." -Acts 2:5

I find it odd that this one doesn't usually figure into the discussion. Does it mean that there were literally Jews in all nations? Or is it saying "of the nations in which there were Jewish people..." If the former is true, the "task" was completed at Pentecost!

-To me, the concept of a "Final Frontier" assumes a static world. I blogged about this here. There are new people groups being born all the time that have their own unique languages and cultures.

-It also seems to assume that once a nation is "reached," it will always remain so. I work in Western Europe where in many ways, our work is to reintroduce the Gospel to people who are inoculated against it.

-As far as I can tell, "the Task" we're called to is nothing less (and nothing more!) than a step-by-step following of the Holy Spirit. But the IMB has scrapped that for something more practical. It's like we read the instructions Jesus gave in Matthew 28:18-20, and we say, "Okay folks, you heard Him: All nations. Let's get the job done!" I address the question "What's it gonna take?" here.

-It seems to me that we can fulfill the task (obediently going as God leads), but we're not really going to "complete" it. I'm okay with that, because I think it requires us to be more dependent on Him, instead of developing some game-plan to finish something that He never assigned. A task of world evangelization isn't enough, in my opinion.

These are, roughly, my thoughts on the subject. I've always wanted someone to discuss these things with me, and to clarify my thinking where possible. What do you think?