Missions Misunderstood

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.

A couple of weeks ago, I itunsed the first episode of "One Punk, Under God," a six-part documentary on the life of Jay Bakker (Jim and Tammy Faye's son). It basically tells the story of his unique childhood (growing up in a Christian theme park?) and his life now, as the pastor of Revolution, a church he started in an Atlanta bar. Whether you're a fan of Jay's or not, the series is something that's been needed for a long time. Specifically, it's a creatively-made look into the life of a real person who is struggling to make sense of his faith.

For some reason, any time an evangelical gets in front of a television camera, he/she feels the need to preach a sermon (or a political speech, but that's another post). The problem is that television evangelists have been around for a long time. Their crazy theology, bad hair, and pleas for money have inoculated the world against any bit of truth that they might present. Most end up on the Tonight Show punch line end of a scandal. All that telling and so little showing has left people with spiritually debilitating assumptions about the gospel and it's relevance to real life. Now, here comes Jay Bakker, who is honest about the messy side of his life in Christ, and millions of people (many for the first time in their lives) see someone who calls himself a Christian but doesn't presume to have all of the answers.

Again, my point here is not Bakker's show. There's been lots of talk in the blogosphere about his theology, and some are concerned that he's not a good representative of the faith. I say we need to present more "real live" Christians (good examples or not) and fewer talking heads on the "O'Reilly Factor." To me, this is the incarnation that's been lacking for some time now.

So why don't we see more documentaries like this one, or like Morgan Spurlock's "30 Days" series, done by believers? It's not like we don't have the equipment- how many of our churches have crack A/V teams?

This summer, we're bringing in a team of media students to do just this sort of thing. I've got some really creative, interesting, and articulate team members who will be the subject of this short series we're going to do. I don't want them to preach, and we'll edit out any prepared remarks. We're looking for authentic Christianity as it's lived out in real life. The goods and the bads, the highs and the lows.

I think that's what's been missing from our "witness."

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.

Every Christmas season, the International Mission Board launches its annual fundraising campaign, "The Lottie Moon Christmas Offering." All of the money raised through the drive goes to missions. That's the money that pays our rent and covers our ministry-related expenses. If you are Southern Baptist, I would encourage you to give generously.

--------------------------------------------------


The above paragraph is true. It also happens to be the only that way I, as an IMB missionary, am allowed to ask for money. The Board has clear policies against "solicitation of funds." These rules make sense for an organization that does not require its workers to raise their own support. Were we allowed to, I'm sure at least a couple of us would make a career of raising money (for ministry, of course) . This would be a distraction from church planting, to say the least, and would result in what amounts to competition between missionaries for funding. In order to avoid such chaos, I cannot, and will not, ever ask for money.

Despite the restrictions against soliciting funds, there is quite a bit of "channeled monies," and "designated offerings" floating around the mission field. I'm not insinuating any wrongdoing here. The logical limitations on my freedom to ask for money does not preclude Stateside sponsors from offering it to me. It happens quite a lot, actually. A partner church might ask, "What are some of your ministry's financial needs?" An extended family member who hasn't spoken to me in years might try to assuage his guilt for never having shown even the slightest interest in our work here might ask, "You doing okay money-wise?"

The answer is always: "If you'd like to contribute financially, I'd encourage you to give to the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering."

But there's something more I need to say here. Something that you, dear reader, need to know: None of us are getting rich as missionaries.

The cost of living here in Wester Europe is high. Add to that what we spend on hosting parties and going out with nationals, and joining clubs/gyms. On top of all that, there's the trip back to the States every once in a while, and, well, you can imagine how difficult it can be to respond with the party line when someone offers money. Of course my Starbucks habit would love a little extra pocket change.

I'm not asking for money. I don't want it or need it. But I have a suggestion: give to the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering, and then consider paying for a missionary's family to fly to the field for a visit.

We don't get to see too much of our families while we're on the mission field. We usually chalk it up as one of those small sacrifices God has called us to. But many of my colleagues have never had their parents come to visit. There are MKs on the field who have never met their grandparents. It's expensive to fly half way around the world, so if you really want to minister to us, by our parents a plane ticket.

Think about how great an encouragement it would be for a missionary to have a church send their parents for Christmas. Consider how far such a gesture would go toward making our people on the field know they are appreciated. Sponsored family visits would help family members back home get an idea of what we're talking about when we share stories of our life here. They would be able to pray more specifically for our ministries. They would know what we go through. They would stop wasting their money sending packages of peanut butter (which, by the way, we can actually get here)! The parents and siblings of missionaries would be even better missionary advocates in our churches, and they'd be able to help our churches keep up with what's happening on the field.

We could even make it a big, shiny new denominational program. Operation: Missionary Family (or some other, pseudo-militaristic task-oriented brand name.)

"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.