Modern Missions III

The last part of my thought about being personally called by God to do something is this: We as humans have a lack of stasis in our lives that often gets interpreted as a pressure to make a decision sooner rather than later in determining the call of God in our lives.

No person’s life is static. You cannot step in the same river twice. What was magical and harmonious and inspiring at one time may not be so at a later time. However, this is a truth that runs through the emotions and soul more frequently than it runs through the physical life. Thus we may consider ourselves “stuck” in a particular situation that we do not like – usually our job – and our emotions and our soul are harkening to a memory of an earlier time when life was more “meaningful” or “fulfilling.”

That is a dangerous trap that runs directly counter to the principles of contentment taught in the scriptures. It creates in us a certain distractedness that prevents us from being alert to the ministry we have before us. Actually, I like the way Yoda says it when coaching young Luke Skywalker: “All his life he has looked away … Never his mind on where he was … On what he was doing. Hmph.” There is a basic truth in life: if you cannot find contentment and purpose where you are right now, then a “change of scenery” will not solve those problems.

So we sense a call by God. It is magnified by our subconscious lack of emotional and spiritual stasis. And we then feel pressured to decide, to act. But the reality is that we have failed to act in our present surroundings. Somehow we can see ourselves acting in a different setting or serving a different audience but we cannot get past the inertia of our present “rut” to begin that process where we are now.

That is highly suspicious to me. I suppose that it could be argued under the umbrella of “God equips the called rather than calls the equipped” but I have a sense that more often than not the call has more to do with dissatisfaction with present circumstances (combined with genuine spiritual desire to serve God) than with a genuine leading to become a minister/missionary.

Modern Missions II

Considering now the other arena of thought: the calling to reach out cross-culturally in the name of Jesus.

When one feels called by God to do anything - and I mean anything - one should be very skeptical until the matter is clear. God may speak in a gentle voice (the "still small voice" of scripture) but his marching orders are almost exclusively revealed in an unmistakeable fashion: whether the angel of the Lord, the buring bush, the pillar of couds, etc., it's hard to miss. And there is this great comfort that is apparent in the subtlety of scripture: God will find someone else if you miss the message. Check out what he said about the rocks crying out in Luke 19:40. If it must be done, God will see it done. You can get over yourself.

So the matter is one of clear signals, and also some intense instrospection. I agree with something I once heard Chuck Swindoll say in the days before he got grouchy. It was something like this: If you think you may be called by God to go into full-time ministry and if you feel like you could also do something else and also be reasonably at peace, then you are probably not called to be in full-time ministry. What he is driving at is that too many people "feel the call" when in they are not called. And the uncalled in ministry really muck it up.

Consider it another way. We are all given the mantle of ministry. It is the evolution of our society that has, for the most part, given rise to the vocation and industry of ministry, including foreign missions. It is now as much a career choice to be a minister/missionary as it is to be a teacher/attorney/architect/computer programmer. That dichotomy is deadly to a much better personal model of ministry. Whatever you are doing, you are a minister/missionary/ambassador of Jesus.

You should absolutely integrate whatever you do with ministry. That is your responsibility as a follower of Jesus. The idea that this must also be vocational pursuit is the product of our societal evolution and has given us a system of ministry/missions that is more like a deptarment store chain than a revolutionary idea to make disciples.

That said, there are times when a supported missionary is just what is needed. Particularly when the intended recipients of practical assistance (and their society) are unable to provide vocational support for the minister/missionary.

But the ones called to such pursuits are, in my experience and opinion, a very rare breed. The passion is present, personal, unmistakable and uncomfortable. Present is self-explanatory. Personal means a passion for the people rather than the country, the adventure, then escape, the challenge, etc. Lots of people have passion but not a passion for a particulare people group. Unmistakeable is a product of the signal and introspection. Uncomfortable is that effect the minister/missionary's passion has on those who are in contact with that person in their home (sending country). You can meet those people and their passion for a particular people group makes you slightly uncomfortable in your secure and orndinary existence. That is a rare passion, but it is really real in the really called.

So that is most of my thought on being called. There is one further distinction that I will address in the next post: The lack of personal stasis juxtaposed with determination of a calling and the resultant and often erroneous pressure to act.

Modern Missions

Thinking a little about the detox/reformation that I am undergoing about the expression and act of church: How does this impact the concept of modern-day missionaries.

The genesis of this reflection is a friend who is seeking and struggling on whether to go overseas as a "full-time missionary."

I guess that my thoughts break into two arenas: the environment of the modern missions industry and the call to reach cross-culturally in the name of Jesus.

Let's start with the environment of the modern missions industry. I have no doubt that the modern day missions organizations are all structured and managed like corporations. (They were when I did some investigation into the process in the early 90s.) They will have a business-model feel to their decision-making, and they will certainly deem themselves governed by budgetary considerations. Too bad, but that's the way it is.

So, if you go to work for one of these organizations, then you will be, in a way, an employee. But, based on my conversations with full-time missionaries, it's not quite like being an employee but rather more like being a franchise. The parent organization still has some control and still has some expectations that are typically expressed in terms of a combination of efforts and cash. But other than that, you are pretty much a trained franchisee. You call the shots (within the business model) and you bear the responsibility of the fincial requirements of your business. You must continually answer to at least 3 parties (besides your ultimate accountability to God): your parent company, your financial supporters and your targeted people group. Like most other ministry, it will be a several large doses of administration and precious little time to actually build relationships and reach out with the ever-needed cup of cold water.

The whole system is crammed full of agendas based on a business model. Supporters, like investors, go away and so new ones must be recruited. Those who stay must feel they are being wise stewards so you must report to them frequently. The parent company probably takes a portion of your support for its work on your behalf. The parent company also expects you to spend some time reaching out to churches in your sending country to raise awareness of the organization as a whole and help generate corporate support. And you just wanted to do good in another country.

But what is a better model? The so-called "tent-making" model of St. Paul in the New Testament is interesting. It shows a vocational skill used to underwrite the cost of the missionary endeavors. But Paul still received gifts from other believers - thus the idea of support is not foreign to the the scriptural model. I like this hybrid approach because it demonstrates some independence but allows for some accountability, too.

Independence in that the vocation skill brings cash directly to the missionary who is then free in his/her conscience to apply it as seems best. No parent company or investors having input and agendas. But the occasional input of cash from a church or other assembly of believers provides the opportunity to have outside inspections done on your progress. A forced introspection, if you will.

Another benefit of the hybrid approach is that a vocational skill gives some useful entry point into the people group you are trying to reach. It will either provide credibility or it will meet needs. Either is far better than some white guy from another country coming to town to tell me how to live.

What about taking the hybrid approach a step further? How about a community approach? How about doing as much as possible to be self-supporting or need-meeting (more on this distinction in a bit) in order to simply live among those you are trying to influence? Become a part of their community and bring the message of hope to them as a neighbor/friend/co-worker ... someone who isn't going away if the support falls below the minimum acceptable level. I think the less agenda you project, the quicker you will be accepted and integrated into the society.

The distinction between self-supporting and need-meeting is like this: Let's be honest, there is a real two-class system in this world. You are either going to serve in a westernized, modern country or you are going to serve in a hell-hole. If you go to a modern country, then you probably have very little to offer them in terms of meeting their needs for basic standard of living items. So you should therefore endeavor to be self-supporting - demonstrating that you are not intending to be a burden on any society (especially theirs). If you serve in a hell-hole then they probably don't give a whit what seminary training you have or how many pastors were in your father's family. They need clean water, medicine, dental care, shelter and - oh yeah - FOOD. You should do everything possible to be a practical difference-maker in their lives.

This distinction is, I think, useful in determining which approach to take. If you go to a modern country, then you should be self-supporting to the highest degree possible. If you go to a hell-hole, then you will probably need to rely on support so that you can meet real needs for those who are in no position to pay you.

Those are some thoughts about the modern mission industry environment.

Thoughts about the call to reach cross-culturally in my next post.