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.