I occasionally visit a discussion group of some independent Baptist pastors. It’s interesting as well as educational for me to read the issues that face today’s American clergy. Quite honestly, I don’t know how they do it as our society becomes less interested in spiritual matters and churches compete for the few in this world who are seeking answers to the basic questions: How did I get here? What’s the meaning of life? What happens after I die? In the quest to be relevant churches must have a full-service program for children, youth, middle-age parents and senior citizens. On top of that, the church is charged with taking the Good News of Christ’s salvation to the four corners of the globe. It’s when the discussion on this list turns to missions that I, of course, become most interested. The conversation generally is about missionaries, such as what to do with missionaries who have retired or perhaps a missionary project they feel is doing the best work. Last week I was appalled when one pastor made this statement.
“We are now supporting a good number of nationals in the 10/40 window, and getting a lot of bang for our buck. They are overseen by Americans, and the number of souls being saved is staggering.”
There are so many things about this statement that make me cringe. While I can agree with the importance of working with nationals and applaud the focus to the most unreached areas of the world, the missiology of this comment is ghastly, at best.
First is the assertion that supporting nationals is more valid because one can get more done with less money. Known as the big “bang for the buck” theory, this line of thinking is only legitimate to bottom line capitalism. Cost effectiveness is a purely Western concept, not a biblical principle. From the outrageous cost of building the Temple in Jerusalem to the unseemly honorary gift to Jesus by a former demon possessed woman (Matthew 26:7), God’s economy is not measured by ROI. I feel sorry for all those people who supported Jesus with their material possessions, believing He would usher in the Kingdom, only to be dispersed at the foot of a hill outside of Jerusalem and seeing their investment nailed to a Roman cross. For sure, we need to be wise with our money, but let’s not commercialize the Great Commission any more than it already is.
The second comment from this pastor that pushed me over the edge was the comment that the national work was being overseen by Americans, which, by implication, suggests that the church is getting more bang for their buck because it is managed by us, not them! That is an absurd statement at so many different levels. Paternalism was the sin of our mission forefathers and is, unfortunately, still a problem in many countries today. The attitude that since the missionary has the money he controls the ministry (the perversion of the Golden Rule, i.e. he that has the gold rules) is the bane of the modern missionary movement. On the one hand this pastor is touting letting nationals do the work, but only if there is an American that can manage the ministry. How anyone could come up with such a dreadful missiology is beyond my comprehension.
Whenever I read comments, like the one on this pastors list, I realize how much work that needs to be done in educating the American church in missions. Good missiology is more than emotion, much deeper than a well designed PowerPoint or DVD presentation. I wouldn’t presume to tell a pastor how to do his job at the local level, but it seems to be okay for just about anyone to be an expert in cross-cultural ministry.
