Review of "Radical"

A pastor emailed me and asked if I had read “Radical” by David Platt and, if so, what were my thoughts. At the time I was in Africa but ordered it to read on my return. Here are my thoughts on “Radical.”

From the perspective of an average North American Christian, Platt’s book is indeed radical. I would also say that his challenges to the Church are very much needed. The lure of the American dream and consumerism is powerful and prevalent. Platt does a good job helping the reader see that being a follower of Christ is not about being blessed by what we have, but being blessed to bless others with Good News of the Gospel.

Platt also does a good job in reminding the average reader the great need of the Great Commission. More than 4.5 billion in this world are not followers of our Lord and, in a recent study I came across, among 3.6 billion people 89% have never even met a Christian. My hat is off to anyone who continues to beat the drum for the need to reach the unreached.

The issue of poverty in this world, addressed in this book, is not unlike many that come across my desk each year. Ron Sider’s book, “Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger: Moving from Affluence to Generosity,” is still the standard on this theme, but grateful for Platt’s reminder of our need to remember those in this world who have so little compared to our abundance.

I also am grateful for the many of the examples Platt gives in his book, both personally and those within his congregation who are doing their best to meet the needs of people in their community and the world.

Missiologically Speaking

From a missiological perspective Platt’s book is not radical and, for some readers, could be misleading.

My first concern is that of the examples of people who went on short-term mission trips, either medical clinics or those who served for a period of time serving the poor. Yes, short-term trips are helpful for American’s to out of their own context and be exposed to the context of those in other places of the world. Yes, I understand that many of those who experience those trips abroad have the potential to do even more globally (though I suspect the percentage of that group is small compared to the total of short-termers each year). And, while I am not totally against such experiences, Platt leaves the impression that type of radicalism is how the world will reached for Christ. That impression is missiologically unsustainable. Why?

Platt states, “Disciple making is not about a program or an event but about relationships.” In the next sentence he states, “As we share the gospel, we impart life, and this is the essence of making disciples. Sharing the life of Christ” (96). While I agree with the first sentence I cannot agree with the second; building relationships and sharing is not same.

As I read through this book the thought that kept popping in my mind was, “The radicals that he is talking about are called ‘missionaries!’”

Missionaries are those who, for the most part, gave up the American dream to live overseas.

Missionaries are the ones who, for the most part, are not bound by materialism.

Missionaries are the ones who are building relationships, not merely sharing their faith.

As I write this my daughter and her family have just returned to the states from three years in Senegal. Six months from now they will return to continue to work in a desolate part of Africa where the majority of people are Muslim and poor. They, like many missionaries who must raise their support (unlike the IMB) and, though they have long since given up the American dream, their goal is to have enough finances to live another term on the field.

Relationships, in Senegal, India or Indonesia, are often built over a lifetime. Breaking through the cultural prison of Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam still takes concerted effort in understanding worldview and contextually presenting the Gospel in their context. Radicals (missionaries) understand that, which was not even addressed in Platt’s book.

Biased? I plead guilty as I still believe that the radicals that will indeed impact this world are those who serve continually cross-culturally, be they Americans or from the emerging nations of the world.

For passion, good intentions and a good wake-up for the average nominal Christian sitting in the American pew, I give Radical a solid B (I love the passion, I am afraid of the mispercetions). Missiologically I give this book a D, realizing that the real radicals are those, who have, like the rich young ruler, already sold all he/she has, who has already left father and mother to go and raise support to follow the One who set the example of a radical. Next time you see a missionary who day-in-day-out slogs through the difficulties of living overseas, don’t see them as just another couple who needs a monthly hand-out…appreciate them as true radicals for Christ.

Women's Role In Missions: Crossing Cultural Boundaries with the Gospel

If you have been reading my stuff for any period of time you know that our ministry is discipling non-Western missionaries. The role of Western missionaries remains crucial but the world has changed and it is my contention that nationals should be at the forefront of crossing cultural boundaries that many from the West cannot cross.

The interview in this clip was done by Kathy Bowe who, along with her husband Darryl, are on staff with the Africa Theological Seminary in Kitale, Kenya. The missionary being interviewed is Christine Maina who was in my class last year. I am was very impressed with Christine and her testimony. As a single woman, she and another single lady went to the unreached areas of North Pokot. They have planted 17 churches since 2003. I have had a VERY small part in Christine's ministry, but I count it a privilege to influence her and others in the greatest of all tasks in reaching those who have never heard of the Good News of Christ and His salvation.

Makutano (Kenya) Bible Institute Project Report

Reflections in Kenya #3

I’m not an “either/or” type of guy. I do have my biases and indeed do lean toward what I think is a better way, but there are exceptions to every rule. Therefore, my comments below as it relates to national support, are tempered by a few exceptions.

I do believe in financial funding for special projects and certainly as it relates to on-going education, training and discipleship. However, I shy away from Western funding, and especially ministries, which are built and driven by aiding developing countries. Evangelizing the nations is not the same as feeding the poor, though somehow we have made taking the Great Commission a human rights issue and, like the blue helmeted UN soldiers, we have come to believe that everything done in the Name of Jesus is the Gospel. Why am I so hard on “open-ended” funding from the haves to the have-nots?

DIGNITY OF THE LOCAL CHURCH – I go back to the case study a Kenyan missionary going to Sudan. He launched out on his own with little to no support. He was driven by a call to reach those who have never heard the Gospel. A local church in Kenya decided to help him, but the support was meager, at best. Some American group, which only supports national pastors, heard about the missionary and wanted to take on his full support. The local church backed off supporting him for two reasons. One, if a rich group from the West will do the funding, why should they? Second, The local church can’t meet their own needs, including paying their pastor, so it is easier to back away from supporting a missionary and concentrate on their own church.

While some believe that Western funding is really advancing the Kingdom, I would argue that our generosity is in reality hurting the national church. Giving is a grace and it a universal disciple that plagues all congregations be they from rich nations or the desperately poor (read 2 Corinthians 8). We sap the dignity of the local church when we tell them that we will carry their financial responsibilities.

POOR MISSIOLOGY - I am torn and wrestle with the need for compassion for those who are poor, oppressed, homeless and hungry. I know we are admonished to help with the felt needs of those less fortunate and believe the church does have a role.

It seems to me, nevertheless, that many, certainly not all, of those who are involved in funding nationals, do not wrestle at all with these missiological tensions in at all.

To be brutally honest, many mission programs (be they social work of feeding, orphanages or funding national pastors; be they American churches or national mission organization) are driven more by their programs and their agenda and have little to no understanding of sound missiology. SOME, again, certainly not all, have the same philosophy as the current American political administration that one should always take advantage of a crisis. SOME, not all, see a tsunami, an earthquake, a drought, a civil war as an opportunity to raise funds. Helping the poor is big business, but it is not necessarily Kingdom business.

Do I support national works? Yes. Am I too cautious as it relates to funding national works, probably. But I hold to Marvin Mayers “Prior Question of Trust” (the PQT) as a good guide in such matters - “Is what I am saying or doing building or undermining trust.” Trust is not built by just writing another check. Trust is built, the Kingdom is built, is through biblical missiology.

Reflections in Kenya #2

What is most intriguing about the national church in developing countries is that some of them have an erroneous perception of wealth and missions. Somehow my Kenyan friends think that when a missionary from America commits to living overseas that they just load up a container full of goods and arrive on their field of service. Yes, it’s true, we come from a country that is the wealthy and, it is also true, that most western missionaries do indeed live in nice houses, drive nice vehicles and can surf the Internet even in the most remote places of the earth. It’s also true that compared to their standard of living that maybe we have more than our fair share of wealth. Though I understand the tension between the “haves” and the “have-nots,” there is an underlying principle of biblical missions that I believe is universal. In spite of the disparity of income, all missionaries, western and non-western face: (1) Every potential supporting church or donor says they don’t have money and, (2) Raising support is a part of the process of getting to the field.

SORRY, WE DON’T HAVE ANY MONEY - When I talk to the non-western churches about supporting cross-cultural missionaries they tell me “we are too poor to support missionaries.” Guess what, that’s what the American church says as well. They don’t quite say it that way; their excuse for not being a part of the Great Commission is that the budget is tight and for right now (suggesting one day maybe) they just can’t support missionaries. This with the backdrop of their million dollar capital program, the need to hire an administrative pastor or the need to raise money for their teen-agers to take a 10 day trip to Ecuador. Of course the issue is never about having enough, it’s a matter of priorities. On scale, whether it’s a church in Clovis, New Mexico or a church in Nakuru, Kenya, there is enough money in sending missionaries, it’s just a matter of whether they are truly committed to being a part of world evangelization.

First of all, non-western missionaries must recognize that they are not going cross-culturally with the goal of enhancing their standard of living. Missionaries going to another country should expect to live at the same level or less than their home country. While there are exceptions, most American missionaries don’t live as well in a foreign country as they do in the states and I know many who with far less that their peers back home. A missionary from the Philippines going to Tanzania will live as a Filipino, not as a westerner; same with a Korean’s going to Russia or a Kenyan going to Chad. If one expects becoming a missionary means economic lift in their standard of living they are going into ministry with the wrong expectations and motives.

SUPPORT RAISING IS PART OF THE JOB - I don’t like the system and wish it wasn’t a part of the job, but most missionaries must be willing to raise their own support in getting to the field. This is one area that some non-western missionaries don’t quite get. Raising support has two main purposes. The first is obviously getting enough money raised to support both family and ministry in a different environment. The other reason for raising support is to be a part of the education process for the local church in THEIR role in the Great Commission. The churches of Kenya will never really understand the need of reaching the world for Christ until they meet and partner with someone who has is willing to go to places where the Gospel has not yet gone. The Great Commission is not dependent on a country’s GDP. Every congregation throughout the world shares in this mandate from our Lord.

The pastor who asked me, “What can we expect from our grandfather in the Lord,” would like for me to relieve him of the burden that every missionary I know has had to do deal with, and that is raising support. By the way, it’s a long process. I know North American missionaries who have spent as long as three years trying to raise enough money to get to the field. Of course I think, given the wealth of the American church, that is criminal, but it’s a reality. Because the economy in Kenyan is much less, a national missionary should be able to raise his support, one church at a time, just like everyone else in this world. I pray it won’t take them three years to raise the needed funds but if it does it’s still a part of the process.

No doubt someone reading this may think it makes more economic sense to just raise money for nationals, accelerating the process as well as being better stewards of God’s resources. Though I understand the argument, for me, it is missiologically ignorant (in the sense of being unaware of sound missiology). To that issue I will address next time…to be continued.

Reflections in Kenya

The past two weeks I have been in Kenya. It’s great to be “home,” as my daughters call it (we served here for 14 years, the formative years for our girls). I am teaching missions at the Africa Theological Seminary in Kitale, a city of about 40,000 people in the western part of the country, near the Ugandan border.

In my partnership agreement with ATS, in exchange of my teaching their B.A. students, they allow me to bring in students not formerly enrolled in the school for mission studies. This year we have 15 people from Kenya, Uganda and Sudan attending the class. My mantra is the same; I want to influence people for cross-cultural ministry.

In the past three years I have been coming to Kenya to challenge the church to send out missionaries to areas where there are no churches. Those regions, towns and villages are few as this country as about 85% of the population claim to be Christian. I am very much aware that probably not more that 35 to 45 percent of the population actually attend church on any given Sunday, but there are tons of churches in Kenya and they use to say that Kenya has more western missionaries, per capita, than any other nation in Africa. Yet, there are SOME places in Kenya where there are not many Christians, which would include many towns and villages in the northeast (near Somalia) and on the coast, which is predominately Muslim. My great challenge is that the Kenyan churches send cross-cultural workers to Arabic Sudan, Libya or Djibouti.

Because of my pioneer status, arriving here in 1976 and working in remote areas of Pokot and Turkana districts, some of the young pastors, who were not even born when I first arrived, see me as some sort of a historical figure. They see the churches started (12 while I was here, now over 200), the Makutano Bible Institute still moving forward and, like many who miss the details of history, wonder what role they may have for the future, even more so, what my role will be for their future.

“We are your spiritual grandchildren,” one pastor said to me this past week. “What can we expect from our grandfather in helping us in our ministry?”

“Nothing,” I replied.

I certainly understand the economic disparity between the grandfather and the grandchildren, but the issue of continually underwriting the national church, especially in a country where there are more churches than you can count, seems to me a bit outdated. Dependency has long plagued the church throughout the world in developing countries. I am not opposed to lending a helping hand and throughout my career as a missionary aided worthy projects throughout the world. I will continue to do so. In the process of growth, however, there must be some movement on the part of the offspring. There are two reasons I believe for dependency within the Kenyan church, and many other parts of the world: (1) An unwillingness to pay the price among the national church and, (2) The ignorant missiological approach of the West.

(To be continued)