Case For Non-Residential Missionary (NRM)

Several years ago I read a book entitled “The Non-Residential Missionary.” The authors were making a case for the shift in the role of North Americans in global ministries from that of resident aliens, i.e., expatriates residing in a country, to cross-cultural experts working overseas not residing in those countries. The trend of missions today bears out that the authors were probably ahead of their time. Even though many churches or mission agencies today don't buy into the NRM philosophy, it is a natural trend that will be more of a reality in the years ahead.

WHAT IS A NON-RESIDENTIAL MISSIONARY?

A NRM is one who has certain unique characteristics and qualifications.

(1) They are former residents or have spent significant amount of time in a particular culture that now visit those countries frequently to minister. Due to their knowledge of the culture, their contribution in training, or advising the national church sets them apart for a unique role in cross-cultural work. I believe there is an important peculiarity for someone who takes on the role of a NRM. To be an effective advisor and teacher a person should posses a certain amount of insider knowledge. The understanding of culture requires that a person probably should know the language or, at least, have resided within the culture long enough to wrestle with the tensions of that culture.

I lived in Kenya for over ten years. I understand and speak Swahili. My exposure to other African countries, seven in all, gives me a certain level of expertise into the African culture. In addition, I have been teaching in India since 1992 and lived in the country for four years. Though I do not speak Hindi I have worked with Indian nationals long enough that I have more than a cursory understanding of the religious, political and economic dynamics of that country.

There are many people, like myself, who have spent years serving among a particular people group or culture that, for the lack of a better term, qualify them as experts in that culture. When they minister to these groups it is based on insider knowledge. I know of one brother who spent years in Lebanon before being forced to leave the country. Another colleague lived in Iran before the days of the Ayatollah Khomeini. For political reasons these men can no longer live in those countries, but as NRM’s when they visit or teach in the Middle East it is based on a thorough understanding of the Persian/Arabic mindset. Another friend, who is fluent in Russian and has lived in the former Soviet Union several years, travels as a NRM training church planters. All of these men are insiders into those cultures.

(2) A NRM functions as a facilitator alongside the national church. They moved out of being a resident missionary (RM) because they were either forced out or, more than likely, determined it was no longer necessary for them to remain on the field to help the national church. In my particular case, I left Kenya because that, in some ways, my presence retarded the national churches growth (I understand that is a debatable issue). I feel that today my NR status allows me to advise without dictating or managing local affairs. In the case of India, I lived in the country with the express goal of being a facilitator in training. Functionally I was a NRM even though I was a resident. Having served in that country for many years, though I in no way consider myself an expert in Indian culture, I have earned an intimate perspective into the culture with insights that allows me to present my teaching in a culturally relevant manner.

There will always be a need for RM’s and I am not suggesting that every RM should move from that role to that of a NRM. Increasingly, however, the role of NRM’s will be a part of the missiological landscape. As the national church continues to grow and takes ownership, the need for RM will continue to decline. The question is the church ready for the Non-Resident Missionary?

Unplugged

This past week I have been teaching in a remote area of the country. Though I have access to the Internet via a cell phone dial up, I don’t have ready access and what I do have is slow and unreliable. Being away from DSL in my home has been a great benefit. Though I have little knowledge of what is happening in the world I find my circumstances to be quite refreshing.

The first benefit of being “unplugged” is that I am not wasting time surfing the net. Television is a wonderful communication and entertainment tool, however, to sit before, what we use to call the “boob tube,” for hours is a time stealer. I’ve heard it said that it takes less mental energy to watch TV than when sleeping. I’m assuming it’s because in sleep our mind is still engaged in dreaming. The same can be said of sitting in front of a computer for hours checking mail, reading news and the weather. Helpful if you can discipline yourself, but unfortunately I am not as disciplined as I should be and waste an incredible amount of time clicking links. My oldest daughter, Becky, wrote the other day and lamented the time she spends at the computer and has asked her husband to hide their connecting cord, forcing her away from the worldwide web.

The second benefit of isolation is that I reading more and listening to messages I have downloaded on my computer. I intentionally did not bring DVD movies on this trip to force myself to seek other outlets of pastime activities. I am of the old school in Bible study and sill find the late Dr. J. Vernon McGee and his “Through The Bible Studies,” both inspiring and even amusing. Listening to a verse-by-verse study of the Scriptures has been much more rewarding than the dire news reported on CNN.

Third, without the distractions of 24/7 connection, I have been able to think, exercise, pray and write with more consistency. If I just write one page a day for a whole year I will have put down enough words to make a pretty decent book. There is no guarantee that what I’ve written will ever see the publishing light of day, but certainly I will have a better chance in making a book a reality than if I fritter away my writing time by checking the ten-day weather forecast in Summers, Arkansas.

Of course the greatest challenge is if I will remember the benefits of being unplugged when I get home. Perhaps, like my daughter, I will have to ask my wife to hide the DSL cord to make sure I remain unplugged.

Ownership Versus Autonomy

As I speak in churches around the US I encourage congregations to take ownership of their global outreach program. Historically the local church has been asked to fund missions but not be personally engaged in the strategy or direction of the mission focus. In the past several years some churches have taken up that challenge and have created mission policies that target a people groups or region and have set guidelines on what type of projects they will fund (nationals, church planting, training programs, etc.). I applaud these efforts as it propels sending congregations into a more active role in missions beyond just writing checks.

Like so many things, however, there is a balance as well as a limit on how much a local church should be involved in mission activity on the field. Some churches and mission committees are so involved they begin to dictate the ministry activity on the field. Nothing grates fielded people more than dictates from a mission board or a church on how they should do their job. Missionaries are placed in a precarious position when the home office or a sending church creates policies that are outside the missionary’s scope of ministry. Faith missionaries (those who are not salaried by a denomination and must raise their support) are forced to keep a low profile on some of their ministries approach as their activities may not be understood by people in the states. Likewise, issues that dominate the American Christian culture often becomes a unnecessary issue for missionaries on the field. Examples:

• There are some churches in the US who are still debating the proper translation to be used in ministry. Those who are strong King James Version have actually dropped missionaries on the field who use the NIV or some other version. Silly? Perhaps, but it’s an important issue for some sending congregations.

• In polygamous societies (Muslim, tribals) churches in the states have called on missionaries to renounce the practice in the church or they will lose support.

• Partnership for some congregations means allowing American congregations to visit the mission field allowing them to give seminars on marriage, church leadership or church planting. This, in spite of the fact, that the American teachers do not understand the cultural context of the field.

• In the past missionaries have been asked about the type of music they listen to, books they read and sign statements declaring they will not smoke, drink, play cards or watch movies.

As a missionary grows in their thinking they’re philosophy of mission may be to allow converts to remain “secret disciples;” may use native terms for God (Allah, Ram); express their form of worship in context (praying on Friday, audible praying with hands lifted); or place no restrictions on converts who hold on to cultural habits (drinking blood, chewing coca, or continue the practice of dowry or brideprice). For some sending congregations these practices are unacceptable behavior and therefore could be a cause for donors to suspend their funding.

So what should a missionary do? Most missionaries just keep a low profile and share as little as possible to people back home. That’s the safest way to deal with controversy, but it also keeps missionaries intellectually and spiritually stunted. Being quite can also lead to dishonesty if a missionary practices things he thinks the donor church won’t approve of, even though it may culturally acceptable and doesn’t violate biblical principles. I often receive notes from fielded people telling me they agree with some of my writings but would never say it publicly.

Sometimes missionaries will yield to the dictates of the sending church or agency. This is not always bad as I believe some people benefit from receiving direction from outside input. There are some people on the field who, frankly, are not as productive as they should be and who need some guidance. Sadly, however, some missionaries will yield to directives just to maintain their support. To give away autonomy just to preserve funding cheapens our profession and is a betrayal of conscience.

There is a fine balance that missionaries and donors must sustain. I welcome the opportunity to interact with donors about cross-cultural ministry. It gives me a chance to educate the sending church while at the same time give them a sense of ownership in our ministry. I cannot, however, satisfy everyone, so the best I can do is pray that God will bring people into my life who will keep me accountable without demanding I give away that which I believe is culturally, intellectually and spiritually correct for my ministry context.

Imported Leadership Training

As a faculty advisor for a local college here in India, one of my responsibilities is to read doctoral dissertations. I am presently working with three students and they are sending me their work, chapter-by-chapter, for my input and correction. Like all students, some are good; others need a lot of work. One of the discouraging things about some of their presentations is they “cut and paste” submissions, meaning they have taken an outline or a paper previously written in another class and try to submit it as a chapter for their thesis. It doesn’t work. A good thesis must be good writing; it can’t be read like last Sunday’s sermon outline.

Today’s mission Franchiser (yes, this is an extended thought from a previous post) is very much like my students papers, they are often warmed over cut and paste presentations people use in their home country. One of the most popular subjects for seminars is leadership development. Everyone has an idea on what makes a good leader and books on leadership are as plentiful as diet books. I quit buying such books a few years back because they are all basically the same. In my database I typed in the word leadership and came up with:

Principle Centered Leadership
Biblical Leadership
Leadership as Art
Effective Leadership
Servant Leadership
Nigerian Leadership
Roving Leadership
Leadership Control
Matriarchal Leadership

And the list goes on. I won’t even begin to share with you the list for words like, “leader” “manger” or “follower” in my data files.

So the Franchiser wants to visit the foreign field and do a seminar on leadership, as though this is a new concept. Perhaps it is for many. But in the end it will be a cut and paste presentation, created in his cultural context with the expectations that it will translate transculturally. The reality is, it won’t. Leadership principles, though similar, are different in every cultural context. Like my students, if the Franchiser can demonstrate how to bridge the gap between the general concepts to fit within the cultural context they will have made a great contribution. But to do that, they will have to understand the context – they will have to know the questions before they give the answers. Pasting concepts doesn’t often stick.

Writers Write Till They Die

A colleague from China wrote recently asking me about writing…how to get started, tips on getting published, etc. I answered that the main thing about writers is they write. They write when they are on the train, waiting in government offices, even while walking (or at least I do, in my head).

It’s intriguing to me what people write about and even more surprising what people read. On our bookshelf are titles such as The Kalahari Typing School For Boys, One Night At A Call Center, Missiological Implications of Epistemological Shifts, and Yoga School Dropout. Biographies, Bible commentaries, political satire, travel and business books are all a part of our eclectic reading collection. So, when people ask me what to write about my standard answer is, “Whatever interests you.”

Publishing what you write takes a bit more focus. I started writing for our denominational bi-monthly publication many years ago. Emboldened by their acceptance I began submitting articles to Leadership, Christianity Today, Evangelical Missions Quarterly and a host of smaller known magazines. I published my own newsletter for years and a guy I never heard of wrote me the other day saying he always enjoyed those mimeographed mail-outs. Today, blogging is a way for me to get in my writing fix a couple of times a week and helps me quantify my thoughts as well as sharpen my craft. The main thing is…writers write.

Writing is a solitary activity, sometimes lonely. Yet, while alone with ones thoughts, it’s a chance to communicate with others, whether they read what you’ve labored over or not. Writers are people of process and the only instant gratification a writer receives is a well-turned phrase, a word that fits and making a blank sheet of paper (or computer screen) come alive with an intriguing thought or story.

Most of all, good writing is work. Writing is laborious, tedious and tiring. Nothing is more daunting than looking at an empty screen trying to express through words something meaningful. I’ve typed thousands of words no one will ever read; hundreds of paragraphs filed in the abyss of cyber hell because the thoughts and meaning never came together to make any sense.

Good prose, for me, must pass the “so what” test. In the Bible a passage may begin with “Therefore…” and I was taught to ask “what’s it there for?” (meaning, you need to read the verse above to understand what the "Therefore" is there for). If what I read, or write, has no entertainment or educational value and I come to the end saying "so what?" then it has been a waste of time.

Write then. Write about your adventures and lessons of life. Put your thoughts in a journal for your grandkids; send it to your friends or your mom (who will always cherish your scribbles). Master the craft and submit it to a magazine. Or, when everything else fails, get a blog site and let the “hits” determine if anyone is interested in your words. Above all, remember, writers write until they drop. Write until they pull your cold dead fingers from the keyboard.

How Cultures Think

A thorough understanding of how cultures think cannot be accomplished through a series of blog posts. In the past couple of offerings I have tried to identify the difference between Franchisers and Facilitators from a purely North American position and their role in missions. The broader discussion of how cultures work, however, is more complex.

I was introduced to anthropologist May Douglas and her concept of cultural theory in 1987. My students will either be encouraged or distressed that I am still using the grid and group model in analyzing culture. However, if a person can grasp this model it will help them understand how different cultures function. The issues of leadership, how cultures make decisions and how people view property are all tied to how cultures think.

In looking at the categories above one can easily identify Americans as Individualists or Franchisers. Bureaucrats, which is known as the establishment or the street term, The Man, are in every culture, but they are strong in places like Russia and East Europe. Hierarchy, where there is a strong bond as a group but also have layered roles is found in countries like China or India. Egalitarians, or Facilitators are most often found in rural communities but also formed as interest groups (MADD, PETA, MOPS, Young Republicans, etc.). The key in understanding grid and group is not in just knowing the categories but connecting the dots on why it’s important. Two brief examples.

LEADERSHIP - Americans love to talk about leadership and every year they travel throughout the world giving seminars on how to be a (servant, biblical, purpose driven) leader. Being from a society of Franchisers, Americans assume that leadership hold universal characteristics that transcends cultural boundaries. There is nothing wrong with teaching principles of leadership, but in countries that sees value in group solidarity, where decisions are not the sole property of the man/woman at the top, those leadership principles are of limited use. In high group cultures it's equally important to understand the dynamics of consensus in decision-making as is the character of a leader.

PARTNERSHIP - As noted in an earlier post, today’s trend is for the NAC to enter into partnership with national churches. Tensions often surface when the Franchisers try to impose their programs on people who are Bureaucratic, Egalitarian or Hierarchy. Franchisers value autonomy, risk taking, unilateral decision-making and innovation. Many cultures do not esteem these characteristics and, in fact, often see these actions as self-serving and selfish.

As Bob Buford writes in Half Time, “You can choose the game, but you can’t choose the rules.” To play the game properly in a cross-cultural context the most important ingredient is to learn the rules in which they play the game of life.