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.