The Lowe’s Model of Missions

The trend of North American local churches and world outreach for the past decade has been the Lowe’s home improvement model, do it yourself or…”Let’s build something.”  Rather than hiring a plumber or carpenter, let’s save money (surely not time) and just do it ourselves.  In the same vain, instead of depending on a mission organization or American missionaries on the field in reaching the world with the Gospel, many American congregations have adopted the philosophy of let’s just do it ourselves.  We, the local church, can save money, engage our local congregation in projects better than the old model of sending missionaries.

There is a certain ring of truth to this trend.  It cost a great deal of money to send North Americans overseas and in today’s economics the expense is outstripping the budget, as the IMB announced last week when they determined they are forced to reduce their missions staff by 800 people (http://www.imb.org/updates/storyview-3509.aspx#.Ve3DbShDIws).  However, beyond economics, the Lowe’s model of missions is, mostly about meeting the needs of the local church. 

What are the motivations for Lowe’s model of missions. 

FOCUSED MINISTRY - We will target the people and fields we want to support.  Example, instead of supporting a North American missionary family going to Germany, which we are not interested in, we will support a national pastor working among the Aka pygmies in the DRC. 

ECONOMICS – Instead of supporting the Western missionary for $200 per month, which is not even 3% of his needed monthly support, we can use that $200 to sustain a national pastor for a month.

 HANDS-ON – Along with focus we can engage our local congregation in taking trips to work alongside the national, build orphanages, have feeding programs and provide leadership seminars.  We can, in some ways, duplicate our church in the states overseas. 

On the surface it looks like the Lowe’s model of missions makes more sense than contracting a professional.  However, below the surface, where reality resides, we find a different story. 

ARROGANCE – The Lowe’s model of missions is a little like the song from Annie Get Your Gun, “Anything you can do I can do better.  I can do anything better than you” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO23WBji_Z0).   Just because the American church can finance a program doesn’t mean they know how to do missions better.  It’s true, the Western church can make ministry on the field look shinny and appear successful, but it’s arrogance to think it’s better than what a North American missionary on the field can do. 

MISSIOLOGICALLY NAÏVE – There is no evidence that supporting a national pastor, missionary or church planter is more effective than a North American.  Cheaper, yes, but saving money is not the issue, or shouldn’t be.  I have been working with nationals for thirty years.  I have met and worked with some indigenous servants who were really gifted and blessed of God.  I have met others who were inept and ineffective.  Due to tribe, caste or socio-economics, in some cases, nationals are actually less effective than North Americans.  An Indian from the south is not naturally a more effective in outreach to Hindu’s to the north.  Indeed, because they do not know language or know the culture of those in the north, they could easily be more of a liability than a blessing.

THEOLOGICALLY INCONSISTENT - An American church I am familiar with recently ceased funding American missionaries all over the world to focus on a particular unreached people group in South Asia.  The reports of people coming to Christ and churches being established by the nationals were staggering.  In visiting this indigenous mission I was stunned at their lack of understanding of basic Bible doctrine.  In fact, our guide from this mission stated openly that he thought going to a seminary was a waste of time, remarking that most false teaching is due to people going to seminaries!  Over the course of two days I visited several of their churches in the region.  Not one time was the Bible opened.  Every testimony from the church members was conversion through healing, some from deafness, cancer and one reported to have risen from the dead. 

The American congregation that supported this indigenous mission is a solid, conservative and theologically strong church.  There is no way that they would allow the teaching from this South Asia congregation to creep into their church.  Yet, they have invested thousand of dollars into this national organization.  Why?  The only thing I can think of is due to the naïveté of this church’s mission leadership. 

CHANGE TO THE SLOGAN

The Lowe’s model of missions needs a different focus and a new theme.  This will mean a remodeling of our thinking, including better training among American churches and indigenous leaders in missions.  It will mean a bit more humility, on both sides, than stating “anything you can do I can better.”  It means recognizing that, indeed, the old ways of doing missions needs to be analyzed, but also recognize that not all those in the West are disqualified from serving Christ cross-culturally.  The 3.6 billion people in this world who have never met a Christian will not be reached with the Lowe’s model of missions.   Rather than state, “Let’s build something,” Lowe’s current slogan is more appealing…”Never Stop Improving.”