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.”
