Global Missions in the Local Church

Missions For The Local Church: Introduction

Recently I visited one of our supporting churches.  It’s a well-established and growing congregation.  The pastor asked me a question that is not uncommon, in fact, almost everywhere I go in the U.S. I am asked the same question – “How can we make our congregation more mission minded?” 

The majority of North American evangelical churches do missions.  By that I mean they have a missions program, like they would have a program for youth, children or seniors.  Missions is important in the sense that they believe it is a part of the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20).  Many churches would never think about abolishing their mission program but, unlike youth, children or seniors ministry, missions does not support the “bottom line,” i.e., church attendance or budget.  In fact, missions and missionaries are usually seen as a liability to the growth of the church.  Missions is not a program that will help pave the parking lot or renovate the nursery.  Missionaries neither tithe nor teach a class.  For the skeptic, missions is a drain on resources.  This is never said overtly, but is manifested in benign neglect. 

However, because missions truly is important, pastors desire to go beyond just doing missions and instead want to do missions right.  It is because of this felt need I write this series on creating an effective global missions program for your local church.

At the outset let me state clearly that in creating a good missions program for your congregation is a process.  Like every program of the church, developing a missions program requires one major thing…a commitment to its development.  As you will see in this series, there are no five easy steps or one model to hold up as the example for all to emulate.  As with many things in life, doing things well takes time and effort.  If a pastor or church leader is not committed to the process then the chances are that two years from now your global outreach will be as dull as it is today, the result being a uninspired congregation for God’s heart, taking the Good News of Christ and His salvation to the ends of the earth.

So what is the process for creating a good missions program for your local church?  Here is the outline for upcoming posts.

1.     Create a missions team.  Who are they, why they exist, what is their job?

2.     Define your purpose.  How does your church and missions team define what is missions; church planting, social work, short-term, harvest versus seeding sowing ministries?

3.     Mission awareness.  How can your team and congregation become savvy in understanding missions today?  Where are the resources to help you become an educated body of world Christians?

4.     Evaluation.  After you complete steps one to three, its time to create a guiding missions document or policy.  Analyze your present global outreach and work toward the goal of becoming a Great Commission church.

You will notice that this outline does not discuss finances, and for a very good reason.  If missions is done well and has a designed purpose the funding of mission projects will take place.  I will make the case later that churches that do missions well seldom suffer financial hardship for their local ministries.

As we go through this series, please send your comments and questions along the way.

Missional or Missiological?

A friend of mine sent me a PDF file on a study entitled, Nine Game-Changers for Global Missions: Trends that Shape the Future, by the Leadership Network, and asked for my thoughts. So here it is.

The nine “game changers” revolve around nine themes and trends, at least from the perspective of the 50 leaders who contributed to the article, which focuses on cities, mutuality, partnering, investing in leaders, combining good news and good deeds, greater financial accountability, business as mission, focus, and technology. Much of these trends are not particularly new, but what was unique about this article is that it gave examples of churches that focused on these trends. Each has merit and, for that reason alone, the article is a worthwhile read. However, as a missiologist, there were some issues I feel needs to be addressed.

Large Churches Versus Average Churches - Almost all of the examples of “best practices,” in this article were churches of substantial size. The average congregation in the U.S. is less than 200 in membership. While large churches with substantial mission budgets may be able to focus their resources to their particular interest, churches with modest resources would probably find this article stifling. Most of what is written in this piece would likely be irrelevant to the majority of American churches.

Mutuality and Partnerships – The trend today among larger churches is to by-pass, or at least minimize, North American career missionaries and focus on partnering with nationals. As a non-resident career missionary I understand and appreciate the need to come alongside the majority world church and partner with them in their efforts to reach their own nation with the Gospel. However, the underlining theme of “game changers,” is that partnership from the Western side is overwhelmingly financial, either in giving aid to the developing church or sending teams to assist the foreign church. Though this article is careful to point out that they don’t want to be guilty of paternalism, I question if that is possible.

I contend that good partnership is assisting the national church in what they need (not necessarily what they want) in terms of training. If partnerships is about assisting the church in how to take the message of Christ cross-culturally to Muslims, Hindus and Buddhist, or helping the national church leaders know how to properly disciple their congregation in contextualized outreach, then I am onboard. However, most programs discussed in this article is woefully lacking in missiological understanding, which is my next point.

Missiologically Challenged - Having just returned from teaching in Kenya I was amazed by how many short-term mission groups had invaded the country (by some estimates, over 4 million North Americans take a short-term mission trip throughout the world each year). Many of these groups were there to do evangelism or social work. In a country that claims to be 80% Christian I wonder how many of these groups worked among the most least evangelized people groups in the country, i.e., the Somali refugees in the north, Muslims on the coast or the animists living in the northwest.

Most of what I read in “game changers,” hardly anything to say about reaching the most unreached peoples of the world. 3.6 billion people in this world have never met a Christian. While I applaud the efforts of the North American church to build hospitals for AID patients, schools and orphanages, how do these good works reach the Sufi’s of Bangladesh, the Buddhist of Laos or the Hindu’s in India?

Missions always have been and always will be about building relationships. While “game changers” will make the Western church feel as though they are truly engaged in the Great Commission, the world will not be impacted significantly without a well thought out strategy and a commitment to fundamental principles of evangelism – a dedication to live among those who have never heard about Christ and His salvation.

I realize that I am a throwback of an era of old missions. However, I still believe that missionaries, be they American or non-American, must incorporate the biblical principle of incarnation, which means learn the language of the people, live among them, and learn how to contextualize the message of Christ to those God has called them to serve. Being actively engaged in going overseas, developing partnerships and all of that has merit, but being missional is not the same as being missiological.