Doohickey Missions

My friend, Neal, likes to say, “There IS a difference between being a visionary leader and a day dreamer.” This cartoon brought to mind the many people I see on the field who may have a philosophy (people group focus, saturation church planting – SCP, business as mission – BAM) but really don’t have a clue on how to make the vision a reality.

I appreciate vision. I think it’s wonderful that people are in the business of motivating others to be a part of the Great Commission. When I attend conferences in the U.S. most of it is about the global need in missions and casting the vision. Now, if we could just come up with a doohickey strategy for missions to achieve the goal!

The 90 – 10 Rule goes something like this – “The first ninety percent of the task takes ten percent of the time, and the last ten percent takes ninety percent.” I’m not sure, maybe I have it backwards, but sometimes I think creating an idea on how to do missions is the easy part, it’s the actual doing of missions that seems to bog everyone down.

I belonged to an organization that is built on a mission dream called SCP that propose that missionaries “Draw a circle around an area and saturate it with churches.” The visionary president even stated boldly, “Church planting is easy, we just need to do it.” My conclusion is that SCP, though an interesting idea, is missiologically flawed. Most people who bought into the vision have never planted a church, and wander around the country trying to figure out what they should be doing to make SCP work. SCP works fine in countries like Kenya and the Philippines, where there is already a strong Christian presence, but it’s another matter in counties that are Gospel resistant, like Senegal or Cambodia. If churches are planted in those countries it’s because someone is spending ninety percent of their time doing the work, not just dreaming about it.

The same could be said of BAM. There are a ton books now written on doing business as mission. Apart from the ethics of BAM, like church planting, if you’ve never actually done it, is it really a good mission strategy? Those who succeed know how to do business, those who are not business minded end up with a doohickey idea and call it missions.

As I write this post I do it with concern. I feel sorry for so many of my friends who have good hearts, love Christ and really want to serve Him. Their passion for others is not in question – they long to see people come to know the Savior. What they need is not more vision and they deserve more than a doohickey program. Their need is to learn what it means to use ninety percent of their time making the ten percent vision a reality.

Disneyfication Of Missions

The other day I read a post from a pastor who just returned from a two-week youth camp in Eastern Europe. He concluded his cheery post by saying, “Ain’t serving God fun!”

Fun? I read the post while sitting in my sweltering three-room (that’s rooms, not bedrooms) apartment in Delhi. With the daytime temperature at 95 with a heat index of 120, fun wasn’t exactly what I was experiencing. It may be fun to do a 10 day sortie serving others on the mission field, but it’s an entirely different matter when you know your return airplane ticket is still another two years away.

This pastor’s post came on the heels of a note from a friend in Cambodia. His subject line heading was “Home Because of Burnout.” After being on the field for over three years, struggling with learning a difficult language, living in a steamy climate, eating rice everyday and facing a resistant population, Lee and Pat were not having fun. Culture stress usually gets all those who spend more that a fortnight away from the comforts of home. Being around people of a different culture everyday loses its giggles in a hurry.

The trend for many years in the American church has been to make the church experience fun. The songs we sing, the games we have to entertin our children and youth all point to the Disneyfication of the church. This trend is an attempt to make church appealing, exciting, not boring. There is nothing more tedious than being in a service that drone’s on. In our desire to draw people into our services we are trying to convey a message that being a Christian is a hoot. Finding a balance between worship and whooping it up for Jesus seems to be a challenge.

Though life overseas isn’t always rainbows and daisies, it is rewarding. What keeps most cross-cultural workers going is knowing that maybe God will use us in His grand scheme of redemption. Fun is not why we do what we do and it’s a good thing, because life overseas ain’t always a barrel full of monkeys.

Left Behind

This is a tough week for my kids. It’s the week my eldest daughter, Becky, says goodbye to her sister, Sara, for three years. Sara and her family are heading to Senegal, West Africa in a few weeks. Compounding the pain of separation is saying goodbye to the nieces and nephews. Sara’s kids, Isabella (4 yrs) and Simon (2 yrs) and Becky’s children, Molly (13) and Colin (10) make saying goodbye extra tough knowing that three years makes a huge difference in the lives of kids. Next time they see each other Molly will have her driving permit and Simon will be in kindergarten.

Missions is kind of a family business for us. Of course our girls grew up in Africa. Becky handles our office work, her husband, Casey, is the son of a missionary working in Mexico and other countries. Aaron, Sara’s husband, grew up in Senegal, so this ritual of saying goodbye in our family is not new – but it’s never easy.

When we said our first goodbyes to family and friends on September 21, 1976 to go to Kenya, I was aware of the pain I felt but never fully realized what it meant for those left behind in the states. I am close to my twin-brother, but guys are different when it comes to these things, so we took our separation as a-matter-of-fact. My, wife’s sisters, on the other hand, felt our departure with more sadness and probably cursed my name as we boarded the plane. My folks at the time was in their mid-50’s and outwardly supported us, but it had to be tough to say goodbye to their granddaughters, who were at the time 5 and 1 years old.


This past year I know of at least three missionary families who have returned to the states because of family issues. For some the separation from mom/dad and siblings is just too great a price to pay for serving Christ overseas. I have never criticized those who make the decision to leave the field for family reasons. I think sometimes the screening process of potential missionaries should be better to flush out those who resist leaving their home country, but I can’t fault those who quit because of family ties.

For those who do make the commitment to leave family I have great admiration. But to the families that “let them go,” and are not an obstacle I have even greater esteem. I came to this appreciation much later in my career. Being a grandfather and seeing my own move to the other side of the world gives me a different perspective of things.

Nationals Versus Foreigners

I was reminded again this week of the division that exists between some national and foreign church workers. This schism has always been a part of the history of missions, but it seems to be growing. I don’t want to overstate the situation. Not all nationals have a negative attitude of foreigners and, in fact, those I work with treat me with respect and appreciation. However, there is an underlying tension among some national leaders who see foreigners as irrelevant and even unwanted. Sadly, some nationals have a racist and hostile attitude toward foreigners. Why? What’s the reason for this animosity of nationals toward foreigners?

HISTORY – Our missionary forefathers, for the most part, were noble God-fearing people. They went to the regions beyond for the express purpose of telling others about Christ, establishing schools and hospitals. Along with the expansion of the Gospel, however, was an attitude of paternalism. Many foreigners of the past, which is still prevalent in too many foreigners today, was the attitude that the nationals were uncivilized, dirty and lazy. The foreigners treated nationals as incapable and sometimes even as coolies for their ministries. The mistrust of nationals toward foreigners today is the result of age-old scars of paternalism.

POWER - When the marginalized become masters it’s not uncommon for them to wield power they were once denied. Money, land, decision making, prestige once held by the “white skins,” now are held by the brown, yellow and black. No longer must the nationals ask permission or beg for authority, they have it and they intend to use it. Sometimes power breeds disdain. For some nationals there is a sense of seeking justice for the wrongs committed in the past, and those with power often seek ways to even the score for the injustices of history.

In dealing with this issue of division between nationals and foreigners it’s important to look for balance as well as spiritual maturity. Neither paternalism nor nationalism can hardly be what Christ has in mind for His Church. The role of the national is and should continue to grow; after all, it is their countries. Foreign institutions need to actively release their paternalistic grip on fields they helped evangelize. Foreign missionaries need to learn their new role in today’s changing world and not act as though they are the final authority or indispensable in overseas ministry.

Likewise, the national church needs to recognize there is a role for foreigners in world missions besides just funding. Though nationals continue to berate foreigners it hasn’t deterred them from invading the foreign church seeking funding. The color white seems to be acceptable if green is involved. Foreigners can still play a vital role in missions, through technology, education and yes, even evangelism.

The tension between nationals and foreigners will remain a reality as long as man lives on this earth in his sinful and ethnocentristic state. Those who overcome these destructive attitudes understand that the Body is one and each member, though functionally different, is important for the cause of world evangelism.

Missionaries - Made or Born?

In the thirty years I have been a part of the mission industry I have worked with and observed people who have voluntarily taken on the profession of a missionary. I know some who have lived in the same country for forty years and have no plans to retire. I’ve met some who served overseas for ten years and then left the field for no apparent reason having no desire to be involved in cross-cultural work again. I know some who have been very successful with flourishing ministries and I know some who have lived overseas for decades never accomplishing anything of significance. Some of the personalities I’ve met live inspiring lives, which are dedicated to their profession. Others I’ve met seem to be trapped - they would like to do something else but time has passed them by and they don’t have job skills to make a living in their home country. When it comes to missionaries, not all are equal, but they have some common traits. I wonder, are people made or born to work overseas?

CALLING - Though I am skeptical of those who say they are called of God for overseas work there is little doubt there is a sense of mission for all those who desire to be missionaries. Sometimes people get caught up with the glamour or adventure of living in a different country, but for most of those who take on this assignment it’s because of a sense wanting to make an impact on the world with the Gospel. Unlike the vast majority of Christians who sit in the pews, who see the Great Commission as something someone should do, these cross-cultural servants embrace the command as something they should do. It takes an unusual mindset for a person to make the decision that they will leave their home country and family to pursue living in another culture. Maybe missionaries are wired, or born, for this profession.

ADAPTING - It’s one thing to volunteer; it’s an entirely different matter for someone to actually stick with it. I’ve met people who live in four room concrete houses in the desert, folks who live in hot and humid climates, others who live in cold countries where there is only four hours of sunlight in the winter. Some live in noisy modern cities while others live in quite rural villages. Some of these people send their kids to boarding schools, others spend a considerable amount of their days home schooling. Missionaries are not martyrs, some of them live in very nice houses, have maids and drivers. But even in the best of circumstances they still must cope with people who speak a different language, who have vastly different worldviews and who are often times resistant to the missionary’s message and ministry. Adapting to another culture does not come naturally for most people - it takes effort. For that reason I think that to be a successful missionary one is made, they conform to living overseas.

EFFECTIVENESS – I admit, I am often confused with the issue of missionary effectiveness. My culture measures everything by the yardstick of production. Church planting is not like manufacturing rubber doorstops. Yet people are sent out to accomplish something for the sake of Christ, not just to survive in a foreign country. It was seven years before William Carey saw his first convert; yet the legacy of Carey’s ministry continues to bare fruit today. Though mission historians like to tell Carey’s story, not many mention, or even heard of his companion, Joshua Marshman who translated the Bible into several Indian languages and who died on the field. Carey and Marshman lived on less than $1,000 a year whereas today’s missionary commands $60K or more a year. In today’s mission world efficiency has a price tag and we expect to see something in return for our investment. Some missionaries are born to produce, others become efficient through guidance, training and through trial and error.

In my role as teacher/trainer and mentor of cross-cultural workers, I look for clues on those who might have the right stuff. I know passion is not enough, but essential. Commitment is crucial, but doesn’t make anyone effective. In the end I have come to the conclusion a missionary is a mixed bag, they are both born and made. But isn’t that true with most professions?

A Matter of Degrees

“I don’t make the rules, I just learn what the rules are and learn to play by those rules.”

This is a statement I often make when talking to students about learning the rules of culture. It is an axiom of many things in life, whether it’s biblical principles, rules of government or business. Bob Beford makes a similar comment in his book, Half Time.

"There is no such thing as a life without authority. You can choose the game, but you can't choose the rules...And whether you like it or not, the rules govern your behavior. Follow the rules, and your chances of winning are greater. Break the rules enough times and you won't even get a chance to finish the game."

In academic circles there is a hierarchy that sets the rules of what is a legitimate education degree. The highest degree is a PhD. I have a DMiss (Doctor of Missiology), which is a teaching degree, not as prestigious as the PhD, but higher than a DMin (Doctor of Ministry), which is not a teaching degree. Following the doctoral degrees, of course, are the Master level degrees which is higher than a Bachelor’s degree, which is more prestigious than a high school degree.

In addition to the hierarchy of degrees the education industry has established a system that evaluates how those degrees are attained. They have determined that educational institutions, colleges and universities are the legitimate brokers in granting degrees and those institutions of higher learning are regulated by a standard for education excellence. Not only must the school have a credible library, professors with higher degrees and required credit hours, they must be, for the most part, be resident studies. If the institution does not meet these “rules” the degrees are deemed unaccredited.

On the bottom of the academic food chain are distant learning or extension programs. Though some extension programs are rigorous and the work done by the students are often extensive, it doesn’t matter, the distance learning degree is of limited use in academic circles.

So why do people opt for non-accredited degrees? Three words: logistics, time and money. Logistically many people, especially people who already have a career and must work to make ends meet, just can’t pick up and move to another city to attend a university. Even if there is a college in the same city they find it difficult, if not impossible, to work around a work/class schedule. A distance learning degree is also much cheaper than enrolling in a resident program. For many people, who want to continue to expand their knowledge and gain recognition for the work they have put into their study, a non-credited degree is enough.

What can a person do with an unaccredited degree? They can use their credentials to teach in other unaccredited institutions around the world. It is doubtful that a unaccredited school will ask a teacher where they received their education, but you can bet anytime you meet someone with a PhD from a recognized university they will inquire where you received your degree.

When people ask my opinion about their education future I try to steer them to a recognized degree program. Educationally I believe a person gains much more through the interaction of a classroom and lectures from experts in their field. But I realize that non-accredited degrees have its place in this world of distance learning. As with everything else, there are some distance learning studies that are quality programs and there are others that are not much more than “paper mills” (send $50 and get a doctor’s degree). No matter where one receives their degrees through an extension program, it will never be considered, in the academic world, as legitimate. I don’t make the rules, I just know the rules and help others know those rules as well.

Are North American Missionaries Still Needed?

Malcom asks, "Could you comment or post on what you see as the modern role of the North American church in global missions. To play my hand a bit, it seems to me that the NA churches biggest and most influential role could be in relinquishing its grip on needing to GO to the missions field and focusing its energies (primarily in financing) on the nationals already there."

I am in agreement that many Western mission organizations and denominations do need to retool for today’s mission reality. Their “grip” in global outreach has less to do with paternalism and more about finances. The unsavory secret in missions is that many mission boards rely on recruiting and sending people out to regions beyond, not because of any great missiological strategic plan, but for their survival as an organization. Sending agencies rely on the percentage of each missionary dollar (ranging from 10% to 25%), donor support to the organization and special projects and foundation money to stay in business. I predict that in another 50 years U.S. mission sending agencies will be as outdated as unions in the workplace.

Having said that, I do not believe that the role of the North American missionary is over now or will be 50 years from now. I do believe, however, that if we are to have a role in the future we must be better defined in our task and that we work smarter. Right now I am serving overseas in a capacity that few nationals can do and that is teaching the national missionaries how to serve cross-culturally. As the church outside the US becomes more aware of missiology they will take more of a lead in this area of ministry as well. Though the Western missionary’s task of frontline evangelism is diminishing, there are ministry specialist that I believe is unique for North American personnel, in the field of education, technology, medicine and in general support roles (administration, maintenance and construction). These ministry functions are vital in some parts of the world, but they are often not looked upon as doing the real work of evangelism or church planting.

As I write this post I feel compelled to remind myself, and others, not to despise the small things of ministry, i.e. the importance of support ministries. Much of Western work will continue to be in aiding the machinery of the Gospel worldwide. Though being a teacher at a MK boarding school or digging a borehole in a remote village is not as riveting as a national church planter who boasts that he has started one hundred churches, that does not mean the work of the American is not valid or needed.

Missiologically, the education and wealth of a Westerner place them in a socio-economic position that allows them to serve where many nationals cannot. The caste system in India is a barrier that prohibits many nationals from working among the middle and upper class people of society. If an American supporting church is just going national, they may feel they are getting more bang for the buck, but in reality they may be contributing the perception among others in society that being Christian is synonymous with illiterate and tribal.

The key in creating a well-rounded mission program is to recognize that as the world continues to change we must be current in our thinking as well. That means casting off the old that is outdated, yet not throwing away that which is valid for the sake of being trendy.

Breaking Through The Mission Maze

Malcolm from NY asked two excellent questions in a recent post,
Starting Mission Projects. Malcolm asks,

“[For] a church that desires to actively engage in cross-cultural ministry AND wants to begin making a primary focus on working with nationals in ministry, where does one begin and how do we find the research necessary to make informed decisions?”

Evaluating ministry is often subjective and a matter of preference. The best I can to do is tell you what I look for, which ministries do or do not impress me and what standards I look for in determining whether I will support or partner with a national ministry. Here it goes…

Research Tips

Find people in the country that can evaluate national ministries. In any
research I ask at least five people in my attempt to get the best information. If someone has a ministry in Egypt, or my church is interested in working in that part of the world, I would begin my research by getting a copy of the Mission Handbook (http://bgc.gospelcom.net/worldpulseonline/missionhandbook/). I have never been to Egypt, no nothing about ministry there. I have the 18th edition (2001-2003) and count that there are 20 organizations working in that country. I would call those organizations listed and find the contact persons in that country as a starting point of my research.

Research is usually a long process, so be patient as you correspond with missionaries and other nationals. Once you have zeroed on a ministry of interest ask five people, from missionaries in different organizations and nationals living in the country what their assessment is of that ministry?

My view of missions, in some ways, is like the stock exchange. Long-standing effective ministries are blue chip stocks; they hare tried and true and worthy of investments. Startup companies are a risk; that may be the next greatest investment or they may be a shooting star that fizzles in the night sky. I'd recommend that you put most of your resources into those who have a track record of integrity and a sound ministry plan.

It is my belief, Malcolm, that if you are going to partner with national church leaders you will need to make, at some point, overseas trips to assess national ministries. I know of a foundation in New Zealand that only funds seminaries. They have a list of several recommended schools and visits them to determine their financial involvement. To me, this is the type of research that is vital if any church is going to have a quality program.

The critical issue for you, and others, is that you are equipped with the knowledge of how to do that assessment. This is true with all mission personal and organizations, not just nationals. However, national missionaries shouldn’t ’t get a pass on accountability. You might be accused of being paternalistic, even racist, but that’s okay as that is an indicator that perhaps you shouldn’t partner with them.

In a couple of days I will give you my opinion from your second question, “the role of the modern North American church in global missions.”

His Own Great Heart

"You know that I am but a dog, yet you have decided to honor me! O lord, you have given me these wonderful promises just because you want to be kind to me, because of your own great heart."

This morning I am sitting on the back porch, in the middle of eight acres of wooded land in rural Arkansas. As the sun comes up behind me, red cardinals fly from bush to tree, a couple of rabbits chew on the green grass, fresh with the morning dew. I look for the deer that often wander close to the house and, though I can’t see them, I’m sure, peering from behind bushes, they can see me.

With coffee cup in hand I read the words of David who just received word that, though he will not be allowed to build the Temple, Jehovah promises that He will honor and bless his lineage, that his name will be honored throughout history. Humbled, David returns a prayer of blessing with a thankful heart. Caught up in my surroundings and reading the words of the ancient king, I close my Bible and paraphrase David’s prayers, “You have blessed me Lord, just because you want to be kind to me, because of your own great heart.”

In one week I will be back in New Delhi. Deer and rabbits will be replaced with screaming hawkers walking down the narrow streets in overcrowded and polluted city. The only birds I will see will be crows and kites. Chances are the flight pattern will shift and jumbo jets will descend a couple of thousand feet above our second story flat. Well, I will enjoy this peaceful setting for another week and will at least have this morning as a cherished memory. But even in the noise of the city I will still be able to say, “You have blessed me Lord, just because you want to be kind to me, because of your own great heart.”

Being a follower of the one true living God is a blessing within itself. God is good to me, not because I go to a shrine to entice him to show favor to me, not because of some empty ritual I perform or mutter some meaningless chant. David, no doubt, saw the religion of idol worshipers when he said, “O Lord, there is no one like you – there is no other God. In fact, we have never even heard of another god like you!” I have visited forty countries, observed the religious practices of millions, and, I agree David, there is no other god that is like the God of heaven.

Of course, it was through the lineage of David that the Messiah was born. Through Christ, a gentile dog like myself, has access to the eternal promises of God. I am granted favor, grace, not because of my birth, nor my good works, but just because I believe in the son of David, the Son of God. And this promise of God’s favor is to anyone, not because they are good, but because He is good.

I’m not sure I will ever get back to this serene back porch again. Life has a way of throwing a curve when you least expect it. Well, the whole world is unstable, isn’t it? But I won’t dwell on that today. Instead, I dwell on David’s concluding words knowing that it transcends time and space, “for when you grant a blessing, Lord, it is an eternal blessing.”

Guidelines For Starting Mission Projects

The other evening I met with some people who are on their way to Kenya to explore ministry opportunities. Since they read my blog, what I have to say here is not much different than what I told them over supper. I am sharing my conversation with them because I believe it is pertinent information for many people seeking counsel on how to proceed in doing work overseas. No matter what the project may be, starting an orphanage, building a school, launching a training program, here are some tips for consideration.

First, you might have a passion, there may be a need, but is that the greatest need the people have? In the early ‘80’s there was a European NGO group that was concerned with community health in the villages in the Turkana district of Kenya. They built literally hundreds of first class brick outhouses so that people could defecate in designated spots rather than in the bush in and around the village. The outhouses were even culturally designed, with a hole in the ground instead of western style toilet seats. The Turkanan’s used the outhouses only a few weeks. Why? Because no one maintained the maintained the project. The Turkanan’s were not use to “hitting the hole,” so the inside toilets became a place to avoid rather than place to squat. It was a good idea, but they needed to invest some money in hiring people to maintain the community restrooms.

Second, is your project already in operation by some other group? One of the reasons there are more missionaries in Kenya, per capita, than any other country in Africa is because it is a nation that has a stable government as well as a friendly people. In countries, like Kenya, missionaries and NGO’s tend to cluster in places where there is easy access to water, electricity, good roads and receptivity. My advice is always to ask this question, “Who is working here and can we partner with them in what they are already doing?” We don’t to reinvent the wheel if the area already is being served.

Third, find the area of need. Drilling a borehole so people will have access to water within a one-kilometer walk is admirable, but there may be many places in the country where there are no wells at all. Yes, there may be a need for a new church plant in Kenya, but there may be a greater need in places like Mali or Chad. Quite honestly, one reason some countries and peoples are neglected is because it’s harder work. When I started working in Pokot and Turkana there were no good roads and difficult to travel into the area. In the northeast it’s still tough work because the climate is oppressive and there are roaming bandits. I’m not suggesting that people risk their lives to work in unsafe areas, but if the goal is to be salt and light or to help people with humanitarian aid, the areas of greatest need are often places where the hardships are greater and the fruit of the labor is not easily attained.

Fourth, work with tried and true nationals. Because I work with nationals, primarily Kenyan’s and Indians, I have met some marvelous dedicated men and women. They work and serve in areas few westerners’ can or want to work. I have also met some opportunist’s in my time. Several years ago a church in the states met a man from Burkina Faso who said he wanted to establish a church in his city that was mostly Muslims. His pitch was that if he had the money he could start a bakery that would sustain his family and he could serve effectively as a bi-vocational evangelist. The American congregation poured thousands of dollars into this project and he started his business making a good living, but there is no evidence that he has any ministry. My view is when partnering with nationals it should only be done with those who have a track record of integrity and doing ministry.

The role of the North American Christian in cross-cultural work is always evolving. Zeal, while important, without knowledge can cause more harm than good. Good research, asking the right questions, will insure that passion is rewarded with a quality project.

Influencing For The Great Commission

In a couple of days I will be traveling to visit a school here in the U.S. to discuss the possibility of a position within their education program. I will not be an employee and will not receive a salary, but I will act as an advisor and coordinator for their overseas distance learning program. It has the potential of being a good fit for me as I will maintain my autonomy, will continue to serve in the capacity as a trainer in India, Kenya while at the same time expand my ministry to other parts of the world.

This university provides non-accredited degrees. Some of my friends have questioned why I would want to be involved with a school which offers MA’s and PhD’s that are not recognized in educational circles? I must admit, I am uncomfortable with people who hold degrees from schools that don’t have the same criterion as that of accredited institutions. I worked hard in getting my academic credentials and feel that if a person wants to use titles they need to meet the standards of education for that privilege. So why would I want to be involved in a non-accredited training program?

First and foremost I believe education and training is important at every level, especially for national church workers. It’s estimated that of the 2 million pastors in the world only 5% have any formal education. The church puts a great deal of emphasis on church planting and evangelism but is weak in stressing the importance of training. I learned many years ago that a river will only rise as high as its source. Over the thirty years that I have been working internationally, I’ve been appalled in the lack of spiritual depth in most congregations. 83% of the evangelical community will live outside the West by the year 2025. The need to train and educate church leaders is greater now than ever before.

Secondly, it is the act of pursing a degree that is most important. Any program that compels a person to read more, attend lectures, receive guidance on how to serve Christ more effectively, for me, is a worthy endeavor. Most people do not study new things just for the fun of it. One motivator for learning is a carrot, which for schools is a diploma or degree. If a distance learning program, accredited or not, causes pastors to read and write papers, to expand their intellectual and spiritual growth, then it is a project worth pursuing.

Of course I have another agenda for training and that is introducing cross-cultural studies to national workers and missionaries. If only 5% of pastors have formal training, I would guess .001% has ever been exposed to issues such as contextualization, worldview and people group strategy. My hope is that I can be an influence in training others for the Great Commission.

The Truth Is Not Ugly To God (Bono)

I seldom read novels. I never read poetry. I am probably intellectually poorer as a result of it. I’ve never heard of Charles (Hank) Bukowski until yesterday. I went to the local library and picked up a DVD documentary on his life. Not sure why I checked it out, probably because it was a story of a writer. I watched the short film of his life last night and went to sleep depressed. Not just for the gloomy life of Bukowski, but the seemingly meaningless life of most of humanity.

Bukowski is interesting to me for many reasons. He was born the same year of my father, 1920. My dad is still living, Bukowski died in 1994. Hank, not his pen name but the name he preferred, spent most of his life in Los Angeles, the city where I spent the first fourteen years of my life. Though he was the product of the preceding generation than my own, I identify with him more as a contemporary. He came into his own during the ‘60’s and ‘70’s, the years of revolution and turmoil, a time of political upheaval which altered the course of our nation.

Bukowski’s life started out miserable and ended the same way. He grew under the thumb of a harsh father, drank, smoked and never had a meaningful relationship until late in life. He was depraved, irreverent, irresponsible, though not necessarily reckless. He cared for little in life except for writing. In one of his poems he states that he smokes and drinks too much (he calls alcohol the blood of cowards), but can’t write enough. His motivation for writing was not for fame or for riches, but out of a sense of pain. Bukowski wrote about the things he loved and hated as a means of escape from the agony of his existence. He was brutally honest in his assessments, which played well to his audience in the era of Vietnam, Watergate and the Carter years.

I suppose it is the impertinence of people like Bukowski that I am sometimes drawn. We live in a world that it dictated by the institutions of government, corporations and religion. Along with those structures of society are boundaries. Regulations on what is acceptable behavior, philosophy, even theology, are so prevalent that original thought is often seen by the mainstream as a threat. The only way to make it in life is to conform. People like Bukowski are intriguing, not because they are wholesome role models, but because they live with little pretense and who can articulate, in some fashion, what most people feel and think but are afraid to say. Based on the documentary, I assume Bukowski’s writing’s are a bit like Solomon’s last book, Ecclesiastes, in which the futility of life is highlighted. Of the many differences, Bukowski was profane and wasn’t looking for meaning in life and had no conclusion. His life ended as miserably as it began. Solomon at least had more to say than "all is vanity," and had a remedy.

On Bukowski’s tombstone is written, “don’t try.” Did he mean life is not worth the effort? Or, as his widow suggest, it means that life should not be lived trying but being? Most of my life is trying. Since all the truth is God’s truth, even if a godless poet pens it, perhaps Bukowski has something of eternal value to offer. Whether one is traditionalist or nonconformist, life is best lived being rather than trying to be.

Celebrating Nationalism

This Wednesday is July 4th. As a nation we will celebrate what we Americans call Independence Day. Most countries take note of special days in their history marking the birth of their nation through revolution or discovery; it marks a day for nationalists to commemorate who they are as a collective society.

In the words of a popular song, I’m proud to be an American, I’m grateful that God saw fit for me to be born in the U.S.A. Our greatest accomplishment as a nation is that we have maintained the rights of freedom for 231 years. In the course of time we have exported this philosophy and still champion the idea of freedom of speech, religion and self-determination. Not bound by caste, tribe or ethnicity, America can still boast that if one works hard and dreams big, they can accomplish whatever their goals might be.

I can’t say that I am always proud of being an American. Though we are a generous people, our nation is plagued with too much self-interest, greed and materialism. Capitalism has run amuck. Americans are burdened with debt and to keep the engine of consumerism oiled we make trade agreements with those who will provide us with the cheapest commodities, we offshore our labor force and make deals with governments that don’t hold to the same values we hold dear. Capitalism and big business is not the enemy, but they are not always our best friends.

Though I am seldom ashamed of being an American I am most embarrassed when I see my countrymen apologize for who we are. In the late ‘70’s, under the Carter administration, I cringed when Ambassador Andrew Young came to Africa, where I was living at the time, and apologize for our nation. One reason Carter did not serve a second term is because Regan was a voice of nationalist pride; Clinton served two terms because the nation felt good about itself. Policies are important and we have, without question, some policies that need to be changed, but policies need to be altered through national pride, not national shame. If I were to sum up the differences between liberals and conservatives it would be how they approach the need for change. One side believes we are good but could do better, the other side seems to suggest we should let the Hague, the U.N. and Amnesty International try us for crimes against humanity.

Like most people, missionaries have a hard time finding a balance in representing the face of America. Some are strong nationalists and fly the stars and stripes high without apology. Others, as foreigners in a foreign land, acquiesce to world opinion and apologize for who we are as a people. While I do not believe God is on our side in everything, I believe the sovereign Creator established our land and continues to use us for His purpose throughout the world. Observing the alternatives of socialism, communism and Islamists, I believe that it is right and fitting we celebrate the founding of our country.

I have visited over 40 countries and, though there are some aspects of other cultures I wish we would emulate, I cannot think of another country that still offers more hope to a troubled world than America. I am a Christian first and my total allegiance is to Christ above country. I am also, however, an unapologetic nationalist. If I had been born a Bolivian, Norwegian or Mongolian God’s love would still be available to me, but I may not have had the opportunity to hear of that great love. America, for all its negatives, is a country worthy of honor and respect. This week I will be filled with nationalist pride.

Needed: Academic Practitioners

A former student is working through his doctoral thesis and has asked me to read and advise. This DMin. candidate is a pastor in New Delhi and his thesis is about a migrant people group called the Awadi and how to best develop a strategy for ministry to those coming from the rural areas into the city. There is a lot I could comment on in this thesis as it is well researched and I believe it’s a significant contribution to missiology. Consider these things:

* 665 people migrate into the city of New Delhi EVERY DAY.

* 74% of the Protestant churches in India are located in South India, which has 21.70% of India’s total population, whereas North India, that has 43.75% of India’s total population and 4.21% Christians and has only 8% churches.

From this thesis, here is a snapshot of some of the issues migrants face coming into a city of over 13 million people.

"To supplement the family income, the whole migrant family is involved in work. Having no one to look after their children, they have no other option but to take their children with them to their workplace. The poor and unhygienic living conditions, and exposure to dust at the work site, result in children suffering from various health problems. Moreover, these children have no opportunity to obtain education. The result is underfed, malnourished and illiterate children."

While there is much to learn from the study, in reading over it the past couple of days the thing that has dominated my thinking is the value of academic/practical research.

We live in a world of programs. Everywhere I go I hear about programs for church planting movements, youth outreach and mission agency growth. Nothing wrong with programs per se, but most people see programs as an end in themselves. In my opinion, many of these programs are shallow, not well thought-out and, is an attempt to take a shortcut in reaching ministry goals. As this student points out in his thesis, to reach the Awadi there are no shortcuts in working with migrants in an urban ministry and several issues need to be taken into consideration, such as childcare, living conditions, education and medical needs. For the average church planter, pastor or mission agency they are not thinking about these things. Instead, the emphasis seems to be programs for more evangelists or for raising money to build a church building. I fear that some nationals start orphanages, have medical clinics or start a school, not out of a well-defined research study, but merely a program that seems to be attractive and might be a good idea.

When I was working in Kenya I spent a great deal of time living with and doing research with the Pokot tribe in the bush. It was through concentrated and academic study that a strategy of church planting was created. It has been my belief that the most important thing a practitioner can do is become a student of culture, especially the culture of the people they are working with. While the buzz among the church and in mission circles is about having a “people group focus,” there are few who take the time to do in-depth study on specific ethnic groups. My hat is off to this DMin. candidate/pastor for his diligence in pursuing this academic study. We need more practitioners like him. We need more sending agencies that will equip missionaries with more in-depth study before launching them out into ministry. We need more national missionaries and pastors to understand that the only way they will truly reach the unreached is to know people well. Globally, e need more academic practitioners

Blessed Are The Simple

This past week I attended the funeral of my 92-year-old aunt. By all accounts, Aunt Maxine was a simple person. She became a mother during the years of the Depression, raised four kids through WWII. Throughout the final proceedings marking her life and death, the one word I kept thinking about was unpretentious.

I work in country where people are forever trying to project an image of their importance. Impression is so pervasive in India that one of the major themes in my training is the importance of status and role within society. Of course pretentiousness is a global malady that infects people in all walks of life, be they truck driver, padre, educator or stay-at-home moms. There is a tension in all of us, I would think, to try and project an aura that we really are quite successful, smart, beautiful or influential. As I listened to Aunt Maxine’s grandchildren, tell stories about the plain woman lying in the coffin, their words were like a refreshing shower washing off the veneer of every pretentious person in the room.

Jesus said, “Blessed are the meek (humble), for they will inherit the earth.” That’s a tough philosophy to follow in a market economy. Everyone’s a salesman and the rules of today’s game are, to him or her, who projects the best image goes the spoils. If you are not the squeaky and annoying wheel, you will not get the oil. Those out there in front are those who make the noise, dress for success and have the whitest teeth. Humility? Forget about it. Meekness is weakness and a sure sign that you have no self-confidence.

Humility is not and endorsement for being stupid, dirty or lazy. I have met idiots who were as proud of their lack of education as pompous PhD’s are of their degrees. I have been around a group of morons who duke-it-out on who could out dummy the other in word and deed. For a person to be proud of their lack of accomplishments in life is not humility, it’s pretentious ignorance.

The balancing act of striving for excellence, being the best one can be in their station in life without projecting the air of self-importance is not easily achieved. I suppose the best way to fight pretentiousness is to resist the urge to compete. But can I get to the front of the line without elbowing my way or standing on my box of accomplishments and shouting, “Look at me!”? The line between meekness and self-importance is indeed fine. Perhaps the answer is found in the ancient writing of Solomon who advised, “Let another praise you, and not your own mouth; A stranger, and not your own lips.” In Aunt Maxine’s case, it was her family who rose up and called her blessed.

Jesus And His Church

One of the benefits of coming to the states for a few weeks is that I can get caught up on my reading. Living overseas it’s almost impossible to find good books on current thinking in missions or the church. It seems the theme of my readings lately has been on the emerging church.

If you are not familiar with the emerging church term it is primarily used by the emerging generation (people in their 20’s and 30’s) addressing the need to read and see the culture in which we live today. Christ, Christianity and the Church are not synonymous terms. In fact, as the new culture writers see it, Christianity and Church, sometimes, is often a barrier for non-believers in becoming followers of Christ.

The most recent of these books is Dan Kimball’s book, They Like Jesus But Not The Church. Though I have only read a third of the book thus far, it’s interesting enough for me to comment on. The underlying theme in Kimball’s work, and a common thread with all emerging church authors, is that to reach people with the Good News of Jesus we must emulate Him. This takes on two forms. First, Jesus was revolutionary in that His work was outside the established religion of His day. Though Jesus was a Jew and a student of theology (manifested in the Mosaic Law), His message was seldom to those within confines of the religious order. Not only was He not a part of the religious establishment, His harshest criticism was to those who had become captive of formal Judaism. Though the emerging church writers make an attempt to steer away from harsh criticisms of the Church, they freely point out the weakness of the establishment.

The second theme, common in these emerging church books, is the need for followers of Jesus to engage people of their culture outside the confines of the local church. Kimball’s list of “Six Common Perceptions of the Church” is:

1. The church is an organized religion with a political agenda.
2. The church is judgmental and negative.
3. The church is dominated by males and oppresses females.
4. The church is homophobic.
5. The church arrogantly claims all other religions are wrong.
6. The church is full of fundamentalists who take the whole Bible literally.

According to Kimball, most people he talks to like Jesus, they just don’t like the church. Jesus was a friend of sinners – ate with them, drank with them, worked with them and most importantly, talked with them. Many of the emerging church writers are trying to make the case that the task of the church is to be more like Jesus and less like the institutional religious industry that we have become.
It’s important to recognize that the emerging church proponents are dealing primarily with pre-conversion issues. There is always a tension between Christ meeting people where they are to where Christ wants them to be after they become His followers. You will read little to nothing about discipleship, spiritual growth or corporate responsibility in these books and that’s okay, as long as one understands there is a gap between helping the blind man see and then telling that blind man to go to the temple (or church) and perform religious rituals as an act of obedience in faith.

As a missiologist I can appreciate these current writings, as it is the same message I deal with in my teachings overseas. The established church, in many ways, is an impediment for the Buddhist, Muslim and Hindu. If I can engage others to talk about Jesus, rather than Christianity, I find that many of them respect Jesus…they just don’t like the church.

Missiologist - Critical But Not Negative

The other day a friend wrote and mildly rebuked me for one of my blog posts. He suggested that my writings would be more helpful if they were more positive. My reply to him was that, indeed, I recognize that sometimes my writing is often critical, but I am not sure that it is negative. One thing that many people don’t understand about my writing, speaking and teaching, is that my opinions and perspectives are that of a missiologist. I am not a pastor trying to shepherd a church. I am not a theologian trying to interpret doctrine. I am not a counselor making an attempt to solve personal issues. While it is true that as a missionary coach I sometimes take on elements of those roles, for the most part, my giftedness is trying to figure out how the work of missions and the church can be done better.

When I was serving in Kenya I did not plant any churches, though in the time we were in the country thirteen churches and a Bible institute was started. In the beginning I did everything that a traditional pioneer church planter is suppose to do. I preached, led singing, taught and created programs. Within our first two years we had three congregations meeting in different villages, but I wasn’t the pastor of any of them. I quickly learned that if the work was to multiply I had to give up doing things myself and let others take the lead in planting and growing the congregations. By the time I left Africa, fourteen years later, the only thing I was responsible for was what I am most gifted in doing…critically analyzing the context and giving guidance on how to do things differently and, hopefully, more effectively.

I am well aware that some people believe that the easiest thing to do is being a critic. However, when I speak of critical analysis it is not just finding fault, but rather finding weakness with suggestions on how to making programs stronger. As a missiologist, one who has been trained to analyze to view the church from the historical, theological and cultural context, my comments is borne out of unique set of lens that few people have experienced. My comments on everything from the role of national leadership to Western evangelical imperialism is not a part of an agenda, but is an honest evaluation based on on-going study and thirty years of living the mission experience.

Sometimes critical analysis bites. In an article entitled In Quest of Knowledge, Arnold Burron writes, “...among other impediments to critical thinking, [is the] unwillingness or fear to challenge socially acceptable ‘truth.’” When I write and say things like, training missionaries is a moral issue; short-term mission programs are primarily for the promotion of the American church; it’s okay for churches to die, etc., my comments are not meant to harm as much as it is for the church to think about why they do what they do and how can we do the job better.

As a missiologist I have been given an opportunity to view God’s work differently than most of my readers. That doesn’t make me smarter or more right, but it is a view that is not the norm. Critical doesn’t make it negative, it means the perception is from another angle that hopefully will add value to the task God has called us to do throughout the world.

Faith Like Jazz

When two or three of my friends tell me, “You need to read this book, Lewis, I think you will like it…it sounds like you,” I eventually get a copy. The most recent recommendation was Donald Millers book, Blue Like Jazz.

Miller acknowledges on his website that he wrote this book when his career was going nowhere. He had nothing to lose and so he penned honest thoughts just about anything that popped into his head about God. When you have nothing to lose you can do that. Most Christian authors and speakers have to worry about what the Church or evangelical community thinks. If your irreverent or live more like a hippie from the 60’s rather than a buggy riding Mennonite you can take such risks. Miller, like C.S. Lewis who was also not a part of the established ministry, gets away with being honest because he doesn’t have to cover his backside less he offends religious establishment and loses his means of support. What makes his book successful is that (a) he’s writing about what other people are thinking but won’t share with their friends, (b) he takes potshots at the norm of evangelicals, i.e., support of Republicans, intolerance of gays and, (c) has a postmodern approach to faith, including lifestyle and doctrine.

Christianity, according to Miller, is like jazz. It’s difficult, if not impossible, to write a score for jazz. Classical music is structured with proper beat, synchronized melody and timing. Classical music is predictable math. Today’s Christianity is like classical music, precise, ordered, and predictable. Knowing God is a formula and when one follows the pattern it looks, smells and tastes right. In typical postmodern style, Miller argues that knowing God is not math and that having a relationship with Christ is as random as jazz. Depending on your preference, of music and theology, you’ll either love this book or hate it.

Singing At The Gate

Sitting at my desk in New Delhi one early morning I head a man singing. He had a beautiful voice and, though I couldn't understand the words to the song, his voice was pleasant to the ear. I knew he wasn’t just a passerby as the song went on for serval minutes.

“Who in the heck is this guy,” I wonder as I got up from my chair and walked to the balcony overlooking the street below?

There, standing at the front gate across the road, was a man dressed in a red and orange robe. He was a Sadu, a Hindu religious man. As he continued to sing, he looked up to the second floor of the building, hoping that the residents would come down and give him some money for his spiritual song of blessing.

In every culture there are holy men (and a few holy women). For Muslims they are the Imam’s and Mullah’s. The Buddhist have their Monks, the Christians have their Clergy (preachers, pastors, reverends, etc.). Even the tribal people I worked with in Kenya had their animistic spiritual leaders called Mganga (witchdoctors). Functionally all holy men do the same thing. They interpret sacred writings, explain how God or the spirits want them to live and set boundaries for moral behavior. Most of the holy men depend on the financial gifts of the faithful. The Buddhist monks, like Sadu’s, walk the streets each day asking for offerings. Priest’s at the Sikh, Hindu or Jain temples are paid through the money received the daily ritual services.

As I got into my car yesterday to travel to another city to speak, I thought about the Sadu at the gate. I don’t wear religious clothes, smoke hashish for a spiritually high or get to let my hair grow long. I don’t go door-to-door blessing people with a song, don’t have a sacred cow I lead through the neighborhood and don’t evoke the name of Sai Baba for miraculous healing. But in a way, I’m not that much different, functionally.

Who set up this system of support for sacred messengers? Not really sure, but I know it’s been around for thousands of years. Jacob, in the Old Testament, had twelve sons and one son was named Levi. It was Levi’s clan that was in charge of the Jewish rituals and the other eleven sons of Jacob was commanded to support the “priestly” tribe with their tithes and offerings. The tribe of Levi was not looked down upon; their work was as valid as the work of Judah or Benjamin. I wonder if the sons of Judah ever said, “Those Levites don’t know what it’s like to live or work in the ‘real world’”?

After I speak this weekend the treasurer of the congregation will hand me an envelope, which will be an honorarium. It’s a gift -- I don’t charge people for what I do. I will use the money to offset the expense of travel, to provide for my family and hopefully have enough for further ministry projects. Though I believe in what I do, in Whom I serve and the services I provide for His Church, as I put the envelope in my coat pocket I will walk away feeling, right or wrong, as though I’d just finished singing at the gate.

Let It Die - Have The Courage To Bury It

As I walked around the vestibule I had a sense that I was in an old person’s house where the occupants have lived for fifty years. When people live in one place for a long period of time, clutter is a part of the décor. Old flowers stuck in the corner of the counter, coffee cups with pens in them and table clothes that need to be washed. The brown wood paneling, the grey carpet, the round globe lights indicate that the last remodeling was circa 1970.

The bulletin board, lined with dusty plastic flowers, had notices ranging from an upcoming women’s conference in June, pictures of the last four years couples retreat and the quarterly nursery assignment. The mission board had letters dating back as far as 2005. “No wonder they don’t have a vision for missions,” I thought to myself.

The interim pastor, an honorable and godly man, was called to help this Midwest church after the sudden death of the pastor, who had been there over twenty-five years. The location of the church is in a decaying part of the city. I got the feeling that the family members of the deceased pastor as well as the loyal flock of less than 100, were committed to carry on, if not for Christ, at least to the sacred remembrance of the past.

In visiting with the interim pastor I inquired about the city of 175,000 people. Indeed, there were many very good churches in the area, with at least 1,000 congregations. And then I asked my host, “Do you think it’s okay for a church to die?” The reality is that half the churches in the community could die tomorrow and God would still have an adequate witness.

Sadly, what will happen is that the congregation will go through the process of finding a new pastor. One of two things will happen. They will secure a shepherd who will fail miserably due to the lack of will of the people and the sorry demographics of their location. I can see a resistance by the old-timers, as change will be perceived as an assault on the memory of the former pastor. It will die a slow death and in the meantime the talent and resources of a handful will go down another ecclesiastical rat hole. That’s the pessimistic view.

The optimistic view will be a leader coming in, convincing the congregation to sell the property and move to another location. Ten years from now the assembly will be viable, who knows, it may be one of the growing churches in the growing part of town. Of course the original congregation will not be a part of the new assembly, as they will be assimilated into other churches, places that are more convenient and fit more their worship experience preference.

No matter the scenario, it would be better if this local church would just die. There is no church, no matter its glorious history, that is sacred or indispensable. Whatever God is going to do in the city He can do without this congregation. I would suggest they sell the property, sell or donate the furnishings to another group and give the proceeds to several worthy ministry projects in the community and around the world. As the church disbands, may the families be directed to other congregations where they can feel a sense of welcome and belonging. May their last service be a celebration of how God used them for a short period of time.

I am not suggesting that every small congregation disband. This is not about larger churches being more valid than smaller groups. Many trendy churches waist resources at a greater scale and spirituality cannot be measured by the Sunday attendance.

There is no doubt many congregations throughout the world that are in similar situations as this little flock in the heartland. Let us have the courage to let the church die and facilitate the burial process.

Faithful Soldiers

I lose track of North American holidays when I’m overseas. One of the engines of the U.S. economy is the once-a-month special days (Mothers, Fathers, Valentines, Labor, etc.). This weekend is the Memorial holiday, a good day to reflect on those who gave their lives in the service to our country. I’m not sure how many people will actually think about the meaning of the day, I don’t personally know of anyone who has died in combat in the last fifty years. I do think, however, that it’s right and fitting, especially with our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq, that we set aside a special day for those who paid the ultimate sacrifice of service.

As I traveled to the airport this morning I was thinking about some “other” fallen soldiers. These soldiers died this past year in their service for Christ. I think of my friend Bill Ashton, board member of LCCTI, who succumbed to cancer at the age of 56. Bill’s role in life was that of an organizer and accountant. In the past several years he was Pastor of Administration in a church in South Carolina. Bill was forever telling corny jokes, and he had a ton of them. He died at his post early in life and I miss him.

John Buma was a giant of man. He stood over six feet six inches and his hands were like ham hocks. His tattered second-hand jackets never did fit him, always at least two inches short. John was one of my early students in Kenya and became the pastor of a church in a village a long distance from running water or electricity. No one really knows what Buma died of, probably malaria related. I talked with his widow, Beatrice, last December and she is managing just okay with her four kids.

Lewis Smedes defined faithfulness as finding out "what you are here to take care of, and then give it your best shot." I think of the service of Bill and John and conclude that they gave the Master their best shot. They weren’t trying to win awards or the Medal of Honor; they just faithfully did their job the best they could each day.

Indeed, this is a good day to remember and honor those who faithfully served in the great battle for the souls of men. It’s a good day to remember those serving today. Some serve on the front lines, others quietly serve in support roles, but all are a part of the Good News effort. The great crowd of witnesses that have gone on before cheer us on to take care of why we are here and give it our best.

Missions: Project or Process?

Should missions be project or process based?

Dave Dougherty of OMF defines the difference in approach:

Mission as process: This is the ongoing activity of traditional agencies, churches, and training institutions. They focus on fulfilling the Great Commission in every nation and among every people group.

Missions as project: This is the new outreach of mobilization organizations, churches, and individuals. They focus primarily on the unreached, or the least reached people groups.

As a career missionary you might assume that I am opposed to missions as project, but I am not. I believe that missionary projects, which include short-term trips and programs, can be significant in the global outreach. The reason that missions as project is popular today is two-fold. First, many people who are interested in world missions have become bored with missions as usual, i.e. missions as process. Supporting career missionaries to do the work of the Great Commission is not very exciting. Second, the desire to be personally involved rather than just sending career people to the field gives a feeling of being personally engaged, to have ownership as well as experiencing first hand the work of working cross-culturally. Missions as project provides things this generation longs for…instant gratification and a feeling they are doing something.

While I applaud the mission as project approach, it must be critically analyzed, as is missions as process. The downside of mission as project is that it is not always missiologically sound. Missiologists wrestle with issues of contextualization, indigenousness (new term is organic), self-governing as well as self-sustaining. Few mission as project programs wrestle with these concerns.

In addition, mission as project operate in terms of event not time. Miles Delos comments, “Church growth is a process, not an event.” Certainly this is true also of evangelism and church planting in a cross-cultural context. In missions, like language learning, there are no short cuts to success. Brewster wrote, “Learning a culture is the process of learning what its people know.”

Jay Gary, missiologist, states the church needs to take the long view. “To finish evangelizing the 25 percent of world population which remains unevangelized will likely take two or three generations…This is an area where those who sow may never know those who reap." By the year 2033, we will realize that we must measure our progress in world missions by centuries, not just decades.”

Whether we are engaged in missions through project or process, it must be current in thought, focused and strategic.

The Greater God - Conversations at C-543

“I want you to read a book and after you’ve finished with it we will discuss it,” Mr. J said to me one evening.

My old neighbor then hobbled into his bedroom and came out with a copy of Billy Graham’s book, Peace With God.

“This was given to my son before he died. I don’t know who this Graham person is, but I have a problem with his writings.”

I dutifully read portions of the book, noticing that on every page someone had underlined key phrases. Sometime later I asked Mr. J., “What is it that you want to discuss about in the book?”

“Well,” he began, “I have a problem with the writer elevating his religion above other religions. He seems to be saying his God is superior to my gods.”

Mr. J is a cultural Hindu who has probably been more of an agnostic throughout his life than a practicing follower of his religion. The argument against a superior Being is standard for the secularist whose philosophy is that there is not just one road to heaven but many. To suggest that Jesus is greater than Buddha, Shiva or Mohammed and that the path to salvation is limited to only one way is repugnant and ludicrous.

Though it was not easy to talk to Mr. J about Jesus being the only means of salvation for man, it’s not a new challenge. Throughout history, revealed through archeology as well as ancient documents, man has worshipped deities ranging from the animal kingdom to celestial bodies. Most religions have an animistic base with veneration to the sun, moon, stars, birds, rocks, trees, rivers as well as to ancestors and gods made of wood or stone. The first commandment Jehovah gave to Moses was, “Thou shall not have any other gods before me…You shall not make for yourself an image, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.” Our unbelieving forefathers resisted the exclusive claim of one true God as my old friend does today. He cannot accept a faith that is exclusive.

My discussion with Mr. J was two fold. One, all religions exclusive and, two, in spite of postmodern thought, there are absolutes.

Those who are opposed exclusive claims of Christ usually have their own exclusive claims. Whether it is Islam, Jainism or secularism, everyone claims his or her religion or theory of life is solely valid.

Those of us who are followers of Christ do so because we believe in the historical writings of the Bible, both Old and New Testament. For us there is an unfolding eternal plan for this world and mankind, which began at creation and culminates with end of time and the establishment of God’s eternal kingdom. The people of the Book, which Islamists call Christians, recognize that throughout human history man has consistently followed lesser gods. We have been consistently exclusive throughout the chronicles of time and see that as positive, not negative.

While truth can, and is, often elusive, we maintain it takes more faith not to believe in absolutes. I weary with the endless arguments by some against the notion of intelligent design in creation, or the discussion what is or isn’t morality. Between the intelligentsia insisting that we must accept every scientific explanation of how we came into being and how we are genetically coded to be, to the suicide bomber who believes it is morally and religiously acceptable to destroy the innocent, there is a longing for a message that is not diluted with supposition and conjecture. Jesus was an absolutist in his claim that he was the Son of God. Those who accept his assertion, by default, must also embrace his absolute claim.

For Mr. J, and the millions who are like him, the thought of a greater God is too confining. My friend is not certain about his faith; he faces death with a hope that his cultural upbringing will sort things out for him. He may have another life, he may be ushered into heaven, he’s not sure. He’s willing to risk his eternal life on a cultural belief system, which, to me, is the greatest risk of all.

Making A Negative A Positive

The other day I attended a denominational national meeting. I chatted with the Missions Director and he was telling me about the missionaries that would be appointed that week.

“We have four couples who will be approved as career missionaries, eight missionaries who will be approved for short term internship.”

He then went on to explain their short-term program, which is a two-year assignment, is designed to give missionaries hands on experience.

“Sixty-percent of those who complete this internship program go on to become career missionaries,” he added.

What the Director did not talk about, which I thought was significant, is the forty-percent who come home after the two year project and who do not sign up for career service.

For many years I have argued for equipping people better for those going to the mission field. From the time a missionary family is approved or appointed by their mission board, the two years it takes for them raise their support, living in a country for one term (traditionally four years), the financial investment is approximately $500,000. In some organizations, where the standard of acceptance and screening is low, the attrition rate among first term missionaries averages between twenty and forty percent. With an investment of a half-million dollars, or more, you’d think that mission agencies and sending churches would seek ways to insure that their financial investment was not in vain. Yet, there are very few sending agencies that require any training or internship for those who venture out into career cross-cultural work.

The forty percent interns who do not sign up for career missions reveals what is obvious -- some people are just not cut out to live overseas for a long period of time. It may be because of family matters, personal issues, lack of culture adjustment, not finding their niche in ministry overseas or a host of other reasons for not re-signing for longer than a two year service.

Being able to live overseas does not an effective missionary make. The best internship program will include focused training and hands-on coaching. Though successfully living overseas for two years is helpful, it is only half the battle. Did the interns learn language, culture and do the research necessary to have a long lasting impact are the questions needed for an effective internship program. And for the forty percent not re-upping as missionaries, a thorough exit evaluation of why would enhance the internship program in making it a more valuable program in the future. Counseling for the forty on their “next step” should also be a part of the program in helping those people readjust into their local community and church.

I do not see the forty as a negative, but a positive in this internship project. If more agencies would offer similar programs it would no doubt help reduce missionary attrition and save money in the process.

Chosen Hardship

The greatest challenge for any person is self-control. Take any subject: work, study, prayer, personal health, time management, family relationships, etc., you name the area of concern and self-control is probably a key component of success or failure. Those who can “rein in” themselves, their appetites, their lust, their tendencies for idleness, will succeed. Those who fail in self-control are doomed to, at best, meritocracy, or, at worse, poverty.

I recognize that the issue of discipline/self-control is not a profound revelation. I’ve been reading the Proverbs all my life and often hear Solomon’s words of admonishment ringing in my ears -- “Take note of the ant, thou sluggard…” or “A little folding of the hands, a little slumber and your fields will grow over with weeds.” Coupled with the fact that I grew up in a family where “work” is defined as a physical activity, I can hardly sit down and read a book, write, study for future training without the feeling that I’m not worthy to eat. Though guilt should not be a motivator, the issue of self-control is still an issue that every person should give heed.

Mission mobilizer Paul Borthwhick defines discipline as chosen hardship. One chooses the hardship of not having a second helping of mashed potatoes, to turn off the computer and quit surfing the net, to get up early to study God’s Word, to keeping your mouth shut when you have a good piece of gossip or advice you’d like to pass on. The hardship one chooses varies, but it all falls under the category of discipline.

In the day we live, if one is not self-controlled they are probably a victim. In India one is a victim of dharma (born into the wrong caste determined by the works of a former life). In America the obese are victims of skewed thyroids, criminals are victims of a bad childhood, the divorced are victims of not being loved, the poor are victims of an unjust government system. To be sure there are social inequities, physiological and physical deficiencies, but, for the most part, the lack of self-control is the major culprit. The ant cannot make an appeal for his marginal insectness…it’s still a bug that, notwithstanding, must gather food for the winter. Insects instinctively are disciplined to work or they will die. It’s only the higher form of animal that must notice the lesser to gain lessons on the importance of chosen hardships.

The challenge for me, and I suspect anyone who takes time to read this blog, is identifying the discipline needed and then be active in that chosen hardship? It’s not always the upfront work is that is most needed, but usually the mundane tasks that determine success or failure. In the book, “The Shaping Of Things To Come,” the author’s write about the importance of the task before the task.

“If we think about fishing during Jesus’ time the key to successful fishing wasn’t in the technical details of tides and weather patterns, but in the strength of the nets. For this reason, Jesus’ fishing disciples spent most of their working day, not out on the lakes’ surface, but on shore, mending nets.”

Mending nets is a chosen hardship. So, too, may be sitting with your child or spouse and listening to their stories. Writing three hours a day, walking around the track for an hour, or trying to figure out a computer program. I often hear new missionaries talk about how they aren’t doing ministry yet, but are just learning language. I remind that language learning is ministry and it falls in the category of mending nets, which is the task before the task.

The chosen hardship is valid when it points to a goal, but the goal can be subtle and surely cannot be judged by others. Whatever our chosen hardships are, without discipline or self-control the goal will never be realized and most certainly the weeds of an undisciplined life will one day take over.