How Cultures Think

A thorough understanding of how cultures think cannot be accomplished through a series of blog posts. In the past couple of offerings I have tried to identify the difference between Franchisers and Facilitators from a purely North American position and their role in missions. The broader discussion of how cultures work, however, is more complex.

I was introduced to anthropologist May Douglas and her concept of cultural theory in 1987. My students will either be encouraged or distressed that I am still using the grid and group model in analyzing culture. However, if a person can grasp this model it will help them understand how different cultures function. The issues of leadership, how cultures make decisions and how people view property are all tied to how cultures think.

In looking at the categories above one can easily identify Americans as Individualists or Franchisers. Bureaucrats, which is known as the establishment or the street term, The Man, are in every culture, but they are strong in places like Russia and East Europe. Hierarchy, where there is a strong bond as a group but also have layered roles is found in countries like China or India. Egalitarians, or Facilitators are most often found in rural communities but also formed as interest groups (MADD, PETA, MOPS, Young Republicans, etc.). The key in understanding grid and group is not in just knowing the categories but connecting the dots on why it’s important. Two brief examples.

LEADERSHIP - Americans love to talk about leadership and every year they travel throughout the world giving seminars on how to be a (servant, biblical, purpose driven) leader. Being from a society of Franchisers, Americans assume that leadership hold universal characteristics that transcends cultural boundaries. There is nothing wrong with teaching principles of leadership, but in countries that sees value in group solidarity, where decisions are not the sole property of the man/woman at the top, those leadership principles are of limited use. In high group cultures it's equally important to understand the dynamics of consensus in decision-making as is the character of a leader.

PARTNERSHIP - As noted in an earlier post, today’s trend is for the NAC to enter into partnership with national churches. Tensions often surface when the Franchisers try to impose their programs on people who are Bureaucratic, Egalitarian or Hierarchy. Franchisers value autonomy, risk taking, unilateral decision-making and innovation. Many cultures do not esteem these characteristics and, in fact, often see these actions as self-serving and selfish.

As Bob Buford writes in Half Time, “You can choose the game, but you can’t choose the rules.” To play the game properly in a cross-cultural context the most important ingredient is to learn the rules in which they play the game of life.

Franchising the Great Commission

North American Christians and churches (NAC) want to be involved in missions more than writing a check. In today’s economy people can visit an exotic destination for as little as $500 or the other side of the world for less than $3,000.

In addition, some churches have given up backing the vocational missionary and have opted, instead, to partner with national churches. Rather than investing $100 a month into a North American family, they would prefer to use that $100 to support five national church planters. It’s a great deal more appealing to write a check for $1000 to build a church in Africa than it is to cough up a thousand bucks to help pay for a missionary's health insurance. This reality has created a shift in sending churches and agencies. No longer do donors invest in facilitating global outreach, embracing instead the latest trend -- franchising missions.


As the graph above indicates the difference between Franchisers and Facilitators is primarily a matter of time perception. Franchisers have a condensed perspective of mission involvement whereas Facilitators have an extended view of global outreach.

A typical franchising mission project: A local church meets a national through a short-term missions trip. The NAC “adopts” the people group or the national pastor as their project. The NAC claims they are now in partnership with the national church by funding church planters, orphanages and schools. The members of the NAC volunteer to go overseas and train national leaders for a week, provide crucial equipment (loud speakers, generators) for crusades and, provide funding for tracts and Bibles. Emotionally based, the Franchiser’s feel good that they are making a significant contribution in the Great Commission.

I am well aware that God is Sovereign and He can use the franchising method. But, as I’ve argued before, short-term gain based on missiologically weak practices can also cause more harm than good. I am also aware that every Franchiser believes their program is missiologically sound and that since buying into a franchise it has revolutionized their local NAC.

Why am I concerned about Franchisers? I recently returned from Kenya, where I lived and served for 14 years. The pastor of one of our churches told me about one of the graduates from the Bible Institute who went up north to work among Sudanese refugees. I challenged the church to support this man, that it was time for the Kenyan church to be senders of the Great Commission and not just recipients. They were enthused about the prospects, until they learned that a franchising organization in America had contacted this brother and told him they would take him on as “their missionary” and fully fund him. These Franchisers are not interested in the Facilitators who must run the Bible school, certainly not interested in working with any North American as they now only work with nationals. The Franchisers are not only shortsighted in their missiology, they have robbed the local church in Kenya from growing and being a part of global outreach.

I understand that not all Facilitators are missions strategic. Sadly, some facilitators are so pressured by the NAC franchising trend they are now creating their own ministry outlets to compete in the franchising market. Sending mission agencies have created so many franchising opportunities that they now recruit more people for short-term projects than they do career Facilitators.

“The world is thus,” they tell me. It’s the way it is, accept it. My answer is, “No, thus we have made the world.” Whether they are the national who lives in the villages of India, the native urban dweller working Santiago or, the North American who has committed himself/herself to learning language and culture in Tanzania, the Facilitator’s of this world will still be engaged long after the Franchiser has moved on to another project.

Franchisers and Facilitators

I’m working on an article for submission entitled Understanding How Cultures Think: A Guidebook for Ministry Partnership. The project has forced me to analyze how people from different cultures can work together more effectively. In the process I am coming to the conclusion that the role of North American missions does best when they are placed in well-defined structure. As I think about those who have succeeded in missions, versus those who have failed, one reality jumps out -- those who accomplish something generally are those who go to the field with a specific task and are placed in a work environment where they have defined role.

One guy I know in India, I’ll call him Robert, has lived and worked in this country for twenty years as a teacher in biblical studies. He is no academic slouch and is often asked to speak in different schools in the country. He and his wife have raised three kids and seem to be quite fulfilled in their role. What Robert does well is teaching and mentoring future church leaders. Only in eternity will we know what his impact has been for the Gospel.

Robert is not a high profile personality. If a supporting church or donor in America is looking to get spectacular ROI (return on investment) in terms of churches planted, an orphanage started or converts won; Robert’s work will not show up on the radar screen. Yet, while I have watched others come and go with a lot of flash and cash, but not much of anything else, Robert continues to plod along, adding value to the work of the church in South Asia.

I started training missionaries back in 1989. Many of those I have trained are still on the field; a few have gone on to other things. As I think of those who have now completed 10 – 15 years of service, with a few exceptions, they are people who found their niche in working within a defined role, either as teachers, curriculum developers, tech support personnel or administrators. The few entrepreneurs that have succeeded have done so because of they produced a product that was a felt need of the church and have developed a network of national relationships to make their project successful. All of them came with clear understanding what needed to be done and what they would do.

North Americans are, and will continue to be, a strategic link in global missions. It’s important that the western churches and sending agencies recruit the right people and place them in a places or responsibility who know what they are suppose to do everyday they are on the field. We need fewer franchisers and more facilitators; people who use their skills for the advancement of the Kingdom rather than those who go the field with a new idea and pray it works.

1968 Was Quite A Year

Dow Jones hits 980.

Gallon of gasoline $0.34 - gallon of milk $1.04 - cost of 1st class stamp $0.05 -median household income $7,743 - Cost of new home $26,600.

Beginning of Tet-offensive in Vietnam. 1,000 American soldiers killed each month.

Superbowl II: Green Bay Packers beat Oakland Raiders, 33-14 in Miami Superbowl MVP: Bart Starr, Green Bay, QB.


U.S. Female Figure Skating championship won by Peggy Fleming.

"Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In" premieres on NBC.

Spy ship USS Pueblo and 83-man crew seized in Sea of Japan by N Korea.

Famous photo: Saigon police chief Nguyen Ngoc Loan executes a Viet Cong officer with a pistol shot to head.

Country's 1st 911 phone system went into service in Haleyville, Ala.

Baseball announces a minimum annual salary of $10,000.

Singers Johnny Cash (36) and June Carter (38) wed.

U.S. Mint stops buying and selling gold.

My Lai massacre occurs (Vietnam War); 450.

"Royals" chosen as the name of new Kansas City AL franchise.

Lyndon Baines Johnson announces he will not seek re-election.

Martin Luther King Jr. murdered in Memphis.

United Methodist Church forms.

Sirhan Sirhan shoots Bobby Kennedy, who dies next day.

650,000 Warsaw Pact troops invade Czechoslovakia, ends reform movement.

Police and anti-war demonstrators clash at Chicago's Democrat National Convention.

Iraq adopts constitution.

1st broadcast of "Hawaii Five-O" on CBS-TV.

Beatles' "Hey Jude," single goes #1 and stays #1 for 9 weeks.

Detroit Tigers beat St. Louis Cardinals, 4 games to 3 in 65th World Series.

Committee suspends Tommie Smith and John Carlos for giving "black power" salute as a protest during victory.

Jacqueline Kennedy marries Aristotle Onassis.

Nixon elected 37th President of U.S., defeating Hubert Humphrey.

34th Heisman Trophy Award: O J Simpson, Southern California.

Frank Borman's Christmas reading while orbiting Moon.


39 years ago, August 23rd, Richard and Sandy marry.

Are You Called?

The other day I received a questionnaire from a supporting church. Not only do I not have a problem when I receive such inquiries about our ministry, funding and sharing personal information, I welcome them. I am a strong advocate of accountability. I am accountable to my board, and the Master, of course, but I think it’s important that churches actively stay in contact with those they support.

One question on the questionnaire I always have a problem with is, “Explain your ‘call’ into ministry.’” I’m never quite sure how to answer that question as I believe there is a misunderstanding of that term; I don’t believe it has Scriptural foundation and historically has been abused.

Earlier in the week my wife and I were having supper with some friends in the city. In over a little over a years time three families from their organization has left the field. Two of these families lasted less than three months each. If you were to ask any of them, prior to landing on this side of the world why they were here they would have said emphatically “God called us to this country.” They no doubt raised their support by passionately telling potential donors that they were bound to living overseas because of the compelling call of God on their lives. What happened? Did they “miss” their call? Did God change His mind? Or, as I argue, there is no such thing as a call.

This is what I do believe as it relates to the subject:

• I believe there is call unto salvation; that is a call to everyone who has the privilege to hear the Good News of Christ.

• I believe there is a call for every redeemed saint to take that Gospel message to others, whether it be to the pagan across the street or to the pagan across the ocean.

• I believe that God gives gifts to people to equip them for ministry (see my earlier post on whether missionaries are made or born).

• I believe man makes his plans (based on their personality, gifts, relationship with Christ) and God directs their steps. (Romans 15:20 is part of that guiding for my life.)

• I believe that in the process of man making plans that God’s direction can steer people towards opportunities and likewise can thwart mans plans by closing doors of opportunities.

• I believe that man can override God’s leading by pursuing their agenda in spite of God’s attempt to steer them in a different direction. Baalam beat the daylights out of his ass before he got a clue of God trying to steer him in a different direction. Some of us override God’s leading by sheer pride that He has “called” us and we’ve raised too much money in the process to turn back now.


As an outside observer I can only guess why the three couples ended up leaving the field. One is because the husband was hell bent on coming to the field and the wife never was on board. Another couple came and went because of a dramatic change their family circumstance between the time they were appointed to the time they arrived (reluctantly) to the field. Another was due to two things, lack of job satisfaction and culture stress. The fault of two out of three of these cases lies squarely on the sending agency’s leadership. None of these situations was God’s fault.

An old missionary of the past was fond of saying, “Why do you need a call when you have a command?” My fourteen years in Kenya as a church planter and sixteen years teaching and training countless cross-cultural workers around the world is not a result of a call but a desire to fulfill a command. My present and future residence has nothing to do with a specific summons from God. If I gave up vocational ministry tomorrow I wouldn’t feel any less valid in His service, as long as I was still walking close to Him. I don’t feel compelled to lie for God’s sake to explain the path I have chosen and the steps He directs.

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.