#4 Why I Love My Job

I contend, as well as teach, that the key to success in working overseas is job satisfaction. People say they leave the field because of illness, conflict with associates, finances, persecution, culture stress and a host of other things, but almost any of those obstacles can be overcome if a person really feels they have, as is the title of my book, found their niche in their work.

My niche is teaching cross-cultural studies. Going cross-culturally has different levels. C1 is "like-culture" (mono), which is 90% of ministry activity. C2 is a different culture (better described as social environment) but similar, e.g. middle class Caucasians working with poor illiterate or Americans working in London. C3 is crossing a significant cultural boundary (middle class white American learning enough Arabic to work with Egyptians in Detroit). C4 (not plastic explosives) is anyone who moves from their country into another country, learns the host culture language, customs and social organization. This is the emic principle, becoming an insider. Having been blessed, not only having lived as a C4 worker but being educated in the discipline of how to study and different culture environments, I have a unique and fulfilling career niche.

Globalization means that our world is smaller and culture’s are merging into a collective lingua franca. Those who do not understand the dynamics of culture make the false assumption that similar equal same, believing that just a tweaking of presentation is all that is needed to effectively communicate across cultural barriers. It’s a fatal flaw. Look at any company, church, social or even government policy that is successful and you will find that someone in that organization knows how to read the culture of their market.

I recently taught a class where some MK’s from Australia was going back to the country they were raised. The director of the class warned me, that some of them didn’t feel they needed my class. They grew up in the culture; they didn’t need a cross-cultural course. I suppose it would be true, if they were going to serve exactly in the same place of their parents, among the same people they grew up with. IF, however, they dared to serve among a different geographical, ethnic, socio-economic or age group, they would need to learn the importance of cross-cultural studies. As I gave my presentation a few actually caught on and the lights of cultural understanding started to flicker.

Tomorrow I get on a train, travel 24 hours to a remote part of the country to teach nationals on how to communicate the Gospel in a culturally relevant way. My job is unique; few can do it. I truly have job satisfaction. I love my job.

The Power of the Physical

For as long as I knew my mother-in-law she observed one solemn ritual, Decoration Day. In the south, each spring local cemeteries would set aside a day for this special occasion where relatives would go and put flowers on the headstone of their departed loved ones. It’s also a time to remove unsightly weeds and other debris, a type of spring-cleaning for the graveyard. Memorial Day, which initially established to remember fallen soldiers, has taken over Decoration Day, but has the same function.

Of course my mother-in-law understood the remains under the sod had no spiritual significance, at least I don’t think she did, but rather the gravesite was a touchstone, a physical connection to the one who was no more. Catholics in South America has a similar practice called All Saints Day. Some of them have a superstitious notion that by praying to their kin the dead relatives will grant their requests, or perhaps take the request to the Virgin Mary, Saint Peter or maybe even to Jesus Himself. Buddhist pray to their ancestors. Even my aged and sickly Hindu neighbor told me the other day he prays to his mother that she will grant his wish to let him die. Idols, temples, churches, saints even cemeteries are “sacred space,” for us mortals. Why do people do revere these things? It’s the power of the physical. What we see, touch, posses we can conceptualize as real. What we cannot see is perhaps just myth.

Capitalism and the free market economy is the driving force behind the power of the physical. My sister-in-law sells cars, but not just any car, she sells BMW’s. Ah, but she sells more than automobiles, she sells image. If you drive a BMW you are making a statement that you are successful. Certainly a BMW is a nice car, but it has the basics you will find on a Ford or Honda, or even a horse cart for that matter. Four round wheels, a place to sit, a steering system and a power source. Depending on image preference, capitalism will steer (no pun intended) a demographic buyer toward the $40K silver roadster or $40K double cab pickup. Both conjure a powerful physical symbol in the automotive market.

Because we are physical people, living in a physical world, our value system is influenced by our material world. A person's weight, color of hair, whiteness of teeth, skin tone, dress, social associations, house, the comforts one strives for, all point to the physical. Fat means lazy, dark skin means lower class (or caste...or terroist), plastic means poor, country club means status. We kill, cheat, horde for the our cherished physical symbols.

The church is not immune to the power of the physical. The buildings they erect, the music they perform, the programs they create for the special focus groups in their congregation, are all a part of the emphasis on the physical. As I listen to pastors the topic generally is about the three “P’s,” programs, presentation and property. In missions, the focus is on churches planted, fostering a people movement, reproducing the western physical in a foreign context.

What’s the harm? Nothing, except that there are two dimensions of man, one physical the other is the metaphysical (see 8/22 post). So dominant is the physical that it not just overwhelms, it often annihilates the spiritual. The more one buys into the physical the less we are even aware of our “real” needs, which is to love the Lord our God with all our heart, and to love our neighbor as ourselves. When was the last time you heard, in a church business meeting, a serious discussion in the budget to help the homeless, the drug addicts, elderly or handicapped in the community? How ironic that helping others with their physical may be the instrument God will use to lead us to the metaphysical.

As I write this I am aware of the tree trunk in my own eye. I am not only consumed with the physical, I fret and worry about it. Am I doing enough to satisfy my donors who want a report on those ‘saved’ or churches planted under my ministry? How can I make my presentation, my newsletters more attractive so that people will see that I’m a good investment for their support? How do I look before my peers? Do they see me as intellectually capable, or merely an intellectual-wannabe dufus? Do I really care as much about the rag pickers I see on my morning walks as I do about my retirement portfolio? Am I like the young ruler who turned away from Jesus, so close to the kingdom, but walked away sad because he had much wealth he was unable to part with?

Of course Jesus was the antithesis of those dominated by the physical. He didn’t dress for success, he ate with the wrong crowd, blessed and cared for the wrong people. The only image he was concerned about was reflecting the image of His Father. “If you’ve seen me work,” he told Philip, “you have seen the Father.” If I am to ever break this bondage of the physical I must fully embrace His words, “Seek first the kingdom [metaphysical] of God and these other things [physical] will be provided for you.”

#3 Why I Love My Job

There is a difference between working with, working for, working alongside national church leaders. There is a lot of talk about “facilitating” the national church, but, like the details, somewhere the devil is in the definition.

When a North American organization states they are working with the national church, many times they mean they have a program or agenda and they have found nationals who provide local bodies to be a part of the program. Many of the facilitating projects in the world are American led and financed, working with nationals. In the grand scheme of things, this is not always bad, but it is not exactly what I do.

A few years back I heard a pastor of a national church say, “Foreign missionaries coming to this country should submit themselves to the national church. If they want to help our country they should serve under the direction of the national leadership.” What he was saying was the role of expat’s should be to work for them. If I was under thirty years old, had no experience overseas, I could see where that might be a rational suggestion. Provided the national leader knew what he was doing, wouldn’t try to exploit free labor and was willing to mentor me in the process of learning culture and ministry. The leader who made this comment is a wonderful person, but he’s not even a good pastor (working with people), so I would hate to think what type of a mentor he would be. Being over forty, ah, over fifty, with thirty years of service and being an independent type, the “S” word is not something I am comfortable with. At this point in my life I don’t want to work for even my most respected national leaders. Like borrowing money, that would be a recipe to end a wonderful friendship.

The reason I love my job at this stage of life is that I truly do work alongside the national church. Because my training is unique (a future post), I do not have to build anything, fund anything (except my training expenses) and, I am not lording over others nor being lorded over. Working alongside national pastors I do not get involved in their finances, politics or internal conflicts. Being a true facilitator is probably the most effective way a North American can serve the national church today.


And, what wonderful national leaders I have worked alongside! In the second term of our work in Kenya I released all responsibilities and decision making to the national pastors. It took awhile, not always a smooth transition, but today they are some great leaders I now visit and facilitate. In India, those I work alongside, are people with vision and unusually high ethical standards. Many of these leaders have their PhD’s, have a passion for Christ and know the difference between with and for. When I go to other countries, like Serbia recently, Moldova in November, I do so knowing that what I provide in training is for their benefit, not my own.


Admittedly, my job is unique. A combination of having the right educational credentials, practical and real life cross-cultural experience, and nearly two million road miles, I am, not one of a kind, but one of the few, who can truly serve in a facilitative role to the church. At this stage in life is it any wonder…I love my job.

38 Years of Travel

We met in February, walked down the aisle six months later. We really didn’t know much about each other when we started our journey together, and after thirty-eight years, today, we still don’t always get it exactly right. But, we’re doing better. I can’t imagine what the trek would have been without you. Happy anniversary Sandy.

The Gap Between the Physical and the Spiritual

Sometimes my readings come together as a fusion of thought. Yancey (whose book is like a like a good cigar that is to be savored one delightful draw at a time, not puffed as though it was a cigarette on a two minute break) writes of the power of harnessing the physical. “Whoever masters the material world,” he writes, “determines future’s fate.”

Our forefathers harnessed the power of horses, then steam and electricity. Today’s harness is nuclear energy and the microchip. The nations who have the capability to control the physical are advanced; those without such capabilities are regulated to “developing countries,” which means less advanced, even backward.

At the same time I’m reading Paul Hiebert’s book on epistemology. I’m familiar with Hiebert's work so this is more review than new thought, but his reasoning on physics and metaphysics coincided with Yancey’s readings. Aristolean thought divides the world into two dimensions, thus dualism postulates the physical and spiritual world. Hiebert makes the argument that the “reductionist” view of only seeing the world in either one of these spheres can be fatal. For the materialist, his world is detrmined by what he/she can possess and control (a microcosm of state control of material). How one looks, what does for a living, authority, what ones possess or strives to hold is the land of the physical. To focus on the “other world,” where one lives life in light of only the spiritual dimension makes one a monk, sadu or perhaps a fundamental zealot. These are the people who are often cited as being so heavnley minded they are of no earthly use.

The key, in both Yancey and Hiebert’s conclusion is recognize the balance (and isn’t that the key to everything?). Hiebert calls it critical tension, others call it holism. The reality is that, though there may be constitutionally a separation of church and state, there is no such thing as separation from the physical and the metaphysical. Humanity operates in the physical, but it’s transitory. We can neither totally harness it, nor are we to make it our all consuming passion. The spritual realm is real, but elusive. Man can seek the One whose voice he has not heard, his hand that he cannot see, but it is a world of conjecture until he leaves the physical.

After my readings this morning I went down stairs to visit my eighty-five year old landlord. Slowly growing weaker, he lamented that soon he will not have the strength to make it to the bathroom and wondered, “Who will clean me when I urinate or mess in my bed? How will I bathe when I stink so bad I cannot bathe myself?” He prays to die, but does not know the God to whom he seeks help. He no longer cares about controlling the physical, instead he longs for the release with a hope there is a spiritual dimension where he will not suffer. I walk away, knowing that his struggle today will not be mine. Because of ambition, vanity, pride, I will serve the material more than the metaphysical. By concentrating on the material I will control my fate. One day I will be like my friend and realize that’s not true at all.

Why I Love My Job #2

Many years ago I came across a video series called “Faces of Culture.” I still use segments of this anthropological series in my classes as I discuss kinship, economics, religion and worldview. Each segment begins with clips with faces of people around the world. One of the great perks of my job is being able to see the magnificent world that God created, the faces of culture.

When I started out in ministry I had no real knowledge, or interest, in people of other cultures. I was trained in mono-theology, mono-methodolgy and had every intention of living my life working in a mono-cultural pastorate. Not only did I not understand the world beyond my borders, I had little knowledge of “others” in my own community. My parallax of vision, as Tippett describes it, was culturally determined. It’s nothing short of a miracle that I have not lived my life in a mono-cultural existence.

Not all people in my profession have the privilege of experiencing the many faces of culture as I have, but everyone in my profession at least get an opportunity to see the other faces of culture God has created. I’ve seen the faces of the short, (Aka pygmies of Congo), the tall (Masai or Kenya), the brown (Quechua of Bolivia), the yellow (Lisu of southwest China) the oppressed (Vietnam) the liberated (Estonia), those who worship many gods (in Varanasi, India) the orthodox Christian (Russia and Romania), folk Muslims (Mali and Senegal) cultural Muslims (the Tatar of Russia) practicing Muslims (Turkey, Uzbekistan), follower of Buddha (Thailand and Cambodia) and the pure spirit worshipers called animists (Pokot of Kenya).

What I have learned through interacting with these faces of cultures, and others not listed, is profound. One, though we all are a part of the human race, we do not see the world the same. It took me a long time to shake me out of my mono-cultural theology to come to terms with this. Our values are different; our behavior is certainly different which means our conclusions are vastly different. The perception of God, sin, salvation, life and what happens after life is as varied as the faces of culture itself.

Second, through my profession I have learned to value others. Growing up ethnocentristic as well as fundamental, my first thirty years was spent believing that not only was I right, everyone who I came in contact with was both wrong and damned. Inherent to monoculturalism is their values and practices could be improved if they just became more like us. (Again, this is not just an American problem; it’s a disease of all monoculturalists in every country). The faces of culture have taught me that their way of doing things, their food and dress, even their religion, is valid. I may not agree with them, but through my exposure to God’s mosaic of peoples gives me insight on how, through their culture, He speaks uniquely to them. I am not a universalists, not all roads lead to heaven, but in all religion God can and does reveal Himself.

Third, the benefit of my profession is that I can celebrate and appreciate my own culture with a proper perspective. Though I no longer believe my country or my ethnicity is the best, I am confident it is every bit as valid as any other culture. I make no apologies for being an American. I can boast of my culture, not because of a narrow uniformed perspective, but because I have seen the other faces of culture and can claim my place as a part of God’s Divine design.

Case Against Reductionism

I am presently reading RUMORS of Another World, by Philip Yancey. It’s a book that my mom bought but didn’t like, so she gave it to my daughter, who didn’t have time to read so gave to me, which I put into my suitcase at the last minute before we left the states. Maybe it was Providence that I ended up with book; more likely it was sheer chance. That comment alone tells you why I like the book.

Yancey, McLaren, Lewis, Guinness are as much Christian philosophers as they are writers. Only McLaren comes out of the closet and declares he is a postmodernist, but the others are on the edge. It all comes down to definition of what is a postmodernist, but what they all have in common is their approach to the probing questions of the universe and the Creator of it all without coming to definitive conclusions. While they, in their own minds, have found plausible answers, in the end their arguments remain supposition. Writers, like Yancey, who has been a recovering fundamentalist for thirty years, reject the notion of easy believism for a more post-Enlightenment style that is more systematic and less reductionist.

Take the concept of sin as an example. Biological reductionist would suggest that bad behavior is the result of a malfunction of a genetic makeup. Psychologists contend that it’s due to emotional scarring through a dysfunctional family upbringing; sociologist might say the reason is because of a hostile social environment. Of course all of these may be true, in part, but blaming deviant behavior on the sugar content in Twinkies (as one convict claimed) is a more of a defense to avoid taking personal responsibility that recognizing the root cause.

Theological reductionism is the stuff that makes postmodernist cringe and Christian booksellers grin. Sin, according to those with the answers, is a result of not having enough faith, too little Bible study, not following proper study methods, a lack of submission (to God, husband or church), not having a positive attitude, withholding the tithe, following the fashions of the world, watching movies, listening to secular music, reading romance novels or, God help us, listening to someone who doesn’t declare “Thus saith the Lord.” One can jump through a thousand spiritual hoops or lifestyle modifications and, guess what, we will still sin. It’s not the devil that made us do it, we were not predestined to leave our spouse or cheat on our taxes, we made a conscious and deliberate decision. Why? Because we are sinners, we were born in sin. The depravity of man is one of the few theological reductionist views I hold, which runs contrary to the reductionism of science. However, like my biological DNA, the fact that I am born in sin cannot, does not, excuse me. “You know me, Lord, I’m just a sinner,” doesn’t give me a pass to be greedy, lustful, prideful or boastful.

Books like RUMORS remind me that this journey called life is both a process as well as discovery. If there were a magic formula to knowing God it would have been revealed by now. Yancey, and others like him, do not show us the way, they merely point the possible avenues. In this age of “give me the answers, not the questions,” such books may not satisfy, unless, like me, you have come to the realization that living with ambiguity is part of the God of mystery. It’s rumored there is another world. It’s rumored there is a greater power who is the architect of the universe and that designer seeks a relationship with His creation. I believe the rumor is true. I see in part, but not the whole. I’m intrigued with the mystery; I am not satisfied with the reductionism of others.

Why I Love My Job

FORGING TURKWELL RIVER - TURKANA DISTRICT - KENYA


In a little over a month my wife and I will celebrate our 30th anniversary. Not our wedding anniversary (which will be 38 years in a couple of weeks) but 30 years as cross-cultural workers. I can still remember the day we made the approach into the Nairobi airport that September day. As I stared down on the plains of Africa, dotted by mud huts and wandering animals, I looked over at my young daughters, ages 5 and 1, and prayed that I hadn’t made a mistake and wondered, “What the heck have I gotten us into?” Those were the days before short-term trips. Today many people in our profession now visit the field at least once, maybe more, to check out whether they like it before they make a commitment. We made our decision to live in Africa on pure faith.

Three decades later our children are grown, married and have children of their own. Sandy and I live in Asia, on the other side of the globe from our family and friends. What drives someone to take on this lifestyle? The other day, while walking through the streets of this city of 12 million people, I started to list the things I like about this life God has led me to live.

ADVENTURE - Talking with a young missionary recently she confessed that she sometimes feels guilty about wanting to live overseas because she is attracted to the adventure. I told her that I felt it was normal for a missionary to be adventurous. In fact, I wonder if adventure is not essential for people committed to living overseas. People who do not have a wonder about the world they live in, who are satisfied with the status quo of their home surroundings don’t do well overseas. It’s part of the missionary DNA to want to see what’s on the other side of the mountain, river or jungle. Today’s career worker is not unlike our forefathers of Livingston, Carey and Taylor, who were as much explorers as they were messengers of the Gospel. To be a missionary is to be adventurous.

Of course adventure can’t be the only reason to sell all your worldly goods and move to another culture. It doesn’t take long after one arrives in a foreign land that the reality of living among people who think, speak, act and eat differently than you begins to wear thin. For fourteen years I worked with a tribal group that was considered primitive. The first year in the bush was exciting and adventurous. The next thirteen years that adventure was often coupled with heat exhaustion, frequent bouts with malaria, loneliness, and frustration.

There have been times when I’ve thought about packing it in and returning to the states and doing something else. I know, however, that I would never be truly happy. Once one experiences life outside, “home” never seems to satisfy. Missionaries need the adventure. It’s part of who we are. It’s why I like my job.


(Part one in a series)

Relevance Versus Doctrine

The feature article of the recent Biola Connections is entitled, The “D” Word: Has Doctrine Become the New Dirty Word? The basis of the article is that the study of God’s Word has been replaced with support and interest groups, messages that confirm the Christian faith has given way to emotional healing and encouragement. The hymns of faith have been replaced with demonstrative and, sometimes, silly ditties. “Many Christians don’t see the connection between doctrine and life,” the article asserts, “so important doctrines are being discarded.”

The article cites the doctrine of the Trinity as one example of this trend. T.D. Jakes, pastor of a megachurch in Dallas, rejects the historic doctrine of the Trinity with an ancient church heresy called “modalism.” In April 2000 Jakes said in Religion Today, “I am too busy trying to preach the Gospel to split hairs. People in my generation are lost, hungry, in prison, wounded and alone…Many of our generation are dying without knowing God – not dying for the lack of theology.”

Soon after reading the Biola article I read Os Guinness’ work, Prophetic Untimeliness: A Challenge To the idol Of Relevance. Guinness takes the evangelical church to task accusing them of chasing the god of popularity, success and relevance, over sound doctrine. “How are we to be always timely,” questions Guinness, “never trendy? How are we to be redefined – in the right way?”

Because culture determines much of how we see our world and therefore directs our steps in life, the market economy, its business plans and its business management procedures, is the driving force behind much of the church today. In the world of competition, the focus in the church today is what method can we use to make our congregations more “relevant,” e.g. music, youth programs, even the dress code that appeals to the casual. It’s all about making people feel comfortable and having a satisfying worship experience. While pastors struggle for “market share,” in the community, the name of the game is not just merely having a nice building but attention must be given to Location, Location, Location.

As I reflect on the two readings I make application to my field of ministry overseas. The dominance of western influence on the national church is so strong that they, too, seek methods for church growth and therefore mimic the success of those abroad. Mission methods of adopting people groups and how to foster a people movement, is preferred over adequate study in the doctrines of faith or the training of how to present a relevant message in a non-Christian community.

The tension, for me as well as Guinness, is two-fold. One, I do believe the church should be relevant to the world in which we live. Whether one is serving in Dallas or Dakar, the message of Christ must speak in terms that the average American or Muslim can understand. For too many years the emphasis on theology has become an obstacle to the Message. Whether one is pre-trib or post-trib is irrelevant to those who need to understand who Jesus is and why He is "the Way the truth and the life." While I believe there is objective truth, as Brian McLaren has argued, one must wonder if orthodoxy is truly or objective or merely tradition handed down through those who saw their world through the lens of their time and culture.

Second, the postmodern cross-cultural worker, while crafting a relevant message of the Gospel, must not sacrifice objective truth for the sake of relevancy. To suggest that Christ is merely one avenue to salvation is to discredit His uniqueness.

Understanding the tension between relevance and doctrine is not an easy assignment. The failure of the church is that it seems to caught in an “either/or” position, rather than finding the middle ground in-between. Guinness is right, the church must not be swayed in being trendy at the cost of doctrine. At the same time it must not hold on to orthodoxy at the expense of becoming irrelevant. Though the Message may be irrelevant to unbelievers, that does not mean we must be in our presentation of truth.

What Time Is It?

What time is it? My body says it’s now just before mid-night CDT Thursday August 3rd, but my watch says it’s 10:30 a.m. August 4th. Jet lag now begins. It will take me a couple of days for the body to catch up with the watch. Lots of afternoon naps and long nights wishing I could go to sleep when it’s dark. I have never mastered jet lag. I’ve tried to stay awake until night, but I still wake up at 2 a.m. I now sleep when I need to and hope that in a few days I won’t go brain dead at 3 p.m. in the afternoon. By Monday maybe the watch and the body will be in the same time zone.

The trip was uneventful, except that our bags didn’t make it to the airport with us. I’ve had my luggage lost four times in all my journeys and three of them were with Air France. Charles De Gaulle airport is my least favorite airport and it’s amazing to me how they can’t EVER get my bags to join me on a connecting flight. I always remember the joke my brother tells about the guy who went up to the ticket counter and told the lady, “I’d like to go to Chicago but I want my bags to go to Detroit.”

“We can’t do that sir,” the little girl behind the counter replied?

“You did last week,” the smart aleck but experienced traveler replied.

We are in the monsoon season here so humidity is high but the temperature is not too bad (low 90’s). While it is a bit uncomfortable our block apartment doesn’t radiate the heat as it did in May when the temps was over 110 degrees every day.

It’s great to be back in this culture again. While being in the states was a refreshing break, we are anxious to see how God will direct our paths in the months ahead.

Saying Goodbye Is Hard To Do

Saying goodbye is always tough. We have enjoyed being with our family for the past few weeks, but Sandy and I head back overseas soon. It’s been interesting to see God’s hand in our lives. Sandy’s mom passed away exactly at the right time. Sandy’s mother had been ill for over a year and during that time Sandy was pressed to return early. On this trip home she was able to spend quality time with her mom before her death and God’s timing has also allowed Sandy to be with her dad. She can now return to Asia with perfect peace.

We’ve been saying goodbye to our girls Becky (in red shirt) and Sara (behind her) since they were in the 5th grade. Our girls were in boarding school in Kenya so for years we have enjoyed our time together but continually went through the agony of separation. With the addition of four wonderful grandkids, it doesn’t get any easier.

We are anxious to get back to our assignments in Asia, but through this trip in the states God is forming in us a new vision. I have no idea where this road will lead, but that’s the part of what it means to live by faith.

It may be awhile before I post again. Lots of packing, last minute goodbye’s to family members. Talk to you again from a different time zone.

Cost of Labor Wrap Up

Last week a dear sister wrote me from Tulsa stating, and I am paraphrasing, “I have been reading your blog with interest. I’m not a Doer or a Watcher because I have never been overseas. I’m wondering if I am an Intruder?”

She wrote her note prior to my explanation to the last category but I assured her she was certainly NOT in that class. Kathy is typical of 90% of Americans involved in missions. She loves career missionaries (Doers), prays for them by name, writes notes of encouragement, prays for nationals and their ministries within their countries and contributes when she can for world evangelism. If she were physically or financially able she might be more involved in taking short-term trips, but that’s not what drives her. She, like most people interested in missions, sees her work in a support role.

The reality is my emphasis is, and has always been, that we need people overseas who know what they are doing. No matter who they are in the three categories, I created as a lark, I am convinced we need BETTER Doers, Watchers and Intruders. To be better requires more understanding of the world, the people we communicate and yes, even prayer. In my view we need:

Better Doers - Not everyone who lives overseas is effective. Being able to speak a different language, experiencing the frustrations of a developing country doesn’t automatically mean they are doing a service for God and country. Doers have the potential of being much more effective than Watchers and Intruders, but they still have to grow intellectually and spiritually to become better in their service for Christ.

Better Watchers – Those who are better in doing short-term missions are those who serve with understanding, not just zeal. They go to fields where they are needed, interact with those on the ground (Doers and nationals who are in touch with the reality of their context, not just their feelings), and have a plan for their ministry, not just to have an experience. There are some great Watcher programs. Find them, join them, and learn from them.

Better Intruders - I can really get excited about a church or an individual who wants to be more involved, even ownership, as long as they don’t come in with the attitude that Doers and nationals don’t know anything, aren’t doing anything right, so move over, the Marines have landed. I endorse ownership as long as it facilitates what God is doing rather than trying to make it happen. If Intruders will take the time to really partnership with those who live in the context they will always be welcomed and blessed.

Some people don’t like my approach to mission work. That’s okay; I never claimed to be infallible, the final or best word. After thirty-five years as a Doer, strategist, missiologist, I have a fair understanding of the difference between God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility. After thirty-five years in the business I have observed the liberal do-gooders with no message and the conservative legalist who think they have the only message communicated only in their way. While I understand God is mysterious, I am uncomfortable with mystics who just want to throw the seed in the air and pray God will do His work by giving a harvest. (It's the stewardship principle in me that rejects the notion that it's okay that three-fourths of the seed can go to waste since God is using one seed to bring people unto Himself. Think what God could do if three out of four seeds actually landed on soil He could use.) I jealously guard and defend those who have committed themselves to make a difference worldwide. I want to do and be better, and challenge those who are involved in missions, in every category, to do the same.

Weakness of Intruders

It’s understandable why some churches and individuals want to take ownership of missions. They read about unreached people groups and, rather than working with the national church or career missionaries, make a commitment to do it themselves. I have no problem with people wanting to be personally involved in ministry anywhere in the world. I appreciate the commitment that people have to reaching the unreached with the Gospel. But I do have reservations with some people; I call Intruders, who take on the task of world evangelization simply for those two reasons. Many of these self-appointed missioner’s can cause more harm than good. Why?

Missiologically Inept -- The three components of a missiologist is a thorough knowledge of History (church/country), Theology (biblical/mission) and, Anthropology (cultural/applied). The bane of most of mission work is that few Doers are equipped in these areas, how much less those who have never lived overseas but nevertheless want to own an overseas ministry. Missiological incompetence leads to…

Ministry Ineffectiveness -- What’s the plan? What’s the goal? What are you trying to do? If the answer is, “I’m just trying to be witness for Jesus,” that’s not a strategy, that’s a slogan. So you want to reach Muslims, how will you do that and with whom, Sunni’s or Shia’s? Going to use the Jesus Film, feed the poor, hold a healing campaign? How about the Hindu, Jain, Sikhs, what’s your strategy in presenting the Gospel to them? What’s the plan for reaching the upper caste in India, the different tribes in Kenya or those who are marginalized in society (such as the eunuchs of Mumbai or the prostitutes of Bangkok)? I give Intruders an A for zeal and an F for understanding how to put a plan together for ministry.

Mission Waste – I met one Intruding pastor in Nairobi last year who said his church in the states has targeted the “harvest fields” of the world for ministry. Setting up Kenya, which is over 80% Christian, he has led his church in the states to give millions of dollars to buy land, build a building, furnish it with the latest sound equipment, etc., so they can have their slice of the harvest. Statistics show that 95% of the resources (people and money) go to the people and countries of the world where there is already a strong witness. The “more bang for the buck” mentality may make for good newsletters and fundraising, but it adds to the waste and doesn’t reach the two billion people that do not have a Gospel witness of any kind.

So what is my ideal of North American involvement in missions? If they are not going to be Doers, how then should they be engaged in world outreach? Next week.

Positive Intruders

When I began this thread my categories were tongue-in-cheek as it related to a sign I saw in a muffler shop (see Cost of Labor). The term, Intruder, is a bit harsh, but it did grab the attention for the discussion, a term for affect, not meant to slander.

Intruders are people who want to help do the work, maybe even take over from the people who are on the field. They are more than just Watchers, who dabble in missions; they take ownership. ItÂ’s my opinion that a committed Watcher eventually become a Doer or an Intruder. Intruders, like Watchers, can have a positive function, if they keep things in balance.

The primary reason for Intruders is two-fold. First, as I have mentioned, they are committed to the task of world evangelization. Secondly they want ownership overseas as feel they can do things better than career Doers. Intruders are people or churches that become their own agents of ministry overseas, while still living in the U.S. I have met pastor/intruders who have led their congregations to adopt people groups, cities and even countries, who by-pass North American missionaries and, sometimes, even national leaders, to reach their goals doing ministry themselves on the field. I know of one congregation who adopted Bosnia a few years back and in the ten years they have been involved they have established schools, sent in medical teams for refugees and nearly sixty percent of their membership has made a least one trip to the country that one time was a part of Yugoslavia.

Those who desire to be involved, more than a ten-day excursion, less than a full commitment to living in a country, see their role as being equal to that of the career Doers. In some cases, Intruders do indeed move things faster, maybe even more effectively than Doers. In the grand scheme of what God is doing all over the world; Intruders have made a positive contribution to world outreach. But, Intruders have a down side. Stay tuned.

Downside of Short-Term Missions

Let me give you the bottom line upfront. WATCHERS (short-term missions) are great for casting vision, however, they are seldom strategic for actual on-field ministries. Second, WATCHER programs confuse the issue of what really is missions and the role of DOERS on the field. Third, WATCHERS can actually hinder the work of the national church and DOERS. Fourth, the long-term profit of WATCHERS is disproportionate in relation to its benefits.

I am well aware that the national church and DOERS, not WATCHER programs, should develop strategy. Unfortunately there are many WATCHER programs developed by WATCHER ministries, who have no intention to live on the field but want to do good work and create programs that may be fun, but not effective. Prayer walks, Bible distribution, feeding programs may be helpful, but they are not necessarily strategic. Most of my life is spent working and thinking about the best way to present the Gospel in a culturally relevant way. For people who do not understand who Jesus is and what He is about, the simple approach provided by most WATCHER programs cannot, will not, reach the heart issues of most people in this world.

Second, as I have stated before, if everything is missions, nothing is missions. The little ditty that “You are either a missionary or a mission field,” is just wrong. DOERS pay a price for their commitment to go to the field, by leaving their host culture and families, the humiliating process of raising support, learning language and suffering through culture longer than ten days. The church has so confused and, in my opinion, demeaned the profession of DOERS, that the career person is looked upon as being no different than those who just came back from their vacation with a purpose. The mindset with North American church members today is not only can everybody be a missionary, anybody can be a missionary.

Third, after the WATCHERS return home, what do they leave behind? Goodwill, maybe. A church built, perhaps. But they also leave behind things like, the local church pastor is being paid by foreigners so the local church members don’t have to support the church; Christianity is about goods and services that only the WATCHERS can provide. In anthropology there is a term for a religious sect called the “cargo cult.” (I don’t have time to explain it; you will have to research this yourself). In a similar way, nationals (and even some DOERS), look to the sky each summer waiting for the god of goods to fly in. Sure salvation is in Christ, but the blessings of that salvation is surely in the hands of the WATCHERS.

Fourth, while some WATCHERS do become DOERS, donors, prayer partners or involved in their community, I dare say that the commitment of short-term missionaries is as long as their trip. Hard to quantify this reality, as far as I know there are no studies on the subject, but given that the fact that there are literally thousands of people engaged in WATCHER programs each year, the number of people to sign up to be career DOERS are a fraction of those taking short-term trips. Donations for the support of national work and DOERS is certainly disproportionate to the money spent on WATCHER expeditions.

I am not on a campaign to do away with WATCHER programs. I am on a campaign to help people understand that missions is not simple. I am educator and one of my roles is to inform people that short-term mission programs should be done right and be well thought out. In a few days I will discuss the up and down side of INTRUDERS, but this should be enough for further discussion among yourselves.

What I Like About Watchers

Since my last post, a lot of interesting comments from my drive-by shooting of Doers, Watchers and Intruders. So, for the next couple of posts I will try to unpack my thoughts on the subject. Today, what I like about Watchers (short-term mission programs, 1 week to three months).

It will surprise some of you to know that my eyes to the world of missions was through a short-term trip in 1974 to Mexico. I was a pastor in Texas and took a group of teenagers to Monterrey. God used that trip to show me the meaning of Matthew 28:19 ff. Up to that point in life my worldview was parochial and ethnocentristic. For the first time I came to realize that not all people in this world lived like Americans. That trip challenged my view of helping the poor and taking the Gospel to people who had never heard the Good News. It was a defining moment in my life.

THE primary reason for short-term missions is for people to catch a vision of a world that is beyond their own neighborhood. Spending a week or a month in a different country is the hands-on experience of lifting ones eyes and seeing the fields are white ready for harvest (John 4:35). A person can catch that vision if they never leave their community, but it’s better caught than taught when someone touches, feels and smells that world outside of one’s own culture.

Many Doers on the field will tell you that they became career workers because of a short-term trip. There are countless hundreds of people who went on short-term trips who are now active in their local church outreach programs. One of the kids who went with us to Mexico over 30 years ago is now one of our sponsors and active in their community. Short-term projects CAN have long-term implications.

Recently a pastor friend of mine came back from Cambodia. He’s been in ministry for a long time and loves Doers. He has visited several countries down through the years and each time he comes back from a trip he is revitalized for global outreach. Listening to him the other Sunday as he spoke it was obvious his recent trip had an impact on his life. All the reports and slide presentations from Doers visiting his church pale in comparison to his experiencing the field firsthand. Short-term missions can be a great tool for world evangelization.

But, there is a downside to short-term projects, which I will talk about next time.

Cost of Labor

I walked into the muffler shop today and noticed the sign on the wall.

PRICE LIST

$40 an hour if we do the work.

$60 an hour if you watch us work.

$80 an hour if you help us work.

“Clever”, I mused, “that looks like a blog theme to me.” I then thought of the high cost of missions.

DOERS - Those who do the work are the people who have made a commitment to take on the task of cross-cultural service as a career. I can hardly believe how expensive it is to live in places like Mumbai, Kiev or Santiago. For a family of four a flat will can easily cost $1,000 a month. To do be engaged in the work overseas, along with taxes and insurance, you’re looking at least $50K a year. Financing the doers is not cheap, but still probably the most cost effective.

WATCHERS - Those who observe the work are short-term teams who travel overseas to experience ministry for two weeks or less. Take an average group of ten to fifteen people and the tab will easily be $30K. Glad they came, hope they caught the vision; the money they spent for the experience probably wouldn’t be given to missions anyway. Who knows, the 10 day trip might be a good investment in the long-term, but short-term missions is a program primarily for the watchers, they can’t really contribute much to the real work on the field.

INTRUDERS - Those who want to do the work are congregations who have determined that they want to be stakeholders in overseas ministry, though they don’t want to live on the field, learn a language or send their kids to local schools. By underwriting national programs, schools, orphanages, they will easily invest $100K a year, which includes teams going to the field, buying land and buildings. I know of one fellowship that has “adopted” a people group in Asia and is building a school, though they cannot mention the name of Christ nor even display a cross. Another congregation is involved in “harvest ministries,” which starts churches in Africa and Philippines by pouring thousands of dollars to reach those nations who already have a huge Christian population. Believing they can do better or maybe just a well, they by-pass the on-field doers.

Like the muffler shop, anyone of the three option’s one chooses will get the job done. It’s a matter of how much do you want to pay for the process to get the best results.

One Nation Under God

In 1976, when our country celebrated its 200th birthday, I was living in Africa and people we’re talking about America’s “image” before the rest of the world. We were a couple of years out of the unpopular Viet Nam war, one year after Watergate and the resignation of President Richard Nixon. This morning as I woke to our nations 230th founding as a nation I again listened to those discussing America’s image in other parts of the world.

I am not one of those card-carrying conservatives that believe that the hope of the world rests in the hands of our country. Economically, if we falter the domino effect will indeed have repercussions globally. We are not a particularly moral country and we seem to be less so with each passing year. Our government policies have gaping holes in them and I, quite honestly, wish our leaders, both Democrat and Republicans, would make decisions based on what is right versus what they think is more popular in getting them elected to office or gaining favor with world opinion. But in spite of the obvious deficiencies with my country I am not apologetic of who we are as nation.

What many people in other countries do not understand about America is our values, as they don’t share those values. All nations are built on principles, some being religious such as Islam, Hindu or Buddhist. Some countries hold the ideology of “the common good,” with policies that lean toward social programs and state run assistance. Many countries are driven by nationalism, which tend to splinter the population by ethnicity or tribe. When values are in conflict, so, too, will their disagreement on how things should be.

The value of a majority of American’s is one of freedom and independence, primarily religious freedom. Our rebellion from the rule of King George of England over 200 years ago still remains the same, i.e., we want less government interference in our lives and the common good is through what we believe is best for collective individualism. Government is only good as it is seen to benefit us, individually as well as collective. If our government officials don’t reflect our wishes we vote them out of office.

If we have disagreement with our own, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that most Americans are not be driven by what others, outside of our country, think on how we should behave. While we do want to be liked and respected by others, our values are as unique as our country itself. We understand our responsibility as the only superpower; we understand that our values do affect the nations of the world. Governments, represented in the U.N., have never appreciated our values and are frustrated that we don’t conform to what they think is best for the rest of the world.

What is always interesting to me is that; while the most popular thing to do is bash America, most countries privately seek our aid, trade and even our form of government. In essence, they want the best of what we are but reserve the right to hold their own values. As best we can accommodate those conflicting issues we try. But in the end of the day, Americans will always hold onto their values in spite of those who disagree with us.

God is not a politician. His values are neither American nor that of any other nation. America’s success or failure is dependent on America’s willingness to submit to His will and His values. If America becomes more concerned by the will of others over its desire to seek His agenda for all mankind it will go down in history as other nations who have turned their back on God. I’m a follower of Christ first, an American second. Make no mistake; I am a proud to be an American. America is a country where freedom of religion is a value, and because of that value I had the opportunity to hear the Gospel. Through my own free will, without fear of oppression or persecution from family or state, America gave me the opportunity to become a follower of Christ. It is for that reason I join my country today to celebrate 230 years as a nation.

Never No More

“They are no more.”

That is the way Hindu’s refer to the death of their family or friends. It’s an interesting expression, which says a great deal about their worldview. In contrast, in the West we refer to the death of someone by saying they have “passed away.”

Most Hindu’s believe in reincarnation, a 12,000 recycling of the soul into other forms of life until one reaches moksha (freedom from cyclical life). When someone dies they are no more from their present state; they are also no more from their identity as a person. My 80-year-old friend, Mr. Kumar, ceases not only to live, but also to be Mr. Kumar. He really wasn’t Mr. Kumar when I knew him; it was just his present state. Mr. Kumar is no more; he is now someone or something else. While this teaching may seem odd to those outside the faith, Hindu’s find comfort that life continues even if the state of that person does not.

Those in the West, who do not believe in reincarnation, and especially those of the Christian tradition, view death as the continuation of the personality, passing from life on this earth into an eternal condition. Where that eternal state may be is often a subject of debate. For evangelical Christians we point to the Holy Scriptures, the book of Hebrews which states, “It is appointed ONCE to die, and after that the judgment” (9:27). (Judgment does not refer to punishment but accountability).

Working with the Turkana of Kenya, most of the people were animists. They did not have a concept of an on-going living soul and therefore believed that the death of person meant they were no more. Unlike the Hindu, however, the soul does not move into another cycle of life, but really are no more. The worldview of the nomads in the desert and that of the educated atheist in the halls of academia, at least on this issue, are the same.

As I write this post, my mother-in-law is near death (which literally means separation). When she is separated from this life, her family and friends, she will pass to an eternal state. She, like all of us, has been created unique in person, uniquely an eternal personality. Our Eternal Creator, which does not change in either form or function, remains consistent with His creation. For those who are followers of Christ, we move from separation of life on earth, but we are never no more.

In The Area?

I never call a business meeting unless there is business to discuss.

I never run through an airport to catch a flight.

I never make eye contact with women when traveling through Asia, even if I am talking to them.

I almost never say “grace” over my food unless the person with me insists.

I never read the manual prior to plugging in a new computer program.

and…I AM SELDOM IN THE AREA.

I announced last spring that I would be in the states for the summer. The months of May through July it is too hot in the country we live and my teaching assignments are not in that period, so it’s a good time to return home and visit friends, sponsors and family. At least three donors have written, “If you’re in the area, please come by and see us.”

Perhaps we need definition – what does it mean to be in the area? Between the price of gas and driving time, my area is about 350 miles. Living in northwest Arkansas when we are home, my area then is Arkansas, Oklahoma, north Texas, Kansas and Missouri. Anything beyond that and we are looking at it being cheaper and more time efficient for me to fly.

It was 1975 when I first went out to raise support for our work. Back then gas was $0.58 a gallon (about $1.69 adjusting for inflation in today’s economy) and so driving 300 miles for a $50 dollar honorarium and $35 dollar monthly support wasn’t a bad deal. I wish I could have stayed in a 500-mile radius of home, but that was impossible, so our partners are spread from California to Connecticut. I’m only in another area if someone invites me.

I try to communicate to our partners via email monthly, sometimes more. But I know a personal visit is important. I suppose next year I should plan on being in other areas, but I can already hear it now...“June is not a good month for us, will you be in the area in July?”