Micro-Business Seminars - Are They Effective?

Few weeks back I received a note from a church in America asking how the members of their congregation might become more involved in ministry overseas? One area he suggested was that business leaders come over to do micro-enterprise seminars. Following up on that thought I sent a post to a network of business professionals with this question.

Do you think that the average businessman from the West can effectively communicate micro-business startups? Yes or No. Why?

I received this response from a financial advisor:

“No! I don't think a western business person is a good teacher.

I have been a business consultant in Indonesia and have learned the severe limitations of advising small businesses. The smaller the business the more difficult it is to advise because the culture affects small businesses the most. Micro business are generally out of the understanding of a western business person.”

This businessman went on to say that few people from the West understand the obstacles of business in developing countries that are corrupt or play by different ethical rules. With laws that are slanted against certain castes or tribes, it is difficult for some small business projects to get a license or permit. The whole matter of paying a bribe to set up a business is also an issue that most westerner’s are not equipped to address.

Another obstacle that makes it difficult for western businessmen teaching in developing countries is the use of inappropriate business models. Loans, advertisement, distribution, inventory, profit margin, are all good terms but usually are either unrealistic or unheard of in countries where business is a means of putting daily food on the table. Using models that are sustained by outside capital has no relevance within a culture where risk is not even an option.

The challenge in working cross-culturally is the same regardless of the subject. Whether it finance or evangelism, the key is to first understand the context. Before a short-term team from the states launches out on doing business as missions, perhaps they should learn the context of the host culture to insure that they know the questions before giving the answers.

Holistic Partnership

I agree with the premise that to have a good working partnership, “Their goals and yours must be the same.” Too many times franchisers try to sell their agenda to others and hope it becomes a partnership. As a facilitator, I try to find people who have similar vision and see how I might fit into our compatible aspirations.

For the past four years I have been working with some really wonderful people who share a similar goal as mine – taking the Gospel to those who have never heard (Rom. 15:20). I realize that is a generic and sweeping vision, but you’d surprised how few programs there are in the world that focuses primarily on the two billion people who have never heard the name of Christ.

I met Dr. Vijayam three years ago. I was told he had a training program that focused on making the Gospel available to the 4000 unreached people groups of India. TENT (www.tentindia.org) philosophy is interesting because they approach ministry that is truly holistic. Concentrated primarily on the spiritual needs of people, they also are very much concerned with the physical needs of a country where 80 percent of the population (of over 1 billion) live on less than $2 a day. TENT, therefore, provides training for bi-vocational Christian workers and equips them with the tools necessary to establish micro-business enterprises and life skills in agriculture, animal husbandry and appropriate technology. My part in this training is teaching how to communicate the message of Christ in a cross-cultural setting.


I have worked with many national leaders and programs over the past thirty years and think I can discern between hype and legitimacy. What impresses me most about TENT is the integrity and spiritual commitment of everyone involved in this ministry. TENT does not create programs to attract outside funding, but rather create programs that help people and furthers the mandate of the Great Commission. Funding, though important and vital, is secondary, which is rare in today’s market driven church.

I believe TENT has a lot more to teach me in the field of holistic ministry. Next year I am planning on visiting some of the field works where TENT has established micro-financing projects. If you would like to join me in a learning about micro-business, finance and holistic ministry partnership, let me know.

Don't Be A Clown

Everybody’s a comic. Or at least they think they are. That’s how I feel when I’m in a group setting with people I don’t know. One-liners, wisecracks and silly puns are often the means of communication at conferences, small dinner gatherings and, sadly, when talking to people of a different cultures.

It was a Fourth of July gathering several years ago in Kenya, hosted by the American Embassy, that I heard this remarkable exchange. Bob, whose ministry was among the Asian community in Nairobi, was talking to a young lady from Bombay.

“Have you had one of these hot dogs yet, Shilpa?”

“I’m sorry, no, I haven’t” she replied politely, “I’m vegetarian.”

“We’re going to have to get you saved,” Bob retorted, “so you can enjoy meat.”

My jaw dropped in horror! I can’t think of anything more insulting than Bob’s insensitive remark to his Hindu friend. But if you ask Bob about his comment, who should have known better, he no doubt would have dismissed his ignorance by saying, “Oh, lighten up. I was just a joke.”

Americans are generally friendly outgoing people. I think they sometimes compensate for not knowing how to interact with people of different cultures by trying to be humorous. The fact is, joking is as culturally driven as eating or the clothes people wear. Being an American from the southern part of the U.S., I sometimes cringe when I encounter my fellow southerners who visit overseas. With their bubbly, gregarious, slap-on-the-back personalities they have no clue that “friendly” can be interpreted as insulting and even sexually suggestive. Consider this story from George working as a teacher in Thailand.

“A student handed me a letter and bowed politely. The writing was in Thai, which I had not yet learned to read. I looked up and jokingly asked if it were a love letter? The young man's face blushed visibly. As the translation ricocheted around, the class began to laugh. The letter invited me to a reception the class had planned in my honor. The young man did not make eye contact with me for weeks. Joking in class is a risky business.”

My advice to people when they enter a new culture is they act with dignity and respect. Be friendly without being silly. You’re not there to entertain people, so leave your jokes at home and don’t try to be a comic.

The Challenge for the Non-Residential Missionary

When I determined, back in the late ‘80’s, that as a resident missionary (RM) I had accomplished much of what I set out to do (plant churches, disciple believers and establish a training institution), I began praying and thinking about what my future role would be in missions? In seeking the advice of the Missions Director of my organization on possible mission opportunities he was of absolutely no help. His advice to me was, “Well, I guess you can come back to the states and be a pastor of a church.”

Number one, I had been a pastor in the U.S. prior to becoming a RM and found that pastoring was not where I was gifted. Number two, I found my niche as a cross-cultural worker and once a person experiences fulfillment and job satisfaction they are not looking to settle for something less. Being a pastor in the U.S. meant, in my mind, going back serving in a community where if half the churches in that city died tomorrow God would still have an adequate witness. I had embraced the vision of taking the Gospel where Christ had not already been named lest I build on another man’s foundation (Rom. 15:20). Returning to the states to pastor was not an option.

One of the reasons some RM’s do indeed opt to return to do ministry in the states is that financially it is their only recourse. (I know some are prone to say they could return and get a “real” job in the “real” world. Thus are the thoughts of people who do not value vocational ministers of any kind). In hindsight I could have served cross-culturally working among the many people groups living in the U.S., or served as a missions pastor in an established congregation. As it turned out, I was given opportunity to train potential RM’s, which over the years, has evolved into my present role as a NRM. Most of my ministry today is teaching and training national church planters and instilling in them the vision of taking the message of Christ cross-culturally in their own country and region.

Though there will always be a need for the RM, some will never leave the field even if their presence is no longer needed. New missionaries going out today are compelled to be RM’s because of one crucial reason…FINANCES. In the mind of the American Christian they still believe that missionary work is only valid if the person lives overseas. Even working among people groups in the U.S. is not considered real missions. If a person is physically sitting in a mud hut along with the natives he or she is deemed an authentic missionary. If, however, a NRM, who at one time sat in those mud huts but now serves as a consultant and teacher to the leaders of the national church, they are not perceived as a legitimate missions project. Funding is best maintained if they remain on the field as RM’s even if they are ineffective or not needed.

Those who claim the role of a NRM are few. Not everyone who takes a short-term trip overseas should assume the title of a NRM. Those who have embraced the work of NRM’s are most often missiologists as well as scholars who know the context of the people with experience and a certain expertise born out of their time as RM’s. NRM’s are neither franchisers nor chief’s…they are facilitators in the truest since of the word.

Case For Non-Residential Missionary (NRM)

Several years ago I read a book entitled “The Non-Residential Missionary.” The authors were making a case for the shift in the role of North Americans in global ministries from that of resident aliens, i.e., expatriates residing in a country, to cross-cultural experts working overseas not residing in those countries. The trend of missions today bears out that the authors were probably ahead of their time. Even though many churches or mission agencies today don't buy into the NRM philosophy, it is a natural trend that will be more of a reality in the years ahead.

WHAT IS A NON-RESIDENTIAL MISSIONARY?

A NRM is one who has certain unique characteristics and qualifications.

(1) They are former residents or have spent significant amount of time in a particular culture that now visit those countries frequently to minister. Due to their knowledge of the culture, their contribution in training, or advising the national church sets them apart for a unique role in cross-cultural work. I believe there is an important peculiarity for someone who takes on the role of a NRM. To be an effective advisor and teacher a person should posses a certain amount of insider knowledge. The understanding of culture requires that a person probably should know the language or, at least, have resided within the culture long enough to wrestle with the tensions of that culture.

I lived in Kenya for over ten years. I understand and speak Swahili. My exposure to other African countries, seven in all, gives me a certain level of expertise into the African culture. In addition, I have been teaching in India since 1992 and lived in the country for four years. Though I do not speak Hindi I have worked with Indian nationals long enough that I have more than a cursory understanding of the religious, political and economic dynamics of that country.

There are many people, like myself, who have spent years serving among a particular people group or culture that, for the lack of a better term, qualify them as experts in that culture. When they minister to these groups it is based on insider knowledge. I know of one brother who spent years in Lebanon before being forced to leave the country. Another colleague lived in Iran before the days of the Ayatollah Khomeini. For political reasons these men can no longer live in those countries, but as NRM’s when they visit or teach in the Middle East it is based on a thorough understanding of the Persian/Arabic mindset. Another friend, who is fluent in Russian and has lived in the former Soviet Union several years, travels as a NRM training church planters. All of these men are insiders into those cultures.

(2) A NRM functions as a facilitator alongside the national church. They moved out of being a resident missionary (RM) because they were either forced out or, more than likely, determined it was no longer necessary for them to remain on the field to help the national church. In my particular case, I left Kenya because that, in some ways, my presence retarded the national churches growth (I understand that is a debatable issue). I feel that today my NR status allows me to advise without dictating or managing local affairs. In the case of India, I lived in the country with the express goal of being a facilitator in training. Functionally I was a NRM even though I was a resident. Having served in that country for many years, though I in no way consider myself an expert in Indian culture, I have earned an intimate perspective into the culture with insights that allows me to present my teaching in a culturally relevant manner.

There will always be a need for RM’s and I am not suggesting that every RM should move from that role to that of a NRM. Increasingly, however, the role of NRM’s will be a part of the missiological landscape. As the national church continues to grow and takes ownership, the need for RM will continue to decline. The question is the church ready for the Non-Resident Missionary?

Unplugged

This past week I have been teaching in a remote area of the country. Though I have access to the Internet via a cell phone dial up, I don’t have ready access and what I do have is slow and unreliable. Being away from DSL in my home has been a great benefit. Though I have little knowledge of what is happening in the world I find my circumstances to be quite refreshing.

The first benefit of being “unplugged” is that I am not wasting time surfing the net. Television is a wonderful communication and entertainment tool, however, to sit before, what we use to call the “boob tube,” for hours is a time stealer. I’ve heard it said that it takes less mental energy to watch TV than when sleeping. I’m assuming it’s because in sleep our mind is still engaged in dreaming. The same can be said of sitting in front of a computer for hours checking mail, reading news and the weather. Helpful if you can discipline yourself, but unfortunately I am not as disciplined as I should be and waste an incredible amount of time clicking links. My oldest daughter, Becky, wrote the other day and lamented the time she spends at the computer and has asked her husband to hide their connecting cord, forcing her away from the worldwide web.

The second benefit of isolation is that I reading more and listening to messages I have downloaded on my computer. I intentionally did not bring DVD movies on this trip to force myself to seek other outlets of pastime activities. I am of the old school in Bible study and sill find the late Dr. J. Vernon McGee and his “Through The Bible Studies,” both inspiring and even amusing. Listening to a verse-by-verse study of the Scriptures has been much more rewarding than the dire news reported on CNN.

Third, without the distractions of 24/7 connection, I have been able to think, exercise, pray and write with more consistency. If I just write one page a day for a whole year I will have put down enough words to make a pretty decent book. There is no guarantee that what I’ve written will ever see the publishing light of day, but certainly I will have a better chance in making a book a reality than if I fritter away my writing time by checking the ten-day weather forecast in Summers, Arkansas.

Of course the greatest challenge is if I will remember the benefits of being unplugged when I get home. Perhaps, like my daughter, I will have to ask my wife to hide the DSL cord to make sure I remain unplugged.

Ownership Versus Autonomy

As I speak in churches around the US I encourage congregations to take ownership of their global outreach program. Historically the local church has been asked to fund missions but not be personally engaged in the strategy or direction of the mission focus. In the past several years some churches have taken up that challenge and have created mission policies that target a people groups or region and have set guidelines on what type of projects they will fund (nationals, church planting, training programs, etc.). I applaud these efforts as it propels sending congregations into a more active role in missions beyond just writing checks.

Like so many things, however, there is a balance as well as a limit on how much a local church should be involved in mission activity on the field. Some churches and mission committees are so involved they begin to dictate the ministry activity on the field. Nothing grates fielded people more than dictates from a mission board or a church on how they should do their job. Missionaries are placed in a precarious position when the home office or a sending church creates policies that are outside the missionary’s scope of ministry. Faith missionaries (those who are not salaried by a denomination and must raise their support) are forced to keep a low profile on some of their ministries approach as their activities may not be understood by people in the states. Likewise, issues that dominate the American Christian culture often becomes a unnecessary issue for missionaries on the field. Examples:

• There are some churches in the US who are still debating the proper translation to be used in ministry. Those who are strong King James Version have actually dropped missionaries on the field who use the NIV or some other version. Silly? Perhaps, but it’s an important issue for some sending congregations.

• In polygamous societies (Muslim, tribals) churches in the states have called on missionaries to renounce the practice in the church or they will lose support.

• Partnership for some congregations means allowing American congregations to visit the mission field allowing them to give seminars on marriage, church leadership or church planting. This, in spite of the fact, that the American teachers do not understand the cultural context of the field.

• In the past missionaries have been asked about the type of music they listen to, books they read and sign statements declaring they will not smoke, drink, play cards or watch movies.

As a missionary grows in their thinking they’re philosophy of mission may be to allow converts to remain “secret disciples;” may use native terms for God (Allah, Ram); express their form of worship in context (praying on Friday, audible praying with hands lifted); or place no restrictions on converts who hold on to cultural habits (drinking blood, chewing coca, or continue the practice of dowry or brideprice). For some sending congregations these practices are unacceptable behavior and therefore could be a cause for donors to suspend their funding.

So what should a missionary do? Most missionaries just keep a low profile and share as little as possible to people back home. That’s the safest way to deal with controversy, but it also keeps missionaries intellectually and spiritually stunted. Being quite can also lead to dishonesty if a missionary practices things he thinks the donor church won’t approve of, even though it may culturally acceptable and doesn’t violate biblical principles. I often receive notes from fielded people telling me they agree with some of my writings but would never say it publicly.

Sometimes missionaries will yield to the dictates of the sending church or agency. This is not always bad as I believe some people benefit from receiving direction from outside input. There are some people on the field who, frankly, are not as productive as they should be and who need some guidance. Sadly, however, some missionaries will yield to directives just to maintain their support. To give away autonomy just to preserve funding cheapens our profession and is a betrayal of conscience.

There is a fine balance that missionaries and donors must sustain. I welcome the opportunity to interact with donors about cross-cultural ministry. It gives me a chance to educate the sending church while at the same time give them a sense of ownership in our ministry. I cannot, however, satisfy everyone, so the best I can do is pray that God will bring people into my life who will keep me accountable without demanding I give away that which I believe is culturally, intellectually and spiritually correct for my ministry context.

Imported Leadership Training

As a faculty advisor for a local college here in India, one of my responsibilities is to read doctoral dissertations. I am presently working with three students and they are sending me their work, chapter-by-chapter, for my input and correction. Like all students, some are good; others need a lot of work. One of the discouraging things about some of their presentations is they “cut and paste” submissions, meaning they have taken an outline or a paper previously written in another class and try to submit it as a chapter for their thesis. It doesn’t work. A good thesis must be good writing; it can’t be read like last Sunday’s sermon outline.

Today’s mission Franchiser (yes, this is an extended thought from a previous post) is very much like my students papers, they are often warmed over cut and paste presentations people use in their home country. One of the most popular subjects for seminars is leadership development. Everyone has an idea on what makes a good leader and books on leadership are as plentiful as diet books. I quit buying such books a few years back because they are all basically the same. In my database I typed in the word leadership and came up with:

Principle Centered Leadership
Biblical Leadership
Leadership as Art
Effective Leadership
Servant Leadership
Nigerian Leadership
Roving Leadership
Leadership Control
Matriarchal Leadership

And the list goes on. I won’t even begin to share with you the list for words like, “leader” “manger” or “follower” in my data files.

So the Franchiser wants to visit the foreign field and do a seminar on leadership, as though this is a new concept. Perhaps it is for many. But in the end it will be a cut and paste presentation, created in his cultural context with the expectations that it will translate transculturally. The reality is, it won’t. Leadership principles, though similar, are different in every cultural context. Like my students, if the Franchiser can demonstrate how to bridge the gap between the general concepts to fit within the cultural context they will have made a great contribution. But to do that, they will have to understand the context – they will have to know the questions before they give the answers. Pasting concepts doesn’t often stick.

Writers Write Till They Die

A colleague from China wrote recently asking me about writing…how to get started, tips on getting published, etc. I answered that the main thing about writers is they write. They write when they are on the train, waiting in government offices, even while walking (or at least I do, in my head).

It’s intriguing to me what people write about and even more surprising what people read. On our bookshelf are titles such as The Kalahari Typing School For Boys, One Night At A Call Center, Missiological Implications of Epistemological Shifts, and Yoga School Dropout. Biographies, Bible commentaries, political satire, travel and business books are all a part of our eclectic reading collection. So, when people ask me what to write about my standard answer is, “Whatever interests you.”

Publishing what you write takes a bit more focus. I started writing for our denominational bi-monthly publication many years ago. Emboldened by their acceptance I began submitting articles to Leadership, Christianity Today, Evangelical Missions Quarterly and a host of smaller known magazines. I published my own newsletter for years and a guy I never heard of wrote me the other day saying he always enjoyed those mimeographed mail-outs. Today, blogging is a way for me to get in my writing fix a couple of times a week and helps me quantify my thoughts as well as sharpen my craft. The main thing is…writers write.

Writing is a solitary activity, sometimes lonely. Yet, while alone with ones thoughts, it’s a chance to communicate with others, whether they read what you’ve labored over or not. Writers are people of process and the only instant gratification a writer receives is a well-turned phrase, a word that fits and making a blank sheet of paper (or computer screen) come alive with an intriguing thought or story.

Most of all, good writing is work. Writing is laborious, tedious and tiring. Nothing is more daunting than looking at an empty screen trying to express through words something meaningful. I’ve typed thousands of words no one will ever read; hundreds of paragraphs filed in the abyss of cyber hell because the thoughts and meaning never came together to make any sense.

Good prose, for me, must pass the “so what” test. In the Bible a passage may begin with “Therefore…” and I was taught to ask “what’s it there for?” (meaning, you need to read the verse above to understand what the "Therefore" is there for). If what I read, or write, has no entertainment or educational value and I come to the end saying "so what?" then it has been a waste of time.

Write then. Write about your adventures and lessons of life. Put your thoughts in a journal for your grandkids; send it to your friends or your mom (who will always cherish your scribbles). Master the craft and submit it to a magazine. Or, when everything else fails, get a blog site and let the “hits” determine if anyone is interested in your words. Above all, remember, writers write until they drop. Write until they pull your cold dead fingers from the keyboard.

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.