Common Struggles

I enjoy reading mission history. History, as I tell my students, is a study of Divine action in time. So, when I read stories of personalities who served in a different era I gain insights, encouragement and strength of those who walked this journey of missions before me.

This past week I read an article about a Norwegian Lutheran missionary by the name of Notto Normann Thelle who served in China for 40 years. His senior colleague Karl Ludvig Reichelt overshadowed Thelle’s ministry as he was the “upfront” missionary who did pioneer church planting, wrote books and was the celebrated personality who led the mission. Thelle was his assistant, who edited Reichelt’s books, was the administrator of the work and who, for the most part, always played a secondary role. Thelle was quite content to serve as support staff, but he had two struggles that I, and many missionaries wrestle with – a feeling of uselessness and loneliness.

USELESSNESS - Thelle did not have the theological training of Reichelt or other missionaries, and though he was busy running the mission, receiving guests and speaking at chapel occasionally, he always wondered if he was making a contribution for Christ and His Church? He struggled in the language, never quite feeling that he was communicating in a way that reflected the message he wanted to present to others. Even those who are active in primary ministry often feel a sense of uselessness, how much more so of those who have, seemingly, secondary roles.

LONELINESS – As an umarried man in his early years of service, Thelle lived a lonely life in the midst of activity. Even if one has a family, loneliness is often the burden of those who leave their home country to serve overseas. As I read of Thelle’s life of loneliness it touched an emotional cord that so many of my colleagues face each day. Nothing is more painful than the feeling of isolation away from family and friends.

The encouraging thing about Thelle’s story is twofold. First, that God does bless those who faithfully serve Him, even if the work is not readily noticed or appreciated by others. Happy is the man or woman who understands that no matter if others see our service to Christ, He does. Second, that the pain of loneliness is not unique to us. Our pain of isolation is not lessened by this fact, but at least we can take comfort that many that have walked before us shared a common struggle. What is important is that we remain faithful to our calling and press forward knowing that by our lives we are adding pages to God’s great narrative of His work here on earth.

Beyond Knowledge

Kevin Vanhoozer, in an article entitled The New Theologians: Creating a Theological Symphony writes – “The goal of theology is wisdom, not knowledge.”

It’s 4 a.m. in Delhi. Jetlag has me and so as I wait for daylight to catch a flight to Bangalore, I read random thoughts on wisdom versus knowledge. Vanhoover’s comment on wisdom captures the essence of what I want to accomplish in the next two weeks I will be in the classroom of DMin. students. Hopefully, knowledge is something I will pass on to my learners, but the greater task will be to transfer wisdom that is associated with that knowledge.

The three ingredients in attaining wisdom is knowledge, practice and Divine insight.

Knowledge is not necessarily cognitive dump, as some accuse the function of education. While it is true that much of general education are bits of pieces of information which may or may not be relevant to life, specialized knowledge is essential for anyone with a task to perform. Whether the subject be how to prune a tree or how to start a business, knowledge is vital.

Practice is the second element preceding wisdom. As Francis of Assisi puts it, "Mankind has as much knowledge as it executes." To posses knowledge without application is as useless as a third thumb. One of the great challenges of any teacher is to force the student to apply what knowledge he/she receives. If they cannot, or will not, practice what they have learned then the knowledge they receive will be added to the millions of other pieces of information they will amass in a lifetime that will fade as smoke on a windy day.

Divine insight is the igniter, the mechanism that determines when, where and how knowledge is best applied. The accumulation of knowledge, though needed, is not wisdom. Having experience, though critical, does not equal success. Apart from God’s impartation one is left with an intellectual empty suit or a mindless daily laborer, no matter what their profession.

Presumptuous of me, I suspect, to advertise my class as applied wisdom rather than applied anthropology. Pretentious, perhaps, to suggest on completion of my course the student will have unique insights for ministry and service for Christ. If, however, that is not what I, or any professor, can offer his/her students who sit at our proverbial feet, then all they can hope for is more knowledge that they will easily forget.

"But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him."

Supporting National Pastors

Though I have addressed this subject before, last week I received a message from a church asking my advice on supporting national pastors. The congregation has been going to the Dominican Republic for several years as part of their short-term missions project. The DR is one of the most popular destinations for short-termers as it cost very little to fly there, the weather is good and the population is Christian, though nominal and mostly Roman Catholic. One of the DR youth pastors is starting a church in a remote village and the U.S. congregation has been asked to take on his support. The leadership of the American church is willing, but the mission committee is hesitant. On the surface it seems plausible. We support North American missionaries for thousands of dollars a month to plant churches, why not a national for hundreds instead?

My advice to the congregation was not to support national pastors. Why?

The primary issue for me is one of dependency. When the national church receives outside funding there is no incentive for the local congregation to support their own church and no legitimate reason for the national pastor to teach stewardship to the new congregation. In the fourteen years I worked in Kenya we did not have an open-ended support program for pastors or evangelists. Though I worked with some of the poorest people on earth, when it came to starting churches I was very careful that they were started by men who:

(1) Felt a calling or leading to be a pastor. If there is a financial incentive for being in the Lord’s work, in a country where 50% of the population is unemployed, you run the risk of having people entering into ministry, not because of their commitment to the King, but a commitment to a 1,000 Rupees, Shillings or Pesos a month.

(2) Trusted God for their daily bread, not the foreigner. Missions, missionaries, churches in the states come and go, along with their pocketbook, but God, their true resource, never takes a furlough, never changes policy, never gets kicked out of the country for political reasons and never has an economic downturn. Nationals who trust in God for their resources also do not have to trust in both God and mammon, just God.

(3) Recognized that stewardship is not just for those who have disposable income, but even for the widow who just has two mites. The argument that the national church is too poor to do God’s work is not legitimate. Maybe they are too poor to have a nice building; maybe too poor to support their pastor, but that does not mean they are too poor to serve Christ. Some of our churches in Africa met under a tree for a year before they found the means to build a mud building. All of our pastors were bi-vocational who worked for a living but served God as pastors. Part of spiritual growth is stewardship, whether the person is living on a dollar a day or $75K a year.

Did I ever help the Kenyan church? Certainly. I helped pastors with their bi-vocational projects, helped churches with their physical needs such as buying corrugated tin for their roofs and helped start schools. However, I only helped in some projects after the fact, not as an incentive. I didn’t do it perfectly and made a lot of mistakes. But, after nearly 20 years of not being in Kenya, many of those poor churches and pastors are still serving Christ, growing and starting other congregations.

Lessons Not Learned

This past week I have been engaged in another type of service, taking care of my aged parents. My 87 year old dad, who has early stages of dementia, has been in the ICU of the VA hospital for the past five days and I have been spending a great deal of time shuttling my mom back and forth to the hospital as well as sleeping each night at their house. In-between moments of crisis I have been trying to prepare for a six-week training project in India and Kenya starting next Thursday. Its been and interesting few days.

The cubicle next to my dad’s room there was a young man, I’m guessing in his early 30’s, who is dying of lung cancer. As he lays there moaning, begging for more morphine, his wife tells me he won’t be going home. His family comes into the room to comfort him, but leave with tears in their eyes all too aware of the inevitable.

Yesterday I walked outside of the hospital and noticed this young man’s relatives outside as well. I heard one woman talking on her cell phone say, “Right now he’s fighting for every breath.” What took me back was they were all out there for a smoke!

Human behavior is amazing. No matter how much we are warned about the dangers of smoking, over-eating, alcohol abuse or any number of destructive habits we hold onto, we seem bent on self-destruction. Even seeing the agonizing end of a loved one does not motivate us to change our behavior.

My dad, who is now out of the hospital, was fastidious about his weight, quit smoking fifty years ago and has worked hard all his life. He didn’t always do things right in life, but he did learn some important lessons, lessons some people never learn.

A Good Friday Indeed

“Why do you call this Good Friday?” my Hindu neighbor asked me.

Evangelicals don’t recognize this day as much as Roman Catholics or Orthodox Christians. We certainly acknowledge the importance of the Crucifixion and death of Christ, but since we are a Sunday only lot, any religious activity that isn’t between 9 to 11 a.m. on the first of the week is outside sacred time for us. Thankfully the liturgical churches make a big deal out of ritual days (Ash Wednesday, Palm Sunday, Pentecost), which gives the Christian church at least a few notable holy days beyond Christmas and Easter.

“Well honestly, it was not a particular good day for Jesus,” I replied. “This is the day that Jesus was tortured and then executed.” I didn’t go into all the gory details of that momentous day 2000 years ago; how that Jesus was beaten, mocked, hung on a Roman cross while the religious leaders of that day ridiculed him saying, “He saved others, but he can’t save himself.”

“However,” I continued, “Christians, remember this day as being Good for all mankind. Jesus died on the cross for the sins of all people. While that Friday was not a good one for Jesus, it was a great day for all those who believe in Christ and have put their faith in Him as Savior.”

Mr. J. looked at me like my granddaughter does when I tell her something that she doesn’t understand. In the mind of a Hindu, the crucifixion is another myth about good triumphing over evil, with no real moral to the story. Then he said, “And Easter is the day he was reborn.”

“Not reborn, resurrected” I countered, knowing this story would be as ludicrous to him as was Good Friday tale.

“Jesus was not reincarnated three days after his crucifixion. While Jesus’ physical body expired He did not die, which is true of all people. Jesus resurrected His physical body three day later on Sunday, which we celebrate as Easter. His resurrection is important to followers of Christ because it demonstrates His power over death and gives us hope that we, too, will one day be resurrected. The grave is not the end of life or existence for Christians. Easter is the important day on the Christian calendar as it celebrates life, not death.”

Mr. J. passed away last December 11th, not really understanding the Gospel. Because of his question to me, I believe I will always hold this day even a bit more special. No, that Friday wasn’t a good day for Jesus at all, but it was a great day for all those who believe, even if they don’t totally understand it or can adequately explain it to others.

Defining Missions

The other day a former pastor wrote and asked me this question.

“How do you define ‘missions’”?

As I thought of a response, I realized that I have in the past defined what is a missionary, but not written much on what is missions. I have concluded that not everyone who shares the gospel is a missionary. They may be witness, a conduit for revelation, they may even be salt and light in a non-Christian country, but that doesn’t make them missionaries, in the professional sense of the word. But what about missions? What is it and how is missions defined?

If I am consistent that a missionary is a person who intentionally crosses cultural borders of ethnicity, language, religion, caste/tribe identification, then missions must also have those cross-cultural characteristics. I do not believe supporting a Bible College, youth camps, television programs or the local crisis pregnancy clinic is missions. Good causes indeed, worthy of church funding, but not missions.

Mission is different from Missions. Mission is rooted in Missio Dei, the Mission of God – making Himself known to all mankind, the process of establishing His Kingdom. Mission is Theocentric, to bring glory and worship to God alone through time and space, from every people, language and nation.

Missions, is a program of the church. And, like all programs, the activities of missions is as diverse as the church itself. Here is a sampling of missions:

Social Missions – Meeting the felt needs of people (feeding programs, orphanages, schools, etc.) The goal of the social missions is to demonstrate the love of Christ through works of social action.

Church Planting Missions – The deliberate act of going to an area to evangelize, baptize and disciple people and forming a fellowship where believers can intellectually and spiritually grow in their faith. This, by definition, is the basis for the Great Commission of Matthew 28:18ff.

Support Missions - Anything that supports the structure of missions, be it boarding schools for missionary families, language schools, Bible translation or administrators working in the corporate office. Team leaders, pastor to missionaries, mechanics, women and children ministries all fall under the category of support missions.

Facilitative Missions – This is a new category of missions that has emerged over the past thirty years. Facilitative missions is specifically training national church planters and missionaries, helping them in their outreach to the least evangelized peoples of the world. I do not include pastoral training in this category, as most of those ministries focus on leaders of an established congregation rather than on outreach. To be sure, every church should be engaged in outreach, but growing a church is much different than starting a church.

While church planting is the stated goal of a majority of missionary activity, most missionaries are engaged in support or social ministry. I cannot pass judgment on any of these ministries as God can and does use all of it to bring people to Himself. It’s my opinion, however, that more emphasis should be placed on intentional outreach ministries if the majority of the world will ever have an opportunity to hear the Good News message of Christ Jesus. When the focus becomes Mission, rather than Missions, then, and only then, will the vast number of unreached hear the Gospel.

STM Survey

In the most recent issue of Missiology: An International Review, there is an interesting report on short-term missions entitled, “They See Everything, and Understand Nothing.” It’s estimated that over 1.5 million U.S. Christians travel abroad every year on short-term missions trips, primarily teenagers and young adults. This survey of STMs is unique in that it focuses on seminaries and their STM programs. I will only highlight the findings of this survey in this blog, but encourage those who want to know the details to get the January 2008 issue of Missiology.

1. Number of STM abroad taken by MDiv students: None 49%, One 22%, Two 10%, Three or more 19%.

2. Length of STM abroad: 10-14 days 34%, 7-9 days 27%.

3. Cost of STM trips: $501-$1,000 23%; $1,001-$1,500 19%.

4. Portion of Cost Paid by self and/or parent: 0-10% 37%, 91-100% 19%.

5. Month of Departure: June 27%; July 25%.

6. Size of Group of STM: 11-15 22%, 6-10 17%.

7. National Language of STM Trip Country: Spanish 57%, Non-Spanish 43%.

8. Top 10 STM Destinations: Mexico, Dominican Republic, Canada, Honduras, Jamaica, Guatemala, United Kingdom, Costa Rica, China, Peru.

I’m interested especially in point # 4 as it reveals that most of the money raised for the trip is through support raising outside the person or family. Point #8 is interesting as well, that most trips are, for the most part, in the Americas. What does these statistics say to you?

Dreadful Missiology

I occasionally visit a discussion group of some independent Baptist pastors. It’s interesting as well as educational for me to read the issues that face today’s American clergy. Quite honestly, I don’t know how they do it as our society becomes less interested in spiritual matters and churches compete for the few in this world who are seeking answers to the basic questions: How did I get here? What’s the meaning of life? What happens after I die? In the quest to be relevant churches must have a full-service program for children, youth, middle-age parents and senior citizens. On top of that, the church is charged with taking the Good News of Christ’s salvation to the four corners of the globe.

It’s when the discussion on this list turns to missions that I, of course, become most interested. The conversation generally is about missionaries, such as what to do with missionaries who have retired or perhaps a missionary project they feel is doing the best work. Last week I was appalled when one pastor made this statement.

“We are now supporting a good number of nationals in the 10/40 window, and getting a lot of bang for our buck. They are overseen by Americans, and the number of souls being saved is staggering.”

There are so many things about this statement that make me cringe. While I can agree with the importance of working with nationals and applaud the focus to the most unreached areas of the world, the missiology of this comment is ghastly, at best.

First is the assertion that supporting nationals is more valid because one can get more done with less money. Known as the big “bang for the buck” theory, this line of thinking is only legitimate to bottom line capitalism. Cost effectiveness is a purely Western concept, not a biblical principle. From the outrageous cost of building the Temple in Jerusalem to the unseemly honorary gift to Jesus by a former demon possessed woman (Matthew 26:7), God’s economy is not measured by ROI. I feel sorry for all those people who supported Jesus with their material possessions, believing He would usher in the Kingdom, only to be dispersed at the foot of a hill outside of Jerusalem and seeing their investment nailed to a Roman cross. For sure, we need to be wise with our money, but let’s not commercialize the Great Commission any more than it already is.

The second comment from this pastor that pushed me over the edge was the comment that the national work was being overseen by Americans, which, by implication, suggests that the church is getting more bang for their buck because it is managed by us, not them! That is an absurd statement at so many different levels. Paternalism was the sin of our mission forefathers and is, unfortunately, still a problem in many countries today. The attitude that since the missionary has the money he controls the ministry (the perversion of the Golden Rule, i.e. he that has the gold rules) is the bane of the modern missionary movement. On the one hand this pastor is touting letting nationals do the work, but only if there is an American that can manage the ministry. How anyone could come up with such a dreadful missiology is beyond my comprehension.

Whenever I read comments, like the one on this pastors list, I realize how much work that needs to be done in educating the American church in missions. Good missiology is more than emotion, much deeper than a well designed PowerPoint or DVD presentation. I wouldn’t presume to tell a pastor how to do his job at the local level, but it seems to be okay for just about anyone to be an expert in cross-cultural ministry.

Training vs. Education

My last post was about missionary training and how much (or little) agencies dedicate time and money toward cross-cultural preparedness. Unless you are with the IMB the chances are you have had little to no training at all for the task of going overseas and doing ministry as a church planter, educator or administrator in a cross-cultural context. Most organizations accept missionary candidates through the old grid of Bible College or seminary. If these people are mission majors it is assumed they have the knowledge necessary to do ministry overseas. The problem is, there is a big difference between education and training.

I am a trainer. In spite of my brother’s protest that “you train horses, you educate people” I maintain my stance as one who trains people for cross-cultural work, not just educate (though that is a by-product of my training). How do I train people for cross-cultural work?

Research – There is no way a person can effectively communicate the message of Christ until they understand the people who are the recipients of that message. You cannot give the answers until you know the questions…you cannot know the questions until you know how to do quantitative research. I teach/train/coach people on what questions they should be even looking for in the context of a particular people group. You can teach ethnography, but when you train people in ethnography it becomes an integral part of missionary preparedness, not just a subject.

Meaning - All research is irrelevant until you answer the most profound question of all -- So What? So what if the people believe in having more than one wife or go to the witchdoctor or astrologer for guidance? Interesting that they have a statue of Ganesh in their house or give an offering of fruit to their ancestors each morning, but so what? If a missionary can’t distinguish between what people do from why people do what they do, they will hardly be effective in their service for Christ. You can educate people on what people do, but it is through coaching and training people discover the why, which answers the so what.

Educators know that much of what they do is filler, as Allan Bloom wrote about 20 years ago.

"...colleges do not have enough to teach their students, not enough to justify keeping them four years, probably not even three years. If the focus is careers, there is hardly one specialty, outside the hardest of the hard natural sciences, which requires more than two years of preparatory training prior to graduate studies. The rest is just wasted time, or a period of ripening until the students are old enough for graduate studies. For many graduate careers, even less is really necessary. It is amazing how many undergraduates are poking around for courses to take, without any plan or question to ask, just filling up their college years."



Missionary sending organizations that depend on Bible Colleges or seminaries to prepare people for rigors of cross-cultural ministry need to learn the difference between education and training. If we seriously want to reach our world with the Gospel we need to put more time and money into missionary training.

Missionary Training

As a missionary trainer I was interested in the latest journal of Missiology, which dedicated its entire issue to cross-cultural training. The author, Darrell Whitman, surveyed several mission organizations to assess their missionary training and found these results of those that train between 20 and 700 people each year. These are his findings.

Time and Money

"How much time do these mission organizations devote to training their missionaries? The range was 7 to 56 days, with an average of 25 days, or 3.5 weeks.

When asked what percent of the overall budget is given to training, the range was from 2% to 35%, with an average of 12% of their budget spent on training. It is noteworthy that the mission organization that trains the most missionaries (700), also spends the most in training (56 days), and devotes the highest percent of their budget (35%) to training. This is the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention."

Focus of Training

1. Policies and Procedures (14%)
2. Cross-cultural Communication (13%)
3. Understanding Cultural Differences (12%)
4. Mission Team Dynamics (11%)
5. Discipleship (9%)
6. Theology of Mission (8%)
7. Church Planting (7%)
8. Culture Shock (6%)
9. Understanding World Religions (6%)
10. Spiritual Warfare (5%)
11. Psychological Testing and Personality Assessment (4%)

The reality is, these figures reflect agencies that provide training, but many more organizations do not provide training of any kind. In my experience in working with national mission organizations I believe the number of days, budget and focus of training is even less than for North Americans. We certainly need more missionaries, but perhaps the greater need is missionaries who are better equipped. Those responsible to make sure people are best prepared are those who are in charge of sending them.

"Dear John" and Donor Attrition

A few months back I received a note from a pastor in the US. Their church has been supporting us for over 30 years and this guy was their new pastor. When he wrote, in my mind I concluded that (1) he was young (turned out it is his first church) and (2) he was looking for a way to drop our support. Last week I received a note from him saying that his board had made the decision that they would discontinue their financial support, though they would continue to pray for us!?

When you depend on the monthly contributions of churches and individuals you never enjoy receiving a “Dear John Letter” (a reference to when a girl dumps you, which happened to me when I was single guy in the Army). But, like I’ve said before, donor attrition is a way of life for faith missionary support and you have to learn not to take things personally.

When the pastor wrote and asked about our ministry I dutifully answered all his questions and even said I would be happy to visit the church on my next trip home to give a report. All the way to the church in early January I fought the internal discontent in my soul, as I was sure it was a waste of time and money to report to a church that had already made up their mind about our ministry. I’m glad I made the trip in respect to the fact that they had supported us, off and on, for $50 a month for many years. The least I could do was say thanks. It actually was a good evening and I tried to educate the congregation on missions today, not missions of 1975. The world has changed, missions has changed, my role in missions, which I believe is more strategic and important than anything I’ve done in my career, has changed, but, sadly, they have not changed. Though the people were kind, I knew in my heart our partnership was about to end. And so it is.

I’ve said it before so I will say it again -- if a missionary is not actively trying to raise additional funds he is passively going in the hole. Donor attrition is a way of life and so I, like my colleagues, must continue to seek new support to keep the ministry alive. I know it’s wearisome for churches and individuals to constantly receive requests from missionaries and, believe me, it’s tiresome for us to continue to ask for funding. Whether the ministry budget is $50K or one million dollars everyone must continue to spend a certain amount of time raising money. It’s a horrible system, but it has to be done as one thing is certain – occasionally we will receive the dreaded Dear John letter.

Getting Perspective on The Grand Trunk Express

There is not much reason to take the train these days. If time is a part of the financial equation, then taking a two and half hour flight makes more sense than a thirty-two hour journey to the same destination. But, not everything in this world has to be gauged by dollars and cents, or maybe shouldn’t. So I boarded the Grand Trunk Express from Chennai to Delhi, knowing that the two-night one day excursion would be long but certainly more interesting than sitting on a plane just looking at the back of the head of someone sitting in front of me.

As we pulled out of the station the first evening, the weather outside was hot and humid. Inside the compartment it was so cold I had to close the overhead vents. The porter came in and made my bed while as we passed a number of people sleeping on railway platforms and on the side of the busy roads. My fellow travelers were upper middle income as we journeyed through the countryside of people who live on less than $2 a day. The contrasts in this country are so prevalent that few people even notice. Imagine, on the same train there are those who paid $100 for a first class coach, while in the back of the train, which is the largest section of travelers, they paid less than $10 for the same trip, but had to sleep on flat bench, if the are lucky, on the floor or, more likely, sitting up, leaning on others in a the overcrowded bogies.

Throughout the day I gazed outside my window and thought of this interesting country. My mind, of course, thought about the people who live in the villages along the rail lines. I watched a woman drop a bucket in a well to draw water, little children flying kites near a polluted swamp and wondered what the old man was thinking as he watched the lumbering train pass not more than 20 yards from his house? The further we traveled north I saw more Moslem mosques, big and small Hindu temples but very few churches.

I’ve been in this business a long time, perhaps too long. I no longer get emotionally sappy about the poverty or spiritual needs of the masses. The years and miles have moved me from being naïve idealist to a critical realist. I rejoice with every mouth that is fed, every child that is educated, every sinner who becomes a saint. But the reality of this country is that, statistically, the percentage of Christians ten years from now will be less than its present. A population steeped in superstition and whose highest goal is achieve higher status, if the Indian changes his/her faith, it will be more likely to the gods of multi-national corporations, not the God of heaven. The foreign God of Christianity may be the stated offence of Hindu’s, but the foreign god of wealth and material goods is most certainly a faith they readily embrace.

The Almighty, fortunately, is not limited by my skepticism or the hyperbole of those who think they are making an impact on the society with their uncritical outreach programs. God will do what only God does -- use the good, the bad and the silly to bring honor unto Himself. Perhaps more people should take a ride on the Grand Trunk Express to get perspective on the reality of life and to reflect on how He can best use us in the grand scheme of things.

The Challenge of Conversion

In training cross-cultural workers in India, I always ask a new class this question: “How many of you come from a Christian background; your mother and father were Christians?” Without exception, 95% of those I teach people grew up in the church. Occasionally there will be a student who came to Christ from a Hindu background, but it is rare. This month one young man in my class told me he came to Christ out of a Buddhist family. Very rare indeed.

Why is this important? Because most of those I teach have never struggled through the issues of changing their belief. While they are being trained and sent to take the Gospel to those who do not know Christ and to convince them that Jesus is indeed the “way, truth and the life,” they themselves have never experienced the trauma of conversion.

It is no easy thing for someone to leave a cultural/religious belief and embrace another faith. In many cultures to accept Christianity is deny your family and cultural heritage…punishable by ostracism and even death. In some societies, for a person to embrace the Gospel is seen as an act of disrespect to parents, an offence that is greater than murder. I asked my Buddhist background student what his family thought of his conversion and he confessed that he made the decision after his father and mother had passed away. For some cultures, which have a strong family consciousness, to convert may even cause the death of their ancestors who live in the spirit world.

Conversion is challenging worldview assumptions. It is the greatest challenge any witness of Christ will ever face. I contend that, while the Gospel is simple, the presentation of the Gospel cross-culturally is not. We dare not be glib as we tell others to forsake all others and follow Christ. Accepting Jesus as Lord is through faith, but many times that faith is greater than a mustard seed.

Reaching The Other 87%

R and S are a couple who live in Delhi. He is an educator; she is a stay-at-home mom who is also a great vocalist. S grew up in a upper middle income, high caste family and through her many contacts and network, presents musicals to the elite class of India, including political figures Though they have both lived and worked in the U.S. they made the decision to remain in India.

R often reminds me that, though he makes his living as a teacher, his ministry is doing what he can to reach out to unbelievers as well as disciple new followers of Christ. R is now working for a group of investors, none which are Christians, in establishing an English medium school. Though R is an accomplished teacher and speaker, his pulpit is not in a church, but in the board meeting with investors and his interaction with the local community where the school project will be launched.

Recently a friend of S fell seriously ill, to the point of death. A young woman in her thirties, this Hindu friend is out of ICU, but her prognosis and recovery is still tentative. It’s during this time that S has been with her friend, sometimes all night at the hospital. As S ministers to her friend, through kindness and prayer, S hopes that the crisis of life will be an opportunity for her friend to really hear and understand the Jesus she has been talking to her about all her life.

Eight-seven percent of the 3.6 billion people who live in Asia do not personally know a Christian. How will they be reached? Not by another strategic missionary plan, or having a conference on how to have a people movement. The task seems impossible. However, if every believer in their workplace and community would just get to know non-Christians and be friends with those who do not follow Christ, those who have never heard the Gospel will at least have a chance to understand our faith. R and S are neither passive nor militant in their service for Christ. They merely serve Him faithfully each day where they are and in what they do.

How to Reach the Unreached

A recent survey, published in Evangelical Mission Quarterly, reports that 87% of Muslims, Buddhist and Hindus living in Asia (3,624,484.000 people) do not personally know a Christian. By regions, in Africa 26.2% of unbelievers, people of another religion or have no religion at all, know a Christian; in Latin America 89.9%, Europe 75.3%, North America 78.8%. The study concluded what we have read before, that 90% of ministry resources, people and money, are directed to those who have already heard the message of Christ, and a great deal of those resources are dedicated to those who have already accepted the Gospel. Interesting study, what does it mean?

For me, first, it means that we, the Church, need to continue to evaluate our outreach strategy. As we look at missions within our local congregation, how much of our mission dollars and people are going to those 3.6 billion people who have never even had a contact with a believer? While Gospel literature, schools, orphanages and youth camps are important; do those activities and programs actually translate into believers coming in contact with non-believers? These statistics suggest that missions and missionaries are more inclined to be occupied in a project of outreach rather than actually being involved as a personal witness.

Secondly, it is a challenge for people, like me, who work with national missionaries and pastors, to teach them to understand the importance of building relationships with non-Christians in their communities. This problem of ecclesiastical isolationism is universal. Throughout the world the church continues to be a “holy huddle,” spending more time with people of like-faith rather than developing a personal relationship with those who have no understanding of who Jesus is. Giving a tract, showing the Jesus film to the masses are okay, but those efforts pale in comparison with the power of personal relationships, which is how most people of this world come to a real understanding of Christ and His salvation.

Question? Do you personally know a Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist where you live? Are they a part of your network of friends? Indeed, for those who live in the U.S., in your network of friends, do you know non-believers? The hope of the world lies in the hands of each one of us as we live and work each day among those who have never heard.

CBMT #3 -Training for the Long Haul

Though the number of career North American missionaries will continue to decrease, due to the expansion of the national church as well as the high cost of Western missionary personnel living overseas, people still do commit themselves to long-term service. Many of these folks end up going to Bible Colleges and Seminary for ministry preparation, but there are few specific areas of training that I believe needs more focus before they sell their worldly goods and move to a foreign country.

Family Life - In the studies on attrition one of the main reasons career people quit is because of family issues – stresses within the marriage, children’s lack of adjustment, school problems and the lack of feeling at home in a country where you are always an outsider. Raising a family in your home country is tough enough. Magnify those stresses of those living overseas and it becomes even more of an issue. CBMT should invest a great deal more time with couples discussing expectations and realities on the field. Where will the family live? What will be their lifestyle? Will the kids be home schooled or attend a national school? (And if home schooled, are the parents equipped to be both teachers as well as parents?). In the past year in Asia I witnessed four families, all from the same mission agency, crash and burn. Two of the families left within six months of arriving, one couple switched fields of service and another is just returning from three months of counseling. To raise a family in a foreign country is not easy, and the turnover among expatriates, whether in business, government or ministry, usually hinges on how well families are prepared for field assignment. CBMT should screen their long-term families well before commissioning them for service.

Spiritual Formation - In every field I have lived, the one area of concern that I’ve observed, for me personally as well of others, was spiritual vitality. Living among a people who have poor education, speak a different language and who are, for the most part, not yet spiritually mature, makes it difficult maintaining personal spiritual growth. Just because someone is “in the work” everyday doesn’t make them spiritually developed. In a recent survey, conducted by a friend of mine, he received over two hundred anonymous responses as it relates to spiritual health. Forty-eight percent of the respondents confessed they had visited pornographic websites. I was surprised to learn that one in three of those who visit adult websites are women. One of the greatest challenges of every Christian is their own spiritual well-being. There seems to be little guidance or tools to help missionaries on the field to feed themselves spiritually. More people come home off the field because of spiritual problems than not being able to adjust to a foreign culture.

Finding One’s Niche - I know this point is redundancy as I have talked about it often. However, I cannot emphasize enough the importance of knowing what to do before going to the field. One of the reasons people do not last on the field is because (1) they are doing nothing because they don’t know what to do or, (2) they are doing busy work just to remain on the field. Passion for missions has its place, but zeal without knowledge is a sure recipe for failure. Pre-field training can help a missionary family understand what credible role they can play in a cross-cultural context. Even if a person is not 100% sure of their role before they leave, pre-field training will guide the person in how to discover their niche.

My challenge to those churches that have decided they are going to send their own to the mission field, either through short-term projects, partnering with nationals or sending career people from their congregation, that they be passionate about equipping people properly for cross-cultural ministry. Obviously, if I can help with your CBMT, I would be delighted to do so.

Level Two - Church Based Missionary Training

Level two mission service has the potential for being the most profitable, for both the national church as well as the intern missionary. Committing to a one or two year service shows a stronger sense of engagement in world missions than just a one or two week visionary trip. But, like all levels of cross-cultural ministry, pre-field training should be a part of equipping process.

Because the field assignment is longer, obviously the training should also be more focused as well as thorough. The subjects covered for short-term people, worldview, ethnocentrism, mission economics, x-cultural communication, interpersonal relationships, should certainly be taught, but in greater depth. In addition to these basic courses, the following should be a part their training program:

Cultural Anthropology - A missionary intern truly has an opportunity to learn while on the field. Though they will have ministry responsibilities, it would be ideal if they could use their time to learn about culture, not just experience it. Pre-field training in basic cultural anthropology provides tools for learning culture. People often say to me, “I’d like to study and learn culture, but I don’t know how.” One area of my teaching is helping students learn the questions of culture and helping them understand how to apply what they have learned in presenting the Gospel. I’m not objective on this issue. I believe the study of culture is absolutely imperative.

Working With National Leaders – Style of leadership is a popular topic in America. There are more books written about leadership in business and the church than most any other subject. The challenges of working with leadership across cultures can be even more demanding. I have known interns who after a year on the field completed their assignment with satisfaction and a sense of accomplishment. I’ve also seen the other side of an internship that left both the intern and national host unhappy, bitter and negative. The study of cross-cultural leadership will insure that time on the field is a positive rather than a negative experience.

Learning Your Role - The sub-title of my book, The Journey of a Post-Modern Missionary is, Finding Ones Niche In Cross-Cultural Ministry. To me, job satisfaction is a key to whether a person or family will be effective in their service for Christ overseas. One of the advantages of a one/two year internship has is they can use that time to find out where they are gifted and how they can fit on the field. However, before they go on a field assignment they should be coached on the role of an intern. Assumptions are usually the cause of misunderstanding as well conflict. A good pre-field study of status and role will be invaluable before launching out to regions beyond.

Having a coach or mentor on the field to guide the intern would be ideal. Unfortunately, there are not many situations where there are people on the field who can or will take on the task of a teacher. This reality makes pre-field training even more essential.

Though the day of the career missionary is almost extinct, if someone goes to the field and remains over 10 years it is an accomplishment. I still believe the most effective cross-cultural worker are those who make a long term commitment, and for those people there needs to be training for the long haul, which will be the subject of the next post.

Church Based Missionary Training: Make A Plan

Stanley Davies writes, “The fundamental meaning of effectiveness is the achievement of planned results.” So, the question is, what’s the plan for Church Based Missions (CBM) and Church Based Missionary Training (CBMT)?

In this discussion series we acknowledge that the trend of missions in the U.S. today are local churches depending less on denominational and para-church mission organizations in sending missionaries and instead sending their own. Whether the mission project is a ten-day excursion or sending out career missionaries from their own congregation, CBM continues to grow in popularity. It’s estimated that between 2 and 4 million American’s go on mission trips each year. It’s important that there be a plan for CBM, but setting that issue aside, today’s topic is developing a plan for CBMT. Though not exhaustive, the graphic above is a starting point in addressing what should be taught through Church Based Missionary Training.

Short-Term Missionary Training - Even if a person is going to a field for a week or a month, there are certain things everyone should be aware of before landing in a foreign country. First, a crash course in cross-cultural communication is imperative. Issues of male and female interaction, touching, tone of speech and even eye contact has cultural implications. Second, understanding how other people see their world is vital. Though on this planet of over 6 billion, we humans share common experiences, not everyone sees the world as we do in the West. How do others see their world and what difference does it make? Third, the problem of cultural bias is an important issue to address before going to another country. Ethnocentrism is a subtle attitude of superiority/inferiority. It’s a problem with career missionaries and therefore important to talk about if one is only going to visit a country for two weeks. Fourth, the issue of money is always a concern, especially if the short-term project is in a developing country. Should American’s be open handed in giving clothes, food and/or money to a national church? Can generosity be a bad thing?

Good training goes beyond a study of behavior. It’s not what people do in other countries that’s important, but why they do it. Good CBMT for short-term groups should be at least a 20 hour classroom intensive, spanning at least a month, with reading and research requirements. For the best CBMT find a trainer who has lived through the experience of field missions and not just a short-term expert.

The longer the period of time on the field, the more training should be required. We will look at the second level of training next time. In the meantime, I invite readers to weigh in on this topic. What training do you think is important for short-term missions? What model have you seen that works?

Church Based Missionary Training

Most of us in the U.S. are familiar with the Holiday Express commercials. A man enters the operating theater wearing the scrubs of a surgeon and dazzles the nursing staff with his expertise with a knife on the patient on the table. When asked about his credentials he confesses that he’s not a doctor, but he did sleep at a Holiday Express the night before. The commercial implies that if one gets a good nights sleep at the their hotel they will feel so good the next morning that they can perform any task.

Sometimes local Church Based Missions (CBM) reminds me of the Holiday Express commercials. Feeling good about taking the Gospel to the ends of the earth is not enough to qualify people to server cross-culturally. Surgeons need to be trained to cut open a body cavity, so too, does a missionary need training in presenting the message of Christ in a different cultural context.

For those who have read my book, The Journey of a Post Modern Missionary, you will remember my story that I entered the mission field without any cross-cultural training. I, like probably 95% of my colleagues, were trained in pastoral ministry, i.e. how to exegete the Scriptures, a few tips on evangelism (from a mono-cultural Western perspective), but with no idea of how to take that message and make it relevant to Hindu’s, Muslims or Animist’s. It is shocking to me that still today there are people sent out with little to no training in cross-cultural studies. If the trend is CBM, then there needs to be a concentration in Church Based Missionary Training (CBMT).

The standard questions of, Who, What, Where, Why and How is a good place to begin in this discussion of CBMT. We’ve briefly discussed the Why, now let’s look the other elements of CBMT.

WHO needs training? Everyone who is going overseas for a cross-cultural ministry. Whether a person is going for one week or as a career, everyone benefits from training. Obviously the longer time commitment for overseas work will necessitate more training, but even teen-agers and college students going out for two-week excursions need training.

WHAT should a training curriculum look like? Understanding culture, basics of cross-cultural communication, tips and taboos when going overseas should be the essentials. Other subjects, depending on the focus of the trip would include, the role of short-term missions, dynamics of religion, and interpersonal relations. For a church that is serious about training, a college level curriculum (semester or modules) can be developed which would include an in-depth study of social organization of a particular people group, epistemology and how to live overseas.

WHERE should training take place? Not all people want or need to attend seminary or Bible College. The time and expense of second-career people going to the few training missionary centers in the U.S. are often cost prohibitive. If a church is committed to CBM, they should also be committed to CBMT and need to develop a structure for equipping those they are launching into cross-cultural work.

HOW can it be done? Find the right people to do the training and create a budget to provide the needed training. Bring in experts in for a weekend, a week or two weeks for intensive training. It’s a great deal more cost efficient to find qualified teachers to do training in-house than require members to enroll in a program where the subjects are irrelevant or necessitates the family to leave their jobs and home for three months.

The main thing is DO SOMETHING in training for those going out from your local church. Missions is serious stuff and it requires more than sleeping in a Holiday Express to be qualified for the task.

Church Based Missions

Talking with a friend of mine last week, who has been a mission/church mobilizer for thirty years, the issue of Church Based Missions (CBM) came up. The traditional model of missions is a local congregation partnering with a denominational or para-church sending agency. Since the time of William Carey, sent out by Baptist’s in England and Hudson Taylor, who started the China Inland Missions, the model for missions for nearly three hundred years has been a top/down structure. Jungle pilots, Bible translators, church planters, medical doctors go to the regions beyond through the structure of a sending structure backed by local church funding. It’s a model that is slowly dying.

In this day of high mobility, easy travel, a sense of adventure and discretionary funds, the trend in missions today is for the local church to be their own sending agency. CBM are, in many ways, the Antioch model, which famously sent out from their own ranks Paul, and Barnabas to take the gospel to Asia. The “adopt a people movement” has been a catalyst for CBM as the local congregation targets a region of the world where they want to invest their global outreach endeavors. The characteristics of CBM is partnering with national church leaders and sending out short-term teams to directly be involved on the field. Is CBM a good idea?

The answer to the question of validity of CBM is a mixed bag. The sense of participation through ownership is a strong argument for CBM. For too long the local church has farmed out their Great Commission responsibility to sending agencies. Missions is easy when people can just give money to a cause without being personally involved. The CBM trend generates interest within the local congregation to get personally involved through prayer, focused giving and even going. Sending agencies, the old paradigm of missions, don’t have all the answers, are not always strategic and because of overhead are not always efficient. More than anything else, sending agencies are distant from the local church. The CBM model makes the task of world evangelism personal, and this in itself makes CBM very attractive.

It’s argued, by some, that CBM is more biblical. Perhaps, though I’m always hesitant with those who site biblical circumstances as patterns for today’s reality. Paul and Barnabas were exceptional individuals sent out for a unique task. If a CBM is going to use the Antioch form for their model justification they need to follow the other components of that model. For example, Paul and Barnabas were well trained and tested before the Antioch church commissioned them for service. Paul was a Jewish scholar and Barnabas was a seasoned and respected church leader. Before launching their boat for Cyprus and Perga, these men were already battle scarred in ministry. They were not weekend warriors and their commitment was not just a vacation with a purpose.

My moblizer colleague lamented that there is little thought among the leaders of the CBM movement on preparing people to serve cross-culturally. Whether the overseas initiative is one week or one decade, people need cross-cultural training. While it is laudable for churches to take ownership of their mission involvement, one component the CBM should institute is CBT, i.e. Church Based Training. My thought on CBT is the subject for the next post.