# Bad Missions Policies/Practices - thoughts from an Indian friend



## Pergamum (Nov 28, 2009)

Below are some thoughts on missions that an Indian national pastor sent me. I found these answers insightful and wanted to share them:


*Bad mission policies and practices (perspectives from an Indian national evangelist): *

1. Mission compounds: Some missionaries developed a stratagy of having Mission compounds. Theesemissionary compounds were built to avoid persecution from the family, to have fellowship, to help to mature the believers, and to cultivate a more spiritual atmosphere. 

This is not a good strategy to keep the new believers, far away from their own families and dear ones. This did not give good example of the new found faith. In most cases, the family missed their dear ones, who became Christians. They were left without witness. And in many cases they opposed the missionries and their policy. 

Not good policy in the long run. 

2. Adopting local cultures: Some Western missionaries were good at developing the local cultures in some ways, and it was helpful in propagating the faith but some others went on to the extreme. And they became (almost) Hindu (dress, mode of worship, honoring religious texts,). 

Missionaries should know where to draw lines. 

In the same point, Missionaries like William Carrey and his friends opposed local evil practices like Sati (widow burning) child marrieges and caste system. 

But there are others who did not oppose anything about the Caste system, etc, and did not want to offend the high castes followers of Christ. 

So they made or even advocated seprate House of worship (church), cemetries, utensil for Lord's supper etc. 

This did not help Christianity to spread to more and more areas. 

3. Some missionaries did not at all teach the local believers to earn their bread, by having some professional skills (depending on the local resources). So many looked towards the Missionaries as their providers and not to the Lord who provides/blesses when people work. 

4. Focus on Spiritual only:  I see many Christian villages (products of mass conversion) not educated enough and having some good skills to earn their bread. 

I believe it is the mistake of the missionries who only taught them to pray, attend worship services, give small tithes etc. 

The Christians (new followers) were not encouraged to take part in the local society activities, professions, education projects, new ideas, etc. 

These believers were only thinking about heaven and wholly forget that they are in the world. (now their generations suffering) and most of all the work of God. 


5. Good Mission Policy: William Carrey and his friends believed in the Lord who created this whole world. And they believed that whole creation (all things) must be used to bring glory to the CREATOR God. 

Today churches and mission agencies should not think only about the spiritual world but also of the world in which we live. What is our responsibilitiy in our times, what should we do to relate ourselves to the world. 

Jesus Christ should be made the light of the world (of all things) and not just of the church (small gatherings only on Sundays).


*A grave mistake of our times in many churches: *If the pastor and missionaries see a young man/woman of intelligence (a little education), then they advise them to go to Bible school or seminaries. And then come back and serve in the church (taking the young man/woman out of the outside).

My suggestions: Christian youths are not encouraged to go to media, politics, computers, public servant officers, to be authors and journlists. This should change. They should be encouraged and be supported so that we lead the society and others follow us. 

We make decisions and others say yes to us. So that we mold the society by our writings in news papers and TV stations. 

We should have Christian advocates and judges, so they lead and set examples. 

This will help the new believers or Christians to have their own bread (will not depend on forieng money for missions and family supports etc. 

When we have village chiefs of our faith, then we can ask them separate some funds for God's work, relief and helping the poor but at this point we suffer and watch others suffer. 

The believers should encourage, help and motivate the children and young generation to be strong in faith, in knowledge of the world, and learn from the outside world (not just from Chrisitians), the common grace. 

The missionaries who go out and help the church to start, should help the local church (in finance) so that the local church can support the local believers in need (i.e., any finances that come from the missionary shold be channeled through the local church and not given direct from the missionary) . This way, all people see it is the church who is supporting and not the foreign missionary. In many case I see, one man show rules the situation. And it's not a good example of mission policy. 

The local believers should be respected and should be given full freedom to develop themselves. And missionries should not control them all their lives.

The believers should be taught in such a way that they are not cut off from their culture, society, and holistic developments take place. 

New situation, new people, cultures might provide new ways (opportunties) to serve and propagate the faith. Mission strategies (all may not work) shoould not be imposed. No cookie-cutter fads, but individual strategies need to be developed basedon the local and unique situation (one size does not fit all, and one strategy does not fit every situation).








THOUGHTS?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 28, 2009)

It's hard to follow those recomendations overseas, when many churches don't even follow the same recommendations at home.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 28, 2009)

So, what are the first steps towards a long-term solution? 

And what do we need to teach our own out-going missionaries better?


----------



## jambo (Nov 28, 2009)

1. Missions compound
I have always found the very idea of this outrageous and from what I gather it seems to be an American practice. Living in a compound may provide security but it is harmful from the point of view of being seperated from the people you are seeking to work with. It was a problem Hudson Taylor found when he went out to China and on meeting WC Burns saw how he adapted to local culture and local dress sense outside a compound. When the demoniac (Mk 5) was healed he wanted to go with Jesus. Jesus instructed him to go back to his family and friends and tell them how good the Lord has been to him. This is, I believe, an important principle. 

2. Local culture
Being aware of local culture is important and each missionary should know how much of it to embrace. There was the issue of burning widows in India whilst Galdys Aylward had the problem of foot binding in China. Those negative aspects of culture need to be addressed but never with the attitude "we westerners know best." 

William Carey, on the other hand did a lot for Indian culture including translating Hindu scriptures into local dialects which added to his reputation amongs the Indian population. 

It should be remembered that a cross cultural missionary is always cross cultural and although he may respect local culture will never be part of that culture and can cause ofence. Whilst we lived down south a few American missionaries learnt Irish and called themselves by the Gaelic version of the names. This actually caused more offence as they were perceived as trying to be something they were not.

3. Missionaries as providers
I suppose this encourages what is termed "rice Christians". Jesus spoke of this concerning those who follow just to be fed (Jn 6.26)

4-5
Although a Christian' heart may be in another world his feet are very much in this one. Part of becoming disciples is not just the instruction but the way to live as a Christian in a non-Christian, or even anti-Christian world. 

Secondly although cross cultural missionaries can and do make a big impact it is quite often the local convert who can do much more.

I have always felt the policy should be in starting a church is for it to become self- sufficient, self-propagating and self-supporting. This does not happen overnight but the aim is for the missionary to have less and less of an input whilst the local believers take on more and more responsibility, as they are able, and eventually the whole church is independent of outside help. 

Christians should also be involved in all walks of life. We need tradesmen who are Christisn, teachers and doctors who are Christians, politicians and civic leaders who are Christians so that their sphere of inluence is governed by how they act and interact as Christians. I am well aware that in some cultures being a Christian my prevent you from public office or high ranking jobs but nevertheless whoever we are, wherever we are and whatever we are we should be doing it all for the glory of God as light and salt in our local community.

-----Added 11/28/2009 at 10:55:07 EST-----

Advice to new outgoing missionaries?

1. Live on the same streets as the people you work with.
2. Be aware of teh culture, embrace it where possible but sperate from it where compomise is involved.
3. Mission policy should be determined on the field rather than a remote detached central office in another country or even on a different continent and certainly in a different culture.
4. Work with the view to working yourself out of a job in X number of years


----------



## Dragoon (Nov 28, 2009)

Sounds just like I am in one of my mission professors classes, glad to see it coming from an Indian national though. I pray that this new generation of missions will learn from the mistakes of the old as they continue to go out and share the gospel.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 28, 2009)

jambo said:


> 1. Missions compound
> I have always found the very idea of this outrageous and from what I gather it seems to be an American practice. Living in a compound may provide security but it is harmful from the point of view of being seperated from the people you are seeking to work with. It was a problem Hudson Taylor found when he went out to China and on meeting WC Burns saw how he adapted to local culture and local dress sense outside a compound. When the demoniac (Mk 5) was healed he wanted to go with Jesus. Jesus instructed him to go back to his family and friends and tell them how good the Lord has been to him. This is, I believe, an important principle.
> 
> 2. Local culture
> ...



Good thoughts. 

In addition to your Three-Self Model (that an indigenous church ought to be self- sufficient, self-propagating and self-supporting) would you add a fourth "self", i.e., that a church should also be "self-theologizing" (i.e., not merely adopting the creeds and confessions of another culture but formulating creeds and confessions of their own?).

Also, how does the self-supporting aspect interact with the extreme disparity of the world's wealth (i.e., every Indonesian living in 660 USD per year, while the a "poor" US pastor makes 28K or more usually). Is there a place for ministries like Heartcry or Gospel for Asia, that help support foreign pastors?

Also, if missions policy is to be determined on the field, what role does the sending church back home play? Should they govern any practice, or when they send out a missionary do they give them their tacit permission to act semi-autonomously on their own and in concert with others whom he works with (i.e., a missionary society) to produce models of semi-autonomous field-based decisions? What about "accountability" and "oversight" by local US churches?


Finally, in persecutory environments, are mission compounds permissible?


Oops, one more question: How do we know when we have "worked ourself out of a job'? In a town, region, country, among a tribe, people, nationmality, ethnic group? What do we do then? How do we avoid premature disengagement, inadvertantly producing churches that are formed in structure but not deeply rooted (i.e., a mile wide and an inch deep).


----------



## jambo (Nov 28, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> In addition to your Three-Self Model (that an indigenous church ought to be self- sufficient, self-propagating and self-supporting) would you add a fourth "self", i.e., that a church should also be "self-theologizing" (i.e., not merely adopting the creeds and confessions of another culture but formulating creeds and confessions of their own?).
> 
> Also, how does the self-supporting aspect interact with the extreme disparity of the world's wealth (i.e., every Indonesian living in 660 USD per year, while the a "poor" US pastor makes 28K or more usually). Is there a place for ministries like Heartcry or Gospel for Asia, that help support foreign pastors?
> 
> ...



1. Self-theologizing
I do not think it would be right for a missionary to suddenly produce the 1689 Baptist Confession and say "Right this is what you believe..." The new church needs to be taught and to mature until it reaches the point where it can read _a confession_ and say "Yes this encapsulates what we believe." 

The church could adopt a historical confession or it could formulate its own probably based on a historical confession such as the Westminster or Baptist Confession. Culture could play its part. For instance if one adopted either Westmnster or Baptist confession, if you were in the midst of an Islam Republic, the bit about the Pope being the anti-Christ would not be relevant. However a chapter could be composed regarding the false belief of any future prophet to arise.

I think there is a difference between theology and ecclesiology. Theology is biblically based rather than culturally based but ecclessiology has its western, eastern, African, Asian, urban, rural etc components.

2. Distribution of wealth
It makes a lot of sense for western churches to support local Indian, Asian etc pastors. There is no language to learn, climate to adapt to, culture to learn. Plus what western churches would consider buttons, those in India etc would consider a fortune. I know for instance that £20 a month can support an Indian pastor for a month. I think this type of thing needs to be more widely known amongst western churches. 

It should be stressed to the west that paying £20 to support a pastor does not mean you own him or dictate what he does. You have to trust him to be a faithful minster and steward of God's resources.

3. Field policy
Policies formulated in New york or London or wherever are far removed from countries and situations in say the 10/40 window. They can certainly have a broad church planting policy but the way it is done should be determined by the field leaders.

A mission agency with headquarters in the west should have a field leadership in each of the countries the agency works in. Field leaders are experienced and have formulated a policy of church planting in conjunction with local Christian leaders. They could pick a region and outline the aim of planting churches in that region. They would have researched the area carefully and know what work, if any, was going on; what particular hardships would have to be endured; what would be the best type of person for that particular area; would a single person be best or a team of two married couples and a single person be best etc. The field leadership set the policy which HQ endorses in that it fits in with the general church planting policies of the mission.

The home church of the missionary should be fully aware of the situation the missionary is going into and it should also trust him to be able to get on with the job in the best way he sees fit. The home church should also have confidence in the missions structures so that the missionary, their church member, can receive all pastoral care whilst serving on the field. It is not that the church is abrogating pastoral responsibilty for its member, but the church is basically loaning one of its members to a missinary agency and it needs to be sure the agency will care for him whilst on the field. The mission agency *IS* accountable to the sending church.

This is why the local church needs to be satisfied with the integrity of the mission and with the goals, principles and policies of the mission before it would permit one of its members to serve with that agency. Having been involved with missions and mission agencies, there are some that if a member of our congregation said they wanted to join certain missions I would tell them the church won't support that agency because of certain practices.

4. Persecuted countries.
If you are facing an angry mob of Islamic fundamentalists then I do not think a missionary compound would be of any significant defence. If you read John Paton's biography he went out to live with amidst cannibals not in the secure compound. I take the point that it is easy to sit here in the comfortable west and to say what I would do or wouldn't do during persecution. 

I recall talking with one missionary in an Islamic situation. He said that a Moslem will only take you seriously if he sees that you are willing to die for what you believe. Living in a compound would not endear yourself to the Moslem mindset. 

I do not say that lightly in any way. I am well aware of the price our brothers and sister are paying and have paid in the Islamic world (and indeed the Hindu, Buddhist and Communist worlds too). I am well aware that the 20th century produced more martyrs than all the other centuries added together. Persecution is a reality for many, but three quotes:-

"Captain, my religious belief teaches me to feel as safe in battle as in bed. God has fixed the time for my death. I do not concern myself about that, but to be always ready, no matter when it may overtake me. That is the way all men should live, and then all would be equally brave" (Gen Stonewall Jackson)

"I confess to you, that if I can but live and die serving the Lord Jesus, it will make no difference to me whether I am eaten by Cannibals or by worms. And in the Great Day my Resurrection body will rise as fair as yours in the likeness of our risen Redeemer."	(John Paton )

“Indeed I hoped, that long before now I should have entered into Restbut I find we are immortal, till our work is done.” (George Whitefield)


Is it fair for a missionary to be secure in a compound whilst the local believer whom he has gone out to serve is outside the compound?

5. Working yourself out of a job
I think you just know. Its not like the days of Paul who could go from Corinth to Philippi to Thessalonica etc in a relatively short time and see churches planted and elders appointed.

Church planting will take a long long time. But there comes a time when you know the church is mature and able to move on without you. When the church is established with competant elders you feel it is time to move on and begin again in another town/city or another part of the country. Its a bit like your children. You teach and instruct them in the house and prepare them for life. Then the day comes when you know thy are ready to leave home. That time varies from child to child. Likewise with churches. A church planter might be able to leave one church in 10 years but it may take 25 years before he can leave the second.


----------



## Edward (Nov 28, 2009)

jambo said:


> It makes a lot of sense for western churches to support local Indian, Asian etc pastors. There is no language to learn, climate to adapt to, culture to learn. Plus what western churches would consider buttons, those in India etc would consider a fortune. I know for instance that £20 a month can support an Indian pastor for a month. I think this type of thing needs to be more widely known amongst western churches.



Which brings up the basic question of whether the 19th century missions model of sending the white guy from the UK or the US to third world sites is still the best way to go. Are there better ways to use limited resournces?


----------



## jambo (Nov 28, 2009)

Edward said:


> Which brings up the basic question of whether the 19th century missions model of sending the white guy from the UK or the US to third world sites is still the best way to go. Are there better ways to use limited resournces?



There is a whole turn around in missions. In previous generations missionaries left the west for the "dark" continents of South America, Africa and Asia. Over the last century church growth has been phenominal. For example in South America from an estimated 700 000 evangelicals in 1900 to 55 million by the year 2000 is huge. In Africa there were 8 million in 1900 which grew to 351 million by 2000. During the 20th century the number of evangelicals in Asia grew from 22 milliion to 300 million. I do not have any figures for Europe over this period but you can be sure the church has not grown to the same extent as in the the other areas and the current trend is decline. When one considers Europe was the continent of the reformation and the continent that evangelised the other continents, then it is sad. The only part of Europe where the church is growing are mainly in the RC countries of Europe.

There has a definite shift in the church "centre." I kinow missionaries in Spain who are from Guatemala and Venezuela. I know Brazilian missionaries in Portugal, African missionaries in France and Chinese and Korean missionaries in other parts of Europe. 

I think there is still a case for western missionaries to go to all nations. If people feel called to that work then they have no option but to go. There is still a significant work they can do. However I do agree western churches supporting national pastors in India/Africa/Asia etc is of great benefit and ought to be considered more. Its a concept that has not yet dawned on a lot of churches but there are a good number of churches that are seeing this as a way forward in propogating the gospel in different lands.

By the way the figures quoted above are form Patrick Johnston's Operation World. I think the term 'evangelical' is probably used in broad terms but nevertheless is still big numbers.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 28, 2009)

Edward said:


> jambo said:
> 
> 
> > It makes a lot of sense for western churches to support local Indian, Asian etc pastors. There is no language to learn, climate to adapt to, culture to learn. Plus what western churches would consider buttons, those in India etc would consider a fortune. I know for instance that £20 a month can support an Indian pastor for a month. I think this type of thing needs to be more widely known amongst western churches.
> ...



We need more of both! 

We need to send more and we need to support more. 


One more thought: Our "limited" resources in the West are not near as limited as we would think if we kept our people out of a mountain of debt and freeer to give and if we did away with our tivo, 2 cars, plasma screen, and mortgage, huge suv, and 10,000 in credit card debt to top off our 30k in school loans. 

I think affluence is sapping the ability of the West to do without and we are breeding mentally and physically soft people who are becoming more and more unfit for service in the Third World.

We do not want to become like the US Gov't does with US Public Education and think that the solution to our problem is to throw more money at the problem. If we throw money at missions, but do not also send our own people, this then is not missions "partnership" but is closer to "out-sourcing."

Money really is the easiest thing to find - what is HARD TO FIND are willing workers to go.


----------



## Edward (Nov 28, 2009)

jambo said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > Which brings up the basic question of whether the 19th century missions model of sending the white guy from the UK or the US to third world sites is still the best way to go. Are there better ways to use limited resournces?
> ...



Don't forget the Anglicans in Africa who have had to treat the US as a missions field.

-----Added 11/28/2009 at 08:32:27 EST-----



Pergamum said:


> If we throw money at missions, but do not also send our own people, this then is not missions "partnership" but is closer to "out-sourcing."



I don't know that this would be so bad. The model I was thinking of, however, would be more along the line of resource and training centers to raise up indigenous leadership.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 28, 2009)

Edward said:


> jambo said:
> 
> 
> > Edward said:
> ...



Can you tell me more about these resource and training centers?


----------



## Edward (Nov 28, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> Can you tell me more about these resource and training centers?



We've wrapped up a project in Peru; we are activly involved in the Ukrane, and are involved in a project in an Asian country.


----------



## jambo (Nov 29, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> Money really is the easiest thing to find - what is HARD TO FIND are willing workers to go.



I think this is the key. People now equate missions with a 2 year stint in some other country. Or people think that providing famine relief, building irrigation canals, building hospitals etc is fulfilling the great commission. It isn't. (Now I know that certain countries are closed and the only way in is to have employment as a doctor, teacher, tradesman etc which is fine as long as those skills have the greater aim of being a means in planting/developing churches) Often providing medical care is an end in itself.

I really believe we need to regain something of Carey's mindset in realising the great commission has not yet been fulfilled but it is still binding on the church. We neeed to realise the great commission will only be fulfilled when people GO. That it will one day be fulfilled by the power of the Holy Spirit blessing the preaching of the word. We need to grasp afresh Carey's deathless sermon on Is 54.2 _Enlarge the place of your tent; stretch out teh curtains of yur dwellings, spare not; lengthen your cords and strengthen your pegs. For you will spread abroad to the right and to the left..._ 

As a matter of interest, have you ever read 10 Sending Churches (ed Michael Grifffiths) The first chapter concerns St Philip and St Jacob Anglican church in Bristol. It was on the verge of closure when the Rev Malcom Widdecombe arrived in 1964. He adopted the theme "Seek first the kingdom of God" and decided to give away to missions more than they spent on themselves. That first year they gave away £79 which increased £1247 four years later and continued to rise until 1983 when they gave away £67,976 to missions. What is astonishing is that the congregation only grew from a morning attendance of 33 in 1964 to 350 in 1983. Yet despite the congregatio0n growing 10-fold, the level of giving increased almost a thousand fold.

The principle is laid down: seek first the kingdom-that is all you need worry about. Everything else will flow from it. I am not in anyway advocating some sort of prosperity gospel but the closing sentence says "The missionary task of the church is not only the church's first priority, it is also any church's secret of personal blessing." 

Churches have big projects and big salaries to pay and big buildings to keep and the missionary budget gets pushed more often than not down to whatever is left over. perhaps if churches put missions more to the fore then we would see big changes on the mission field. It was Hudson Taylor who said "God's work done in God's way will not lack God's resources"

(If you are interested the book _10 sending churches_ it is out of print but available on both Amazon and e-bay.)


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 29, 2009)

jambo said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Money really is the easiest thing to find - what is HARD TO FIND are willing workers to go.
> ...



Thanks, I will definitely try to get this book! Thanks for your well thought out comments.

I, too, believe that outward-focused churches also prosper within. It is not our seating capacity, but our sending capacity.


----------



## Edward (Nov 29, 2009)

> Originally Posted by Pergamum View Post
> Money really is the easiest thing to find - what is HARD TO FIND are willing workers to go.



But that misses the point. The 'to go' is what needs to be debated. 

Our church contributes to the support of 4 missionary families in Japan. 3 of those families are Japanese, one American. We commissioned two families at this morning's service. One American (to work at a seminary in Mexico), one foreign.


----------



## jambo (Nov 29, 2009)

Edward said:


> But that misses the point. The 'to go' is what needs to be debated.



I don't really understand the debate. Jesus himself said to GO and make disciples of all nations. I don't think he meant that the church should debate this. I think many western churches are falling into the same thinking William Carey encountered in his day. The great commission is still binding upon the church. The church has not been released from this in order to get on with other things.

We make disciples in the west and the east, in the north and the south. In RC countries, Islamic countries, Hindu countries, Protestant countries, Buddhist and communist countries. It is a huge task but we take encouragement that the apostle John saw people before the throne from every tribe and tongue. (Rev 7.9) Its mind blowing but it shows the successs of the great commission and its a real thrill to be a part of it.

The only debate I can see maybe is _how_ one is to go. I understand completely the need to support national workers and national workers can reach people non-nationals can't. However there is still very much a role for cross cultural missionaries as they too can reach people the way nationals cannot. It is very much a case that both are needed. As Pergamum said sending money is the easy thing, sending personnel is much more difficult. Does the former ever make up for the latter?

You mentioned projects in Peru, Asia and the Ukraine without going into detail. I think supporting those projects through finance is great but through supplying personnel even better.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 29, 2009)

Edward said:


> > Originally Posted by Pergamum View Post
> > Money really is the easiest thing to find - what is HARD TO FIND are willing workers to go.
> 
> 
> ...



Are you advocating that we stop sending missionaries abroad and ONLY support nationals, i.e., a moratorium on foreign missions?


That is very troubling.


----------



## Edward (Nov 29, 2009)

jambo said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > But that misses the point. The 'to go' is what needs to be debated.
> ...



Our congregation supports, at least in part, at least 52 missionary families involved in foreign missions. About a half dozen are U.S. based. The rest are on the field. A significant number of those are foreign nationals (Ukrainians in the Ukraine, Japanese in Japan, ***ians in ***, etc. ) Many of the Americans are involved in projects to develop local leadership - seminaries, training centers, church planting, etc. (One goal is to participate in the planting of 50 churches overseas in the 1998-2020 time period, to match 50 to be planted domestically). We do support some traditional missionaries, generally through the denomination. 

Is the 19th century model still the ideal in the internet era? Does it show the best stewardship? Are the nationals incapable of taking leadership roles in their countries?


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 29, 2009)

Edward said:


> jambo said:
> 
> 
> > Edward said:
> ...



Again;

Are you advocating that we stop sending missionaries abroad and ONLY support nationals, i.e., a moratorium on foreign missions?


----------



## Edward (Nov 29, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > > Originally Posted by Pergamum View Post
> ...



Are you saying it's not foreign missions unless the missionary is Anglo? 

The goal should be discipleship - training up leaders to reach their own people. In some cases, that means sending folks to a targeted area for a limited period of time. In other cases, it will mean bringing folks to this country for a period of training before sending them home. 

The goal should be for the missionary to work himself out of a job.


----------



## steadfast7 (Nov 30, 2009)

Pergy, I really wish it were true in my context that money was the easiest thing to find. Granted people are not taking up the charge to "go" as they should, but finances have been my single most discouraging reason preventing me from going. Compounded by the statistical fact that Canadians are 10 times less likely than Americans to give to missions and charitable causes. Sigh.

Still praying, Brother.

-----Added 11/30/2009 at 01:36:02 EST-----



Edward said:


> Are you saying it's not foreign missions unless the missionary is Anglo?
> 
> The goal should be discipleship - training up leaders to reach their own people. In some cases, that means sending folks to a targeted area for a limited period of time. In other cases, it will mean bringing folks to this country for a period of training before sending them home.
> 
> The goal should be for the missionary to work himself out of a job.



I think I know where Pergy is coming from. The work he and other frontier missionaries are doing are very pioneering, working with people groups with little engagement with any fruitful gospel ministry. These are not situations where western pastors are being hired in established Asian churches, for example, which still passes for "missions" these days (baffling!). These are places where they is no Christian presence, no leaders, no bibles. Every gospel worker, whether anglo or not are foreigners. The missions you are thinking of is probably many years down the line.


----------



## VilnaGaon (Nov 30, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> Below are some thoughts on missions that an Indian national pastor sent me. I found these answers insightful and wanted to share them:
> 
> 
> *Bad mission policies and practices (perspectives from an Indian national evangelist): *
> ...



I remember the Pastor of an Indian Church here in Toronto telling me how pervasive the Caste system is in Indian Churches. I think we should not patronise Indian Christians by condoning in any way this evil practice but rather insist and expect them to abolish in word and deed this remnant of Hinduism from their Churches. In my humble opinion, the worst form of racism we Western Christians can show our Indian Brothers is by having low expectations of them.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 30, 2009)

The "Bigotry of low expectations", like W always used to say.


----------



## Raj (Dec 1, 2009)

THOUGHTS?[/quote]

*I remember the Pastor of an Indian Church here in Toronto telling me how pervasive the Caste system is in Indian Churches. I think we should not patronise Indian Christians by condoning in any way this evil practice but rather insist and expect them to abolish in word and deed this remnant of Hinduism from their Churches.* In my humble opinion, the worst form of racism we Western Christians can show our Indian Brothers is by having low expectations of them.[/QUOTE]



Thanks for the important idea. 

Son of God appeared to destroy the evil works (in any form) of Satan. Now, it should be our focus too.

-----Added 12/1/2009 at 03:45:19 EST-----



jambo said:


> 1. Missions compound
> I have always found the very idea of this outrageous and from what I gather it seems to be an American practice. Living in a compound may provide security but it is harmful from the point of view of being seperated from the people you are seeking to work with. It was a problem Hudson Taylor found when he went out to China and on meeting WC Burns saw how he adapted to local culture and local dress sense outside a compound. When the demoniac (Mk 5) was healed he wanted to go with Jesus. Jesus instructed him to go back to his family and friends and tell them how good the Lord has been to him. This is, I believe, an important principle.
> 
> 2. Local culture
> ...



very much Agree with you on this important. 

A foriegn missionary came to our country, must have shared in his church/country he is going to preach gospel to Indians. He made some contacts in the villages, supported about ten people (local pastors), BUT he himself stayed in the best area of the Capital of our country, none from the local pastors knew where this missionary live. 

This Missionary came to see the pastor's field in three months, spending hardly, 20 minutes, or maximum 2hrs with all the pastors, then went again to the Capital. 

He supported people for some time, and then after some years, all of sudden stopped, whole little support, the work suffered, the local pastors suffered. The missonary now moved to another country to do "missions". 

In my suggestion too, missionary should be as closer to the fields as he could be. He should protect himself and his family if needed, but not to the point of living a luxuroius life in unknown place and telling the world, he is engaged in the mission of the Lord.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 1, 2009)

Do you know the man and the agency? 

And is there anyway to report to this person's agency to insure "quality control" of their missionaries? 

Missions sending agencies need feedback (both positive and negative) in order to help guide their practice and policies. Partnership and cooperation between indigenous evangelists and foreign missionaries is a must.


To time must come to an end when "Third World Christians" only followed the lead of Westerners in a sort of Spiritual Colonialism. 

Now, the Global Church is duty-bound to hold each other accountable, and that means that your criticisms of deficient missions practice can be a ministry to Western churches as they seek clumsily to bless India.


You can bless us by your insights, and I would love tohear more.


----------



## Raj (Dec 1, 2009)

Sorry Pergy I wouldn't go into the personal details. 

The thing to focus is here, bad mission policy and to learn from them.

-----Added 12/1/2009 at 11:31:54 EST-----

While talking about the bad mission policies: 

1. What should we say about the people (Indian national) who travel abroad for fund raising, mission conferences, etc. a lot and spend a lot (while their fellow missionaries who are real missionaries, working at the front) hardly eating on time, children (ordinary) school fee is always a burden, if fall sick no medicine but depending on God wholly. 


2. Can a person or a org should get all the attention of the able supporting churches or mission agencies? 


3. Missionaries or Evangelist (with little trainng on theology) working in the villages and difficult regions shouldn't they be contacted directly by the mission agency or church and be helped, instead of a "worldwide traveling missionary"


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 1, 2009)

Raj said:


> Sorry Pergy I wouldn't go into the personal details.
> 
> The thing to focus is here, bad mission policy and to learn from them.
> 
> ...



Hey Raj,

Here is my feeble attempt to answer your questions 1-3:

(1) I guess some might be called to connect more and travel more. 

I do acknowledge that great inequalities exist. I know some Indian pastors that travel widely and gather much funds and I know others who are very poor. I am sure that you know even more.

Also, if an Indian evangelist can find the means to travel to the US and tell of the struggles of poor evangelists, this might help in the long-run, though I do acknowledge that a few travel much and most travel little and that resources are not shared equally. 

Thoughts?

(2) An agency or organization becomes an umbrella or a banner for support and they often get the credit and attention for the hard work of folks in the villages that are often unknown to the larger Christian church. 

There are postives and negatives to this I guess. 

The positive is that, if the organization is reputable, then they can be a great tool to help aid local evangelists. An EFCA-approved Western-based org will attract a greater donor base from Westerners and merit more trust than a single, poor, Indian evangelist sending pleas for help from a village...unless a relationship and a reputation of trust is established. An EFCA approved and well advertized agency with offices in the US gains quicker trust than an individual will.

However, a negative of this system is this: there is a chance that the funds and resources will be gathered, but stay with the org and not "trickle down" to the poorer evangelists at the local level. Or thatthe distribution will leave some out or go towards those who are most visible and not those who are the most faithful.

(3). I am not sure what you mean by a "world-wide travelling evangelist" but donors can only support people that they know about. Unfortunately, those who are often most faithful are often the most unknown due to lack of fan-fare and lack of grasping for funds. 

But, be patient, over time your work will be rewarded and you will build up a reputation of trustworthiness and good work.



This makes it an absolute necessity that missionaries and indigenous evangelists work together in order to identify where the resources need to go so that donors are not duped merely to donate to the most visible but can, instead, donate to the most faithful. 

This also makes it imperative that every indigenous ministry strives to be self-supporting and not dependant upon fickle donors that often make bad choices about who to support.



Thoughts? 

Where do you agree?

Where should my views be refined? 

What must US churches know about the work in India so that we can pray and give and partner better?


----------



## Raj (Dec 2, 2009)

Brother thanks for bringing out the positive side of the issues. 

Bad Mission policy: 

There are some old churches (some new congregations too), children homes, and other projects (hospital etc) which are suffering from the lack of Good Leadership.

Founder(s) of the ministries wait to choose the visionary leader(s) until they get old (very old) and then all of sudden die due to sickness or some other cause. And the ministry suffers, in the hands of untrained, and of those, not having the same attitude towards the ministry as those of the founders.

Suggestion: Paul and Timothy, Moses and Joshua leadership style.


----------

