The Cultural Captivity of Evangelical missions

[Pergamum]

Any thoughts on how current missiology is influenced by the culture?

I grow more and more alarmed daily. Perhaps it is due to the American mentality of innovative solutions overcoming problems or our stress on productivity, but here are a few things that I see all the time:

-(1) Missionary over-reporting and exaggerated stories of success (I'd like to write an article on this). This seems to play into our Western desire for results.

Example: Many folks are counting Muslims as "believers" even though they themselves still call themselves Muslim, never attend church and still believe Mhd to be a prophet.

-And (2) an emphasis on the novel or new (another article needs to be written about this topic, too).

If you browse most evangelical missions magazines, those that get their articles published are not those who are holding fast to traditional doctrines but who are stretching the limits or trying new things.

Examples include a recent missions magazine about doing native american indian sun dances but with Gospel stories. Sometimes the methodologies are good and the use of the means is appropriate, but the "air time" given to the novel seems to make me conclude that most evangelical missions magazines are hurting missions by leading missionaries to believe that they must always be tinkering.

If a new missionary reads a lot of evangelical missionary magazines, but does not have a grounding in solid theology, they will gravitate towards the novel.



Any thoughts on missionary pragmatism or over-creativity? On over-reporting?

 

[steadfast7]

How about missionaries who need to sell themselves with an exciting or fool-proof mission plan before they can get supported by their church? It's the model of the lone entrepreneur launching out with his own plan and selling his idea to potential investors.

The ideal would be the church knowing its call to make disciples, then seeking out, screening, and training volunteers, and sending them out.

 

[Pergamum]

There seems to be the "Golden Key" temptation in missions....i.e., that is not chiefly by suffering, holiness, effort and many long hours that God grants a harvest, but by finding some new and long-forgotten (or never-once-thought-of-in-the-whole-history-of-the-church) winning method that will finally bring thousands to Christ.

 

[J. Dean]

It's interesting that this comes up, because not too long ago we dealt with the late eighteenth century-early nineteenth century missions movements from people like William Carey and Adoniram Judson in my SS class. Both of these men were in the mission field for a good number of years before seeing even one convert. I wonder how many missionaries would have that sort of patience today in their work.

Also, it's a reminder to me that it takes a special calling of God to be a missionary. It's not everybody's calling in the church, and people ill-equipped to do it (or people trying to do it when they're not called to do so) can find themselves quickly frustrated and discouraged. That's one of the reasons why I like short term missions (when properly done), because they give people a feel for the field and God can use that time to move those whom He has called to the field.

 

[Tim]

I wonder how many missionaries would have that sort of patience today in their work.

And, I wonder how many sending churches would have that sort of patience too! But I am not really sure.... Who finds it more difficult to be patient: the sender or the missionary?

 

[Jack K]

I agree with what been said here regarding funding. Many evangelical churches and individuals define success in missionary work in terms of immediate converts. So a missionary with few or no immediate converts might quickly be labelled "unsuccessful." And Americans have been taught the good business practice of never "wasting" money on unsuccessful ventures.

Even where supporters are more savvy than that, I can see how missionaries fear their supporters will be thinking this way. Add to this the general desire to have people think well of you, and missionaries could be powerfully tempted to overstate the number of converts, especially if they themselves have never been trained to get their self-worth from joy in the gospel rather than from their perceived acheivements.

This is one of the disadvantages of the support-raising method most Westerm missionaries are under. It turns the missionary into a politician, struggling for "votes" (represented by dollars) against all the other missionaries and causes a church or individual might support. In such a system, it'll always be tempting to overstate one's successes and to define success in terms the supporter wants to hear.

Churches need to do three things:
1. Select missionaries based on their giftedness and their calling rather than on the "coolness" of the project.
2. Support them long-term.
3. Train them to draw strength and encouragement from being in Christ, not from what they or others think of their "results."

 

[Edward]

Many folks are counting Muslims as "believers" even though they themselves still call themselves Muslim, never attend church and still believe Mhd to be a prophet.

I may have met 'Many Folks' in the fairly recent past.

 

[Pergamum]

Edward, can you sure your story to alert others to this dangerous trend?