MISSION – DIFFERENT AND INSPIRING

 

Introduction

Expensive, wasteful and not very effective. Please! That's the case with many missions, and that is frustrating and demotivating. They are quite often very bureaucratic and slow in taking decisions. And worst of all: not they are not very effective. It is time for a new kind of approach.

 

The raison d'être of many missionary organizations seems to consist of pleasant and interesting church meetings in the country. That's where the money comes in. But what about the missionary task? How many people come to faith on the mission field? How many churches are founded? Those are the basic questions. There are also a number of other tasks. But most important things come first. A sports team that does not score any points should be closed down. Also a company that makes a loss. An stagnating missionary organization? Also!

 

Expensive offices, expensive workers, lots of meetings. But little progress on the field. There are large, wealthy mission organizations with little spiritual fruit. Their supporters do not blame them and continue to pay. Mission is strange and distant. That makes believers less critical.

 

The proclamation of the Gospel has often been replaced by social projects, church building projects and other supporting activities. Support is sometimes needed. But WHAT exactly deserves that support?

 

What is the precise mandate of those we send abroad? Sometimes it seems like we send the wrong people to the wrong places to do the wrong things in wrong ways. What do they actually do? Is their work really necessary? Is it effective? If not, what are they doing there?

 

Missions quite often stay very foggy about the results of their work. “The work is going on well,” is a often used phrase. What does it mean? How many people came to know Christ? How many churches are founded? What other essential, Christ-proclaiming work has been effectuated? If nothing of hardly anything of that is the case, be honest and tell your audience: “We are failing completely. Your money has been mis-used and your prayers have not been answered. We rather should close down…”

Great things have certainly be accomplished by 'the mission'. Thank the Lord for that. But I am often shocked by the lack of quality and effectiveness. I will elaborate on that further.

The first question that arises is , and that we must answer before continuing, is: What is mission?

 

What is mission?

Mission is the proclamation of the Gospel in other cultures. It is no different from evangelism, proclamation or 'preaching the Good News', as it is called in the Bible. However, there are some complicating factors: cultural and language differences plus often a great distance. If that is the case, we call evangelism: mission.

 

Mission is first and foremost: proclamation. Health care and education, long seen as indispensable parts of the mission, are nothing more than supporting activities. You can skip them if necessary. This certainly applies to countries where governments take care for a well organized healthcare and education. If the verbal proclamation is lacking, this is not mission. Presence is not proclamation. No proclamation, no mission.

 

The message

A missionary without a message is like a baker without bread. The professional missionary is expected to be able to convey the Gospel well and in an inspiring manner. The message of church and mission is a message of conversion and renewal. People are called to leave the old life behind and start a new life. They find forgiveness of their sins and testify about this by their baptism. No life renewal? No baptism! (This applies to all forms of baptism, to  be clear. If this does not apply to the changed life of the new believer, it applies to the lives of the parents of a small child.)  

 

A clear message is a must, or the missionary will only sow confusion and they will become a burden to the local churches as well as to the mission team in which they participate.

 

A Gospel message is not only explanation of our creed or of the Bible. If there is no ‘altar call’, there is no altar, there will hardly be any conversion. If there is no conversion, the Word of God has not been explained in the right way.

 

 Mission supporting activities

We can support the main task of the proclamation of the Good News, if necessary. But what is the main task? That is Jesus' Great Commission as mentioned in Matthew 28. That is even more than the instruction to preach the Gospel, it is about making disciples of all nations. That is something else than doing good things. We should spread the Gospel in such a way that people get saved and renewed.  

 

Medical work, schools, agricultural projects and much more are necessary, important, God honoring activities, but they are not: mission. They may support the missionary work, they may prepare the missionary outreach, but they are not essential, even if there exists a strategic need to use them. Did Jesus have a hospital, did the apostle Paul run a school?  If no proclamation is added, or if that is not to follow, continue these good works, but do not mix them up with mission. Even the name might be misleading.

 

Who can become missionaries?

Who is fit for a task in missions? According to the classical view: people with a calling, a thorough education (usually medical, educational or theological) and an appointment by a church or missionary institution. I don't think you can become a missionary. You either are or you aren't. Anyone who is not a missionary now, will never be one. That person becomes an international bureaucrat, just as the United Nations has thousands of them. But what is its value for church and faith?

 

“Everyone is either a missionary or a mission field” is a pointed saying. Those who believe have something to say, those who do not believe must hear something, because faith follows hearing the Word.

 

What do you need to become a (professional) missionary? A. Calling, training and appointment. That is a common triad, even simplified in some denominations to only: training and appointment. (That's very little!) Or: B. Only faith. But faith manifests itself in actions. So: an active and decisive faith is a requirement for the future missionary worker. I choose B, supplemented with A. So: not just A. Then you get a new set of requirements: Faith, effectiveness, calling, training, appointment. The last two only apply to the professional missionary.

 

The training for a missionary is not always a theological training. Other qualities are needed as well. The professional in mission who is not a theologian, pays his own specialized contribution, but he is also able to share the Good News. In missions there is no room for specialists without a Gospel message.

 

A candidate for a professional missionary career must be able to demonstrate that he is already strong in the proclamation of the Gospel in his own country. If not, he will never be able to do a good job. Anyone who is not a missionary in his own country, will never be one abroad. We may even expect that people who are engaged in supporting positions (translators, teachers, medical staff, IT professionals, etc.) will be active witnesses. They represent the church and its message abroad. If they do never see anyone converted by their message? Then they are probably not suitable for a missionary task.

 

Although calling is a very subjective experience, that is no reason not to pay attention to it. Those who experience a strong calling, usually stay in their post longer and work better than someone without that conviction.

 

Of course, gifts and skills also weigh heavily. However, communicative abilities are most important. Every worker must be able to communicate, teach and evangelize well and should also be pastorally committed. Besides that, his training and professionalism are very important when he is a career missionary. Why would you send someone out for something that the local people are doing already? This person has knowledge and skills that are needed at the spot where he is working.

 

For many years, the main focus has been on 'the right education' of the future missionary. That is one of the reasons for the failure of much missionary work. Someone does not become a proclaimer of the Good News by his appointment. Anyone who cannot build a church at home, or convert people or provide pastoral care, cannot do so abroad. Anyone who cannot handle the modern pagan at home has no business elsewhere.

 

When it comes to a professional worker, we should try to send our best workers abroad. The 'top executives' often cluster in the mother country. In the New Testament the top leaders, the apostles, were travelling around as missionaries. In our situation the top leaders stay at home… This gives the impression that direct missionary work is not that important. An office position provides more influence. How did that apply to Jesus and the apostles?

 

The training that is needed

A professional missionary must know or be able to do something that is needed locally. He/she is a specialist, either in religious knowledge, communication, pedagogy, pastoral care, printing, medical care, technical tasks, teaching, agricultural work, economy and so on. A thorough knowledge of the Bible is important for everyone. The missionary is not only seen as a specialist in his specific field, if he is not a theologian. In many cases he/she will be invited nevertheless to preach or lead studies. He/she must fit into a missionary team that is proclaiming the Gospel.

 

The best training takes place on the job. Theoretical missionary training is of little use if a person cannot tolerate the heat or is afraid of cockroaches, cannot work well with others or cannot tolerate local food or customs… It is best to select a missionary while working on the spot. That is 'selection on gifts'. If we only make prior vocational training a requirement, it will turn out that a large percentage of all those who have followed such an expensive and long training course are not very suitable for their task. 'Selection based on diploma' is expensive and impractical. Do not forget that knowledge is secondary, because it is easier to add to knowledge than to change characters.

 

Missionary teams

Until now I have been talking about individual missionary work. But in the book of Acts we read about missionary teams. It is much healthier to work in groups. This prevents derailments and loneliness. In a team, decisions are made collectively. Everything is given additional consideration. And with a team you immediately have a functioning church, in which local believers can easily be received.

 

It is important that mission teams can determine their own course. As soon as they have to comply with detailed instructions from boards or church councils in the mother country, they get stuck. Those who hand out the assignments do not know sufficiently the situation in the working area and therefore make tactical mistakes. That hinders the workers too much. It is impossible to discern ‘open doors’ from distance.

 

It is very important that people fit into the a team. That requires all our attention. It is a good idea to first allow new workers to complete an internship on site, prior to a permanent appointment.

 

Are only fully trained theologians needed in a team? Surely not. Depending on the task, the team has to decide who is needed. The basic work is proclamation, probably to uneducated people. In that case communicative skills are more important than knowledge.

 

Many mission organizations prefer to send fully trained, married workers. They often have children. This causes complications in their upbringing and education. In my opinion, it is better to send out young people, unmarried, to a foreign country or civilization. Even if those are short term activities, now you are able to find out if they fit into a team, adopt to other cultures and are able to communicate properly.

 

If an unmarried worker finds his life companion in the foreign culture, this is a very positive step forward. This person will much easier and faster feel familiar with his new ‘homeland’ than the others. But finding a life partner in a missionary team is also positive. Both partners are able to fit into another culture and feel a missionary calling. This is possible if the teams are not too small and if they are regularly supplemented with new short-term workers and volunteers. In that case the new couple is from the beginning 'at home' in the foreign culture.

 

A missionary internship before starting a study is desirable. It often turns out that people, after an expensive training, are unable to settle into another culture. They return empty-handed. Training and appointment thus become 'wasted money'. That can be prevented.

 

Supporting teams in the home country

It's not just the mission team that plays a role. It is advisable that those, who support them, also form local missionary assistance teams. They carry out all the tasks that the mission team needs: purchasing goods, raising money, arranging administrative matters, communicating about the missionary work to all well wishers and, above all: they offer their sympathy and prayer. Mission is not just about winning over the outsiders. Mission also has a message for Christians. She wants to inspire them and make the churches more missionary minded, at home and abroad.

 

Supporting teams are the cradle of future missionaries, by their testimony, their communication with the teams on the field and their influence in the local church.

 

Mission on the move

Much missionary work is too static and therefore not very effective. Mission once started as a movement. A movement is flexible and (often) innovative. There is much to be said in favor of free missionary movements, taking at large their own decisions. The real missionary experts are on the field, not at home behind a desk. We must free missions from boards that impose fixed obligations and agreements.

 

Personal initiative, one's own creativity, the guidance of the Spirit, the adventure with God, the surprise of ever new challenges and opportunities, experimenting with new methods - this is a natural part of mission.

 

Just as the movement of Jesus and the apostles once formed the beginning of the church that arose from it, so now also churches are created through mission. In order to arrive at this goal, missionary teams respond to local opportunities and find the people and people groups who are open to their message. All the time they try out the (ever-changing) circumstances and new methods. This requires maximum flexibility. Mission boards tend to make everything dry and static by too many detailed job descriptions and numerous rules. Missions needs to become a movement again.

 

Missionary work is more than technical expertise

In the West we tend to see missions and evangelism as the work of specialists. That is the big sin of missionary work. Work, which by nature belongs to all believers, is elevated to a professional activity. The most important thing about missions is talking about Jesus. It is evangelism! That is a task for all believers.

 

Isn't that how we work in church? Most of the work in church is done by volunteers. Evangelism? Ditto. But when it comes to mission, we prefer well-trained professional workers, who – at the same time – are well-paid. This means that the missionary task is cut back to a few able workers. Like that it becomes too cumbersome and much too expensive. The place of the 'ordinary' believer is overlooked in missions. He's considered not to be fit for it, because he is not a highly skilled specialist. That opinion is very unhealthy and a big misunderstanding. A person does not need an education to evangelize. The first question is: Is he a real believer? Second question: Can he adapt to other cultures? Third question: Can he communicate well? No other questions now! This person might be able to join a missionary team.

 

It's a little different for a professional missionary. He is an expert in his own field. He/she works as an ordinary believer, but with special knowledge. An expert does the work of any ordinary believer (evangelism) and adds his extra knowledge to it. Mission is not only the work of specialists, but specialists can be added to missions.

 

“One thing I know… I was blind, and now I see…” (John 9: 25) That is a clear testimony. That is mission at its finest. Anyone who has something to say should do so. We need to get the 'ordinary' believer talking again. You don't need money for that, but you do need faith. This is where mission starts, with the testimony of any believer. If an 'ordinary' believer travels through the world, for work or on holiday, he has something to say everywhere: “I know one thing…” He finds open doors for faith. He gathers new believers around him, just as he did at home. These groups can grow into a new church.

 

Mission starts with a testimony, not with a missionary organization. If needed, an organization may be founded, but mission as such belongs to the lifestyle of every believer.

 

It is my experience on the mission field that we need in the first place pacesetters, more than highly skilled workers. Those pacesetters may work in teams composed of locals and expatriates. Local churches have as their first need workers that can train and inspire the church members at a rather ‘low’ level. The non-Christian communities need those who are able to communicate the Gospel in a very simple way. These requirements will change of course when we need Bible translators, teachers in seminaries etcetera. But the basic work is too often neglected, and that is: communication. We think that sending a missionary ‘on a high level’ will allow the local Christians to work at the ‘low level’. That mechanism is usually not working.

 

Because 'mission' is part of the normal life of a believer, it is only strange if a believer is not a missionary. “Make disciples of all nations…” Those words are addressed to 'ordinary' believers (= disciples). Mission begins at the local church.

 

The freedom of a missionary

A worker abroad must be free to chart his own course. He must match his gifts and talents to the possibilities on site, find out with whom he can work well, etc. Didn't the apostles act like that? Some workers settle down somewhere permanently, others travel around like the apostles. A board can guide and advise them from distance, but should not command them.

 

Does anyone want to go on 'mission'? Then it is not necessary to fulfill an official function. Anyone can learn a profession and practice it in a foreign country. In this way, that person supports himself and at the same time engages in spiritual activities. No organization is needed for that. It is good if the majority of workers in remote countries are volunteers. They can always work together with local believers or mission teams on the spot.

 

Some experience the need for further education, while they are already doing a lot of missionary work. Isn't it best to let people grow according to their needs, instead of setting all kinds of heavy demands in advance? They will find out for themselves what is needed, advised but not commanded by missionary organizations.

 

The moral code of a missionary

A worker abroad must (just like everyone else) comply with a clear moral code. Sanctification is not a hobby! It is better to send out a stable believer than a genius who is somewhat loose in his morals. Sin blocks communion with God and man and paralyzes one's spiritual strength.

 

Please note that the letters of the apostles are mainly about the content of faith and the behavior of believers. They lived in a time when missions were highly important and highly effective. But the letters are hardly about missions. Apparently people agreed on that. The problems at that time were mainly lack of faith, sin and wrong teachings. That is what attracted the attention of the apostles. Much more important than a missionary strategy are a united and living faith and holiness. If that is a mess, no strategy will ever be adequate.

 

Clear and reasonable ethics are currently lacking in many churches. There is a lot of confusion. That brings division and powerlessness, also in missions. This is one of the points that mission boards must pay attention to and where they should intervene. They should take action when someone takes a morally wrong path and also when the missionary proclaims a message that is not in line with the generally accepted teachings within a church/denomination.

 

Historical misgrowth

What is the example of the New Testament? Preachers (not just the apostles) went into the world and proclaimed the Gospel in large areas whose languages ​​they knew (especially Aramaic and Greek). They sometimes earned their own living. Otherwise they were helped along by the believers. They did not have to adapt culturally. There was a unified legal code in the Parthian empire, east of Israel, that reached as far as India and Georgia, where Aramaic was spoken and where one currency was used. The same is true for the Roman empire, but the language was different: Greek, spoken all over the empire.

  

During the first centuries, the Gospel was mainly spread by traders, soldiers, and sailors, thus: believers without a church office. We find also great spiritual leaders who made big journeys, like the apostle Paul.  Especially after the Reformation, we see a very peculiar thing happening. The Protestant countries were surrounded by Roman Catholic and Orthodox countries. They found it objectionable to proclaim the Gospel message to other Christians. Behind the first shell another ring of countries was found, the Islamic world. They needed the Gospel, but showed a lot of hostility.

 

This is how missions did arrive in even more distant areas., mainly in colonies of European countries. There was a judicial system and security. But the languages and cultures differed radically from those of the missionaries. It took years for a newcomer on the mission field to make himself understood. Because the average missionary only served for 4 – 6 years, there were very few who ever adjusted well and learned the foreign language properly. That made missions very expensive and not that effective. Most missionaries of the past… have never been missionaries. They stopped before they really were able to start communicating.

 

Most missionaries never developed a natural relationship with those foreign cultures and people. They remained foreigners and moreover representatives of the colonizing power. However, some managed to develop good relationships nevertheless. Those were the exceptions. The history of missions tells more about failure than success.

 

The mission became very dependent on highly educated professionals. That is why she became top heavy. That is how she became exotic, untouchable for the ‘ordinary believer’. Missions was excellent in creating a gap with local people at both sides of the ocean…

 

The ordinary missionary brought a lot of luxury with him. He lived in a nice house, often completely separated from the local population. He was an outsider. He could return to his country if he wanted, or be treated in a nice hospital. His children attended a better school than the local children. He was protected by the colonial authorities. This made a brotherhood with the local believers very difficult. (The Roman Catholic mission performed a better job, partly because their missionaries often settled in their new country forever and because they lived in a group. It was not that difficult to incorporate local believers into those missionary groups.)

 

The example of the Nestorians

The Nestorians (i.e. the Church of the East or also: the Syriac Orthodox Church) used Biblical mission principles during many centuries. These appeared to be extremely vital. It is important to note that the Nestorians formed missionary groups in which businessmen and missionaries formed a unity. This made missionary work also financially possible. And that has happened many times in history. The most powerful missionary breakthroughs all had the same features, namely: independence, involvement of volunteers, a clear message, contact with the local population, a call to conversion, intensive Biblical instruction.

 

It is unfortunately that little is known about this greatest missionary movement of all times (after the time of the apostles), that took place from 600 to about 1100, mainly in Asia. As a result, many millions in Mongolia, China, Central Asia, India, Afghanistan, Arabia, Azerbaijan and the Horn of Africa became believers. How did that work? Travelling was difficult and there was no postal system. So: there was hardly any contact between the missionary and his motherland. Missionaries earned a living as traders or they worked with groups of traders who supported them on the spot. Even as traders, they were seasoned in the faith by their home church. This way they could support themselves, knew what they believed and were able to establish churches.

 

A trader lives where he can earn a living. He must adapt and learn other languages, otherwise he will fail. Often he will build up something that makes it impossible for him to leave again quickly. He continues to live where he has settled down and adapts to the local culture. This makes him a testifying and unpaid church worker abroad. This person is the ideal missionary. He is not dependent on his mother church.

 

The fact that the mission of the last two centuries did not have the same swing as that of the Nestorians 1000 years earlier is partly due to political and economic factors. Colonial trade was carefully kept separate from the church. The mission was therefore entirely at the expense of the churches in the mother country. Furthermore, the colonial authorities kept missions short to avoid religious tensions. The “Christian” nations themselves were the greatest enemy of missions.

 

Renewed missionary work in the 21^st century

We constantly see new initiatives emerging. In the second half of the last century, this included missions with teams of volunteers. This was a major contrast to existing customs, namely the dispatch of only highly trained specialists, who often had to run a project alone.

 

Examples are Operation Mobilization and Youth with a Mission. They used volunteers without specific training. A century earlier, there had already been such movements with a long and powerful testimony: YMCA, YWCA and others. But they did not have the flexible design of O.M. or YWAM. These movements turned out to be very effective and relatively cheap. A characteristic saying in their circles was: “The church has too many generals and too little soldiers.”

 

The missionary organizations at that time were largely on the path of increasing professionalization. Dispatching highly skilled workers is relatively expensive. Moreover, the mission boards also professionalized. They followed the model of social institutions and school boards, which are more or less static entities. The power of the administrators increased, the mission became less and less flexible.

 

Movements look for volunteers who want to participate. They consider willingness as a higher value than knowledge. Their attractiveness largely consists of their group affiliation. Groups attract people. That makes church planting easier. People do not easily bond with a single person, but they do feel at home in a group.

 

A team is a suitable means for training and produces constantly new workers. If they need further training, it will be provided. More important is finding people who can live in a group and adapt to local circumstances.

 

Vision

Paul focused mainly on the administrative centers. As soon as a living church emerged, he could leave the work in the region of those towns under her responsibility. Too much missionary work nowadays concentrates on the periphery, neglected tribes, villages and remote areas. That causes a lot of loss of effectiveness. The large towns have power and (some) money. Their churches there can soon become self-sufficient. Mission workers teach the new churches how to evangelize effectively and become independent from missionary help.

 

People from villages and different minority groups come to the city in search of work. Without the social control of their village, they are much more open to change. Many among them may become new believers. When they return home, they can pass on the Gospel to their environment better than anyone else. They speak the local dialect or tribal language and fit into the local culture. Every new believer becomes then a key to open the door of his own community.

 

There is a great advantage in working with local workers. They have the nationality of the country (so they cannot be deported), speak the language, know the customs and so on. A foreigner has to deal with a lot of bureaucracy and legal complications. He is most effective as a trainer and teacher. But he is very vulnerable when he becomes the focal point of a church or churches, especially in times of persecution.

 

The apostle Paul began his evangelistic work in synagogues. There, many found faith in Christ. Besides the Hellenistic Jews (who were more messianic oriented than the Pharisees) we found at that time many proselytes and pagan God-believers in the synagogues. Those last two groups formed the core of a new church. He then used them to reach the other non-Jews.

 

A good vision for church and mission must be: clear, simple and applicable to everyone. Mission must aim at winning the masses. Church and mission must do everything possible to develop a clear vision. What do we want to achieve? How? By whom? How expensive is it? How long does this take? A good vision answers these and other questions.

 

A clear vision and a well-thought-through strategy are often lacking. That's like building a house without calculating the expenses first. That will become a failure. A lot of missionary work is clumsy work. Missions should set clear, measurable goals.

 

Advises for missionary organizations and churches with missionaries

* Don't hire anyone as a career missionary who doesn't plan to stay abroad for at least ten years. (Otherwise you will lose someone in whom a lot of money has been invested before he is effective).

* Give preference to people who are married to someone from the receiving country.

* Do not hire anyone who has not made a clear contribution to the church and evangelization in his own country. (If you can't play football here, you can't play elsewhere either.)

* Do not provide fixed job descriptions, but principles.

* Concentrate on basic tasks (preaching, evangelism, grassroots Bible education, Bible distribution/translation).

* Do not classify social and welfare tasks as missions. They are not, no matter how much they are necessary. Place them in an aid organization. This will also be easier in many countries in connection with obtaining a permanent visa and work permit.

* Do not accept a worker who is merely skilled, but not an evangelist. This gives the wrong impression, namely that the proclamation of the Gospel is not really important.

* Anyone who is not effective must be replaced quickly.

* Send out people who quickly fraternize with the local population and use and respect their language and culture.

* Begin your mission training with an internship abroad. This is more effective than having someone first undergo an expensive education. First of all: test their effectiveness, gifts and adaptability.

* Select future missionaries from those who demonstrate an ability to do good work abroad and in specifically in other cultures.

* If you want to coach missionaries, let it be done by someone who is present on the field, including local Christians. The missionary office is too far…

* Do not send anyone as a professional (specialized) missionary who takes work off the hands of local believers. The local believers need to be put to work at the first place and they are also cheaper.

* Missionaries must demonstrate that they know and subscribe to the teachings of their church. There is no room for people with different ideas. Then you create problems.

* Work primarily with volunteers.

* Establish ties with economic and educational organizations where ‘your people’ can work. They can then free up a large part of their time for evangelism and Bible teaching, but many will be completely or mainly financially independent. (The missionary organization becomes then an international employment agency!)

* Only send out specialists if no local workers are available for their job.

* Every missionary is not only a preacher, but also a trainer; he demonstrates, explains, trains, engages and makes himself redundant.

* Country after country is closing to traditional missions, although the number of expatriates is increasing. The future missionary is an expert exercising his work abroad, who is simultaneously linked to a missionary band.

* Encourage believers to set up businesses in poor countries, independent of church and missions. Then you don't have to build a hospital or school; people will be able to pay for it themselves.

* Set clear goals. Workers who do not achieve their goal (without sufficient reason) are of no use.

* Every believer who goes abroad is a missionary - and can be coached by 'the mission', even if his daily work is sports, education, business, relief work, etc.

* Never enter into commitments that make local believers financially or spiritually lifelong dependent on 'the mission'.

* Understand that your task is enabling the workers to do their work, not to command them. You are serving them.

 

The mission board

There is a problem at the administrative level. What is a mission board for? To lead the work in 'the field'? That is the assumption of many mission organizations and church mission deputies. They are used to the static administrative structure of a church denomination or they imitate the structure of companies headed by a board of directors. But a static structure is very different from the dynamics that a mission team requires.

 

The board must recognize the decision-making power of the team on the field. Her job consists of six things:

1. providing information back and forth;
2. raising and forwarding money and checking the expenditures afterwards (did this happen as agreed and in an orderly manner?)
3. monitoring the way of life and teachings of the workers (often in consultation with partners in the receiving countries)
4. intervening in the event of disagreement in the team or looking for a replacement if someone leaves
5. finding new missionary candidates, including parttime workers and volunteers.
6. Carrying out complex tasks such as assistance with legal matters or responding to illness and arranging medical assistance.

 

But never forget: the daily decisions are taken by the missionary team, not by bureaucrats in an office. Decisions about strategy and work (not the content of faith) are made on the spot.

 

It's like the task of a driver. He makes his own decisions, but within a given framework. It is impossible for the management of a company to take over the countless daily decisions of the driver in traffic.

 

The management of a mission team is not up to the churches on the mission field. That is a misconception that emerged in the second half of the twenty-first century. The administration of the mission was then placed in the hands of synods and mission boards in the receiving country. But what do church authorities know about the needs on the field? Few administrators have sufficient feeling for the strategies of mission and evangelization, not even in their own country. It is a disaster to let missionaries be led by them. You send a spiritual leader from your own country to another country and he then becomes an errand boy...

 

The person who is sent out, or who makes his own way abroad, has an apostolic task. He can only fulfill it properly with a great degree of freedom. Even if he is working with local churches, he should be free to take his own decisions. You cannot tie him to a string. Mission workers and teams know their environment well and also their own methodology and possibilities. Outsiders cannot adequately assess this. You must give experts the freedom to work according to their own insights, otherwise you will frustrate them.

 

Whoever has the money has the power. That applies almost everywhere. Whoever has the money gives the instructions. That is why it is better not to entrust authority over mission money to administrations in the mother country. Decentralize! Give this task in the hands of the missionaries. It's their money, given for their work. The authorities in the motherland can control the expenditures but cannot govern through money. (Of course, if money has been allocated for a specific purpose, the mission team must also respect that. That is the requirement of transparency that applies everywhere.)

 

Is the mission office the missionary's "boss," or is she his servant? Here we see an important difference with the New Testament. There the apostles, or better: the apostolic teams, made the decisions. In many mission organizations, the missionary is the executive officer and the mission board has the actual leadership. Missionaries are often managers rather than leaders. That is a big weakness. The leader takes the lead and does not let others determine his goals. Who guides the missionary in his daily decisions? Not the people who are on the sidelines, right?

 

Missionaries now usually have two bosses: the mission board in the home country and the church of the receiving country. That is too complicated. Neither one, nor the other is their boss. If either of them is spiritually asleep, or not so much interested in evangelism, or has deviated from the Bible, this severely paralyzes the effectiveness of missionary work. We must free mission teams from that tutelage.

 

Epilogue

I am in favor of some profound changes in our missionary practices. We should decentralize at a maximum. Things can and must be done differently, cheaper and more effectively. Now all that is needed is courage from missionaries and missionary organizations!

 

 Abram Krol

7 maart 2023