The Status of Missions
 |
| Enjoying the Summer so far...school is just around the corner! |
Here goes...
What is the goal of today's missions? In decades past, the mindset of the church was pretty much that the needs were so great in some places in the world that anyone who was willing and able should go there to help. Build a house for someone. Hold an orphan. Dig a well. Anything, really, would help in these places because the people were so desperate that any help (well-intentioned help, at least) would no doubt do some good. They need and we have, so we should ‘go’ and give.
But there was also of course a strong spiritual element that was the driving force for these mission efforts too. A heavy emphasis was placed on the need to preach the
Gospel and ‘save’ as many people as possible. So naturally, one of the primary
measurable outcomes for most mission efforts was how many ‘decisions
for Christ’ were tallied. It was a reasonable strategy - if you help people in
their area of greatest need (physical poverty), they are more open to hearing
the message you have to share. Originally, this resulted in a small (but very influential) number of people/families who would sell everything and move
somewhere to live out their years carrying out this mission.
In more recent decades however, this effort also began to
include many short-term missionaries who would sign up to travel to these
places for a couple of weeks to do some physical labor or fix things that were
broken, or to play with kids or care for babies, such that by doing so they would hopefully create an
opportunity to ‘share the Gospel’. With this short-term model, the idea of
doing mission work became much more doable for people, so many more started
wanting to ‘go’.
Really, with this much more doable model, it’s no mystery why
the number of American Christians going on missions trips has skyrocketed in
the past few decades. It’s an attractive prospect, especially for those with a
bit of a travel bug. It allows for a very practical way of acting out your faith, but you don’t have to quit your job, sell
your stuff and pack your belongings in a coffin never to be seen again in order
to participate.
If you look around at all the trips going out from churches
and other groups this Summer, you’d probably say that this is a good
description of the status of today's mission efforts. But if you look a little
deeper beneath the surface, I think you’ll see that actually, a shift is
beginning to occur. Sort of. Maybe better put, there’s an undercurrent of
change that I think will soon begin to creep to the surface in the years ahead.
I’ve heard it said a number of times that the USA generally
trails European social trends by about 20-25 years, so it makes sense that a
window into our future here on this side of the pond might be seen by looking
at today’s Europe. Right now, the mission efforts coming out of Europe (primarily England, Holland and Germany) certainly look different from those in the US. At the start, there are far
fewer people involved in missions in Europe, and the funding going towards
missions is substantially less than the proportional comparison with the US.
But beyond these negative impacts of secularization, we would be remiss to not also look at some of the programmatic differences too, many of which we might do
well to learn from.
Here in the US, while there are still plenty of mission
trips going out that look a lot like some of what I’ve mentioned, there has
definitely been a shift in the overall strategic thinking going into missions.
Words like ‘appropriate’, and ‘sustainable’, and ‘buy-in’, and ‘discipleship’ are
all coming to the foreground. Christians are now beginning to look past the
immediate help and drive to get people ‘saved’ that past mission efforts have
focused on, and instead are beginning to think more about the long-term effects
and impact missions have on the intended recipients. To that end, people who
donate to missions are starting to ask deeper and bigger picture questions as
well.
“Are the efforts worth the money we’re donating?” “Has any
real change been achieved after the years of work?” “What is the best way to
approach missions given what has been learned through the years of efforts?” Or
on a more practical level, “What happens when the house the mission team built
needs repairs?” “When the pump for the well they dug breaks, who fixes it? And
who pays for the fix?” And what about those conversions – do we just rely on
the Holy Spirit to take over after the team leaves? I’ve heard it said that
Africa has been saved 3 times over if you tally up all the mission trip reports
– so are some of those conversions not sticking?
Back in Europe, these questions have led to a much different
mindset and approach. Unfortunately, the rapidly declining numbers of the
European church in recent times have severely undercut the impact these changes
in strategic approach might have had on the global mission effort. The small
Christian community that does remain, however, is I believe a step ahead of us
in their strategic thinking and approach to missions. Before I get accused of
being a Europhile, I should point out that the long list of mistakes made in
centuries past by Christian Europeans is a big reason why they’re now ahead of us –
basically, they started long before we did and have learned many lessons along the way (colonialism, etc.). But they also have a greater sense of the world around them, so these issues often have much more of an air of necessity in Europe than they do here in America (I realize I’m making sweeping
generalizations here!).
But nonetheless, the bar is being raised on both sides of
the Atlantic for what constitutes ‘good mission’ and what is regarded as
‘ineffective mission’, and I think it’s a really good thing. In fact, if we at
EMI weren’t charting a new path ahead in response to what is being learned, I
would have left this ministry by now. Speaking very plainly, these changes mostly impact our old model of focusing on short
term EMI volunteers and teams.
Given what's been learned, this model had to be adjusted, with a much heavier importance now placed on the longer term impact that on-the-ground,
life-on-life relationships and long-term partnerships can have. And while our short term teams are still
an effective means to a certain end, we have significantly altered and narrowed the ‘end’
goal of those trips, using them for what they are most helpful in achieving:
helping ministries strategize for the future, master planning and surveying
their land, and giving them the concept-level designs they need to move forward
to the next step in building their ministry. A natural byproduct of these changes is that the bar for EMI being willing to help on a project has been raised, such that we want to see that the ministries we're working with are looking at the changing world of missions too and seeing what changes they might need to make.
To me, this 'climate change' for missions is exciting because it is a result of a natural maturing process I think God always brings us through regardless of what it is we're doing. This is of course true in our personal lives, but I think it's also true in the life of the Global
Church throughout history, where if we listen with humility and follow His leading, we’ll be able to see our shortcomings and be able to work towards becoming more and more effective in whatever it is He calls us to do in this
life. As soon as we start to think we have things all figured out, I think we've taken the first step towards becoming obsolete.
Decades ago, there was a great need for awareness in
missions, so the most effective way to achieve that was for more people to go
see it for themselves. But now that so many have gone and are aware, the need
is lessening for more to go, and instead it’s time to think more about
maximizing the impact of those who do still need to go, but to consolidate the resources to make sure the most needed and effective efforts are supported. So what does that look like for EMI?
Actually, this conversation is one that began over a decade
ago when we launched our first field office. But in more recent times, we’ve
been digging deep on this subject here at EMI for the past 3-4 years. Though
EMI has been around for 34 years now, the direction we’re heading is not the
same as it used to be. We have walked and are walking the path I’m talking
about, and as I’ve alluded to above, we’re shifting away from the model of
‘mobilizing’ more and more people towards the model of 'planting' more and more
people overseas for the long-term.
But beyond that, we’re also shedding our tendency to act out
of a ‘West to the rest’ mentality (whether intended or not), and instead
inviting the people we’re serving into the organization – not just to partner
with us (though that’s certainly still a valid goal too), but rather to
actually join with us and become a part of the ‘helping’ side of the equation
too. Again, the goal is long-term success, and that takes buy-in, so what
better way to achieve buy-in that to equip and empower the recipients to also
become the givers?
We also realize that just sending anyone to do anything
isn’t quite as effective as sending people with specific
skills/education/experience to offer, both in practice and in mentorship. So
whether you’re a teacher, a doctor, a lawyer, a policeman, or yes, an engineer,
the more training and experience you have to offer the more effective and
beneficial the help you give will be. The developing world is rapidly
developing, and there are millions of competent and capable people in these
places who merely lack opportunity to practice their trade. If we can go over
and provide that opportunity, we might just empower people to help themselves –
something that many would argue is the most sustainable and impactful way there is to
help others.
Adjustments are also being made to the spiritual side of
missions too. I think this probably gets into a topic that could be discussed
by people a lot more educated on the topic than me. But the focus on
‘conversion’ is being shifted towards the idea of discipleship. The desire to
‘get people across the finish line’ is being viewed through a different lens that values growth along the way. The
concept of people making a life altering decision in a short period of time
based on relationships built over a few days has proven to not be the most effective
path to long term change in the lives of people.
Instead, if we view a person’s spiritual journey as being a
sort of line of continuum (think of that number line hanging on the wall back
in 1st grade ), the goal has become more about moving people from
wherever they are up one or two notches on the line – so if they already
profess to have faith, it’s about helping them grow to a deeper understanding
in that faith. And if they don’t yet have faith, perhaps we can show them a
glimpse of what a faith-filled life looks like to move them up a notch on the
line too.
And let’s not forget,
we too need to be aware that we are on that continuum as well, and we should be
looking at ways in which our mission work can help us grow up our own spiritual
number line. Actually, as it relates to missions, we should come as
co-learners, and not assume that others are the only or even primary
beneficiary of the mission experience. In fact, if the projections are correct,
in the next 15 years the majority of the Christian church will be located in
the ‘Global South’. Imagine what missions will look like when teams from the
African or Latin American church start arriving in Europe and America? Well
guess what, it’s already happening!
A good way to sum up the future direction of missions as I
see it is this (and it’s not original): ‘all people to all people’. We have to
begin to see ourselves as having needs too, and seeing the value that those
we’re trying to give a hand up to can add to our lives and knowledge and faith.
Once we who are ‘going’ have that kind of humility, I think real and lasting
impact will begin to be realized by the global mission effort – both for them
and for us (and yes, for Europe too, since they’re my secret favorites).
If you made it to the end of this, I'm impressed!
Comments