What They Want

Brigada
Back Issues -- Submit an item -- Search -- Subscribe -- Sponsor -- Site Map -- Promote Brigada -- Evangelism -- About Brigada

The following emails came in as a result of editorials in the "Back Page" of Brigada dealing with "What do local churches want" and "What do missionaries want". We've reprinted the original editorials below, together with several responses that came in afterward (about 16 pages full!). We've removed some telltale clues about identities (like, names for instance :-) ), but otherwise, posted the responses as is.

Thanks for the great feedback! ---

THE BACKPAGE: WHAT DO CHURCHES WANT? (originally appeared in July 1st Brigada Today) -- Lately I've been wondering... what do local churches want back out of missions? Over the past 27 years in this business, I have detected a slight shift in motives among certain kinds of churches. For example, these days I seem to hear more about local churches wanting to have a role in visiting and advising their workers overseas. Maybe 25 years ago, some lay people hadn't traveled as much, so they wouldn't have presumed to be advisors. And maybe, with the advent of the "megachurch" (congregations of 1,000 or more members), there's a greater sense of responsibility to give back something to the mission field -- besides a monthly check. What's more, over that same time period, several news stories have emerged which perhaps have given way to doubts about the use of funds designated for foreign outreach and nonprofit use. We hear a whole lot more of the stories about the certain humanitarian aid organizations refitting administrative offices with newer fax machines . . . and less about troubleshooting the urgent flood, earthquake, or fire in whose name the gift was donated. So, in response, perhaps local churches want to create a gentle accountability via their onsite visit. And beyond all this, the short-term missions movement, which began in earnest in the 70s and 80s, is now producing a generation of leaders who aren't a bit shy about visiting the bush. Their passport is already full of stamps from multiple continents.

What's your opinion? Want to register your thoughts? Jot a note to this email address: brigada-feedback@googlegroups.com You won't have to join the group or register in any way. Your feedback can even be anonymous, if you desire.

We probably need to delve deeper into this question of "what churches want"... because it's a financial jungle out there.

Doug

---

THE BACKPAGE: WHAT DO MISSIONARIES WANT? (originally appeared in July 8th Brigada Today) -- In the last edition of Brigada Today, we posed the question, "what do churches want?" We explored the possibility that some congregations might have changed a bit over the past few decades in what they're hoping to "get back" out of their mission support.

Likewise, it feels to me that today's onsite workers are different too. Many still want deep teammate relationships, good solid direction and accountability, along with a *cause* into which they can pour their lives. I'm noticing... it doesn't have to be a cause with global consequences. Many of today's workers seem comfortable with pouring their lives into a relatively small group of people. Today's new generation of missionaries don't seem motivated primarily by the quest of big salaries. In fact, as long as their needs are met, big money seems more and more hollow to them.

A quarter of a century ago, workers would sometimes commit to a particular field sight unseen. Remember your missions history lessons? In William Carey's time, it wasn't uncommon that workers would pack extra clothes in their own coffins when they sailed to their newly embraced far-flung fields. Nowadays, I'm not sure some ever even *leave* our homelands. Because of the immediacy of instant messaging and cell phones (not to mention satellite phones), some are able to stay in close touch with relatives and friends back home (oh -- and supporters too :-) ). As a result, they never experience a true "leave-taking" ... nor the accompanying adaptation.

At the same time, some want more connectivity with home. Some are much more homesick than "E.T." ("E.T. phone home.") Many want to see their field in advance, before they commit. And *sooo* many are unwilling to make more than a one- or two-year commitment. Sometimes it feels as if this generation of workers is less prepared in Greek and exegesis, less knowledgeable in the history of missions and cultural anthropology, and less likely to *want* to learn any of those subjects. Instead, they seem to want to "dive in" much more quickly into deep-seated relationships and ministry. This can be both a positive and a negative, depending on the circumstances.

How 'bout you? What's your opinion? Want to register your thoughts? Jot a note to this email address: brigada-feedback@googlegroups.com You won't have to join the group or register in any way. Your feedback can even be anonymous, if you desire.

As was the case with the previous question, we probably need to delve deeper into "what missionaries want"... because many literally *are* working in a jungle out there.

Doug

---

Doug, I reply to your question from the standpoint of almost twenty years as a direct support missionary, over ten as a member of a local church missions committee, about ten as a church elder, and eight as a professor of missions. Frankly, I do not think churches know exactly what it is they want, and they would be thankful for any help in figuring it out. But in general, they want a responsible involvement in what God is doing around the world. They have been scolded for just throwing money, and they know they need to pray faithfully. They also have some vague idea of "keeping in touch" and "encouraging" their missionaries, but often feel inadequate to do these with any competence. Churches seem to be crying, "How can those-who-care-but-are-not-called-to-go be a blessing to world missions? Once we have allocated all the mission giving that our budget allows, do we just sit back and do nothing?" The more insightful churches seem to know by intuition that there is no one stock answer to this question. They do not need to read the latest book or follow some proven program. Because every mission has its unique qualities and needs and because every missionary is certainly a "peculiar person" (in the best sense of the term), churches must get to know their missionaries individually and personally in order to be a blessing to them. I remember when missionaries feared that if their supporters really got to know them well, then the churches would withdraw their support. I hope those days are gone forever. During my first term on the field, I was sternly reprimanded for suggesting that we should notify the churches back home so that they could pray about a crisis we were facing among the national Christians. I was assured that supporting churches could not understand what we were dealing with; they would simply conclude that we were incompetent and call us all back home. But how could they understand our situation if we refused to communicate with them? And without their prayer support for specific challenges, we probably were incompetent. The solution, of course, was not for supporting churches to call us home, but for them to join us in the battle through fervent prayer and wise counsel. And that may be the answer to your question: churches want to be a help and a blessing to missionaries who face the tough challenges of bringing the God's Word to the world. If I haven't lost you yet, let me try your patience a bit further with a related warning to the missionary community: Beware that you do not neglect your love for and responsibility to sending churches back home. You not only have a call to minister to the unreached or to nurture the younger churches. You also are called to involve mature, sending churches in world evangelism. Let me explain. Long ago, I read an article asking churches not to treat their missionaries like beggars. Well, if we don't want to be treated like a beggar, we must quit acting like beggars! I would like to think that missions has moved beyond this, but I am afraid that this caution is still needed. We must quit communicating by our tone of voice and body language that we really don't want to be there talking to supporting churches about God's work in the world; we would rather be halfway around the globe doing "important" work. That attitude may seem noble to some, but it simply tells the church that we don't have enough love to include them and their needs in our agenda; we just want to get their money and get on our way. We may also convey the attitude that we hope they are impressed with our powerpoint demonstration, but we don't really want them to get to know us as persons (as noted above). Again, we don't want their interference in our lives (How could they understand our needs?); we just want them to give us some money and then leave us alone. No wonder they treat us like a beggar! Too often I hear comments about support-raising as if it were a cousin to the plague, and quite frankly, I felt that way when God first called me to missions. I would get physically ill at the thought of asking churches for support. But God enabled me to see support raising as an opportunity to minister to established churches, to help them understand the heart of God, and to show them what He is doing throughout this lost and dying world and what else needs to be done. Now that is an assignment that anyone should get excited about. But most importantly, this understanding helps the church see what she can and should be doing to participate in God's global mission. They clearly see how excited I am about my call, but also how weak and vulnerable I am and how much I need their encouragement, prayer support and nurture if I am going to serve the King effectively. One final point: To some, accountability relates only to use of money, but in recent years we hear it applied to various areas of discipleship. Do we really feel that missionaries are so noble that they do not need accountability in their spiritual journeys? And is it only some mission organization that can nurture these spiritual needs? Or can this be done as well (perhaps better?) by mature saints in sending congregations? What do churches want from their missionaries? Perhaps just the opportunity to serve God's Kingdom by ministering to the missionaries in meaningful ways that all Children of God need throughout their lives.

---

As someone who has served as both a missionary and pastor I have learned to think both ways and how both think. One thing that I know is happening is this: Phil. 4:15. Paul said to the one church we know of that supported him regularly, "No church shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving but you alone." Paul understood that a giving and receiving relationship existed between him and the churches. It was much more than them giiving him money. He gave to them and he received from them. They gave to him, and they received from him. I am serving today in a very healthy relationship with many churches and individuals, almost like an "adjunct teacher/missions staff" for many congregations who call on me for a variety of reasons. I take their pastors with me on missions trips, their laypeople as well, I even help perform weddings in some of the churches and teach seminars on different subjects. I answer their calls and give advice regarding missions, evangelism and other matters. And I look to include their churches in any way I can with what I am doing in missions. A lot of this is happening, and I think it is scriptural and great. Our ministry is now providing a wide range of missions consulting services to congregations and individuals and more are getting the missions "bug."

Blessings in His name, ...

---

Dear Brigada,

I found your note about the local church wanting to visit and advise the field missionary a bit... well, dated. What you wrote was true in the mid-90's to the early 2000's.

The NEW reality is that congregations are reluctant to support and send missionaries out... unless they are essentially 'remote staff' of their church and work. Missionaries working for para-church organizations are struggling to find ANYONE to support them. Meanwhile, the churches are expending a huge amount of their 'mission budget' on short-term trips for their congregants... and less on field missionaries. Many of the 'sent' missionaries from the large churches are essentially expected to establish a place where their congregants can come (in large numbers) for a short-term mission experience... Then, to make things more difficult, there are a large number of WELL TRAVELED people (many pastoral leaders) going out to 'advise', when they have little to no mission experience outside of short-term trips. This causes immediate friction and disparity with long-term workers: 100-yard dash -vs- 20 K marathon mentalities...

The era of McMission is here!

.... ---

Doug,

Great subject in this week's Brigada Today. I am a missions minister for a church of 1200 and have served as a missionary for 8 years myself.

You are right on with your comments. A much higher level of accountability is developing in missions today, and it is probably needed.

Twenty or thirty years ago, it was much more expensive, troublesome, and perhaps even dangerous to travel outside the country. As a missionary in the late 80s and early 90s, I received two visits from my sponsoring church, both near the end of my tenure. But the world has changed, many more people travel much more often. Costs have gone down, and it is not nearly so difficult to go to most places. It is much easier for a missionary to come and go, which raises the need for greater accountability, and the church is responding to that need.

For the most part, I believe the trend to making more frequent field visits to the mission points is good. People need accountability, and they need to know that the sponsoring church and other supporters care about the missionary and the population they are trying to reach. The missionaries I work with (about 14) generally welcome the extra attention.

The downside is if a sponsoring church without adequate expertise in missions tries to micromanage the missionary. However, as you mentioned, more and more people have cross-cultural experience and/or are willing to learn.

Missionaries are better prepared these days and churches are doing a better job of investigating missionaries, proposed target fields, methodologies, and building accountability. These are good developments.

Brigada is a great service. Thanks for what you do!

...

---

I am a short term (1-3 Year) candidate with Mission to the World (PCA) that has just began itinerating in hopes to be on the field by Feb. 2007. There is definitely a shift to churches wanting to be more personally involved. Our organization encourages misssionaries to promote visits from church groups as a way to get them even more firmly commited to prayer and financial support. I think the idea of becoming a "global Christian" is much easier these days with instant world wide communication and the ease of international travel.

Another trend that may or may not be connected to this is the tendancy for later marriages and longer singleness among the general popluation and especially in churches. I myself will be 28 and single when I get to the field. Many of my friends and acquaintances have particpated in 2-4 week trips with their churches, or other missions organizations, and even longer stints because they are older, unencumbered by responsibilities and interested in global issues. Short term service, especially, is conducive to missionary service while you are still single. These people then return to their churches and act as a very personal and practical ambassador for missions to their congregations.

.... ---

Dear Doug,

My impression from our local church has been....indeed visit. Primarily to be an encouragement to the guy in the trenches.

In one case we wanted to see how effective the missionary was. Accountability.

In another, we were asked to come for encouragement and so we could see firsthand some of the struggles he faces...and I'd surmise, to increase our support.

In the third case 2 of us on 4 separate occasions have gone to Cambodia to teach and help build a school. The input was for 2+ weeks at a time for a total of about 12 man-weeks. We both taught and helped and returned with a greater commitment to that particular ministry.

Our church was encouraged in this visiting by the missionaries themselves as opposed to our desire to insert our view or to "see what's going on'. I found personally that it is very hard to determine some of the hidden dynamics of a ministry because the language barrier hides some of them. Unless one is very astute, he does not even know what questions to ask.

...

---

Dear Fellow Pilgrims,

In answer to your question - "Accountability". That is exactly what churches want and in reality should want. There are certainly many factors that have gone into this shift that you mentioned in the July 1 newsletter. Not the least of these were the Jimmy Swaggert(sp) and Jim Bakker debacles in the 80's (proof that God can use any situation to His glory). Accountability is a good thing and should be embraced by the field as long as it is carried out Biblically and without any ulterior motives. This is not to say that a trip by a local church pastor cannot have more than one objective. Whenever a pastor or even lay leader visits from the sending church he or she should not only evaluate the work, but also encourage the worker(s). The difficulties arrive when communication is unclear about the purpose or purposes of a visit. We all need to work towards good communication between the field and the senders.

In Him,

...

---

I am a pastor of a very small church ...

People in our churches seemed to lose interest in missions as our denomination was asking for money but not helping us keep in touch with one or two missionaries personally. Then the shift to short term volunteer missions. Our mission agency developed and still maintains a ministry for short term missions. A lot of our people began to give to a friend in the congregation who would leave to a foreign land, help build a church, school, or some other quick project with a team of about 25 other[s] ...and then include a short holiday with the missionary and return 2 or 3 weeks later with glowing reports complete with pictures of what was done with the money they raised.

For 7 years I served a church of about 100 in a village of about 2,000. We had two high profile missionaries as members of our congregation. That congregation was well informed. When we asked our missionary ... about short term missions he asked for his pastor (me!) to come. ...That changed our lives. I began to view people of other nations as equals – not someone who needed my sympathy and our gospel! (You know what I mean?)

After that I served for 7 years in [a] multi cultural city .... When we talked about our missionaries in certain countries, we probably had a native from that country worshipping with us! What a joy as a new understanding of missions developed. Missions took on a new meaning as we realized the need for missions right at our own door-step in Montreal as well as the need for missionaries to the home country our fellow parishioner.

I have since visited ...Africa. He showed me his home town and I saw through his eyes the overwhelming need of the churches [there] as they struggle to understand what is means to live in a society now free after 4 decades of war.

So my evaluation of the shift in what churches expect from missionaries is a new balance. We need the help and support of missionaries as they need us to support them. Our support needs to be much more than financial; but emotional and spiritual.

I hope you can make sense of my ramblings.

.... ---

I am a missionary working in Russia, and I am finding more and more of my supporting churches want more and more things. This year more churches than ever have asked for annual or even quarterly reports that include goals and progress towards reaching those goals. That is good accountability, but also takes a lot of time from ministry to fill out reports when each church has its own set of questions and expectations. Most of the information they ask for could be found in our monthly newsletters. The fact that the church mission contact people ask for it makes us wonder if they have read our newsletters. This year we have also been asked to provide short videos of our ministry that could be used in church services. No one offered to provide us with a video camcorder. One church asked us to provide a video of our ministry suitable for motivating children to consider a call to missions. I train future pastors in a Bible School setting, and for the life of me cannot figure out how to present that ministry in a way that would motivate children to consider career missions.

We also find that more churches want to support missionaries who can provide them with opportunities to send short term teams to the mission field. This can be both good and helpful, but it can also be a strong negative. More and more the churches do not want just work projects. They want to have their people involved in direct people ministry, but they also want the trip to be at the time of year and for the length of time that is most convenient for them. This is extremely difficult to arrange because of differences in schedules, need for interpreters, and lack of cultural understanding.

From a missionary's viewpoint, it would be helpful to understand what the churches are really looking for. Are they seeing people becoming more involved in supporting missionaries, or being called to vocational missions as a result of these trips? Or are the short term trip participants just wanting to make more short term trips? Our experience is that for the vast majority of participants, it is only the latter. When one participant was asked to help raise support for a national missionary in the country where he had participated in a short-term project he replied, "I cannot do that. It is all I can do to raise my own support for my next trip."

Unfortunately this means that increasingly larger amounts of church missions dollars go to short term trips with increasingly less dollars available for vocational missionaries. It is not unusual for the short-term participants to raise some funds to help support their "ministry project" on the field. But often that amount is no more than 10% of the entire cost of their trip. This means that a typical trip costing $2,000 of the church mission budget only produces $200 of ministry money for the field.

Four years ago one "cutting edge" church proudly told me that their entire missions program was now short-term trips. They were totally oblivious to the fact that by not supporting vocational missionaries at all, they were taking advantage of those who did provide the support for those missionaries. Without those long-term people, they could not make their short term trips. Upon returning to the US after a short-term trip, one participant told his supporters that he did not understand why long-term missionaries were needed since he and his short-term team were able to accomplish more in two weeks than the long-term people did in a whole year. The reality was that the long-term missionaries set up their whole trip with people with whom they had been working for years, and the short-term team was able to participate in reaping the harvest. Instead of understanding this, the short-term team felt like they had "done it all" and the long-termers were not even necessary! The truth was that the long-termers did not really need the short-termers at all. They had saved the harvest time (a big conference) for when the short-termers were present so that they could feel a part of the ministry.

What is the answer? Churches need to look at short term missions realistically. Is more really better? They need to be challenged to think about short-term mission trips in a biblical and strategic way. Will these trips accomplish a valid great commission purpose? Or will they simply provide the illusion of success that makes people want to take more trips without becoming involved in the overall purpose of fulfilling the great commission in this generation? Is it valid to choose to support missionaries based on their ability to provide short-term trips for their congregants? Will experiencing another language and culture automatically make people more missions minded? Will a proposed mission trip truly help the missionary and/or local church on the mission field with their ongoing ministry, or will the major beneficiaries be the people on the short-term team?

---

As a full time missionary now for more than a decade, what I really want in the field where I serve is PEOPLE! It's hard to recruit when you are sharing the Gospel 24/7 and mission organisation head quarters, though they want to help, are back in the US so don't truely "get" what the missionary is facing or needs. Add to that, if the field isn't "glamerous" or of high profile, there isn't the same interest or desire from prospective missionary candidates.

So, what do I really want? The Church and individual Christians to LOOK at the mission field, all over the world. Talk to mission boards and organisations (you can "chase" them, they can't make the first contact) and really ask the hard questions to find out what's going on and what you can do to meet the need.

Oh, and if you've got a spare $1000 there's this reaaly great guy serving on the mission field . . . !

...

--- do agree with your assessment. Also want to plead for a sense of continuing preparation as vital so that deepening understanding of culture, self and God can work in harmony. Otherwise the jumping into in depth relationships that you describe, together with the feeling that because we are first world `we know´ and the host culture doesn´t can land missionaries into messy situations burn out and mutual damage. Having a wise ear available from experienced but non judgemental missionaries can be so vital but can be pretty rare. Missionaries feel obliged to put on a pretty face for leaders and colleagues rather than feel able to share. It´s tough out there! ---

I've read this artilve with much interest, though I don't fully agree with all of your findings. True the missionaries today have more "access" to the outside world, but I don't think that mean's that they don't "leave" home or adapt. I've was in missions pre-email, internet and cellphones and am still in missions with this technology (and changed field location) and I don't think it has had much effect on adaptation. If anything, having some connection with supporters and my home church has given me more of a feeling of team work behind me and encouraged me to jump into my new culture.

True, "field scouting" is on the rise. Did it myself and am very glad I did. They days or 1 or 2 missionaries to an entire people group are gone. It is a team effort now. My quest wasn't so much to find the right location, but a team I could work with. I am looking at long-term assignment (10+ years) and felt it would be wise to find a team that I could work with. With the ease of international travel, it seems a "no-brainer" to check thing out first.

Government doesn't make it easy, either. In much of the world, missionaries can't just go into a country and never leave. Visa hassles are overwhelming and support from home is a must. On a missionary visa one cannot work, therefore cannot earn money in this way, so must stay in contact with the homeland. Often they cannot own property either, in order to live off the land... and if they could, the masses aren't in the country anymore, they're in 20+ story high rises in cities of 1+ million people.

And I think the face or missions "ministry" has changed. True, many missionaries (at least in my mission) don't have Bible college degrees, but that doesn't mean they aren't prepared. Specialized training in ministry specific areas (i.e. YWAM's University of the Nations) has afford us to gain the training we need without spending exhobitant amounts of money and time that we don't have. Missionaries aren't just dealing with Evangelism, Church Planting, and Medical Missions anymore. We're setting up businesses, teaching English, and working in the arts.

I agree that it is a whole new world. I was just talking about some of this with a friend the other day, using the William Carey example of the difference in sacrifices. Not only can we be anywhere in the world in 24 hours, and, as you mentioned, talk to our board and supporters through Skype and email, but before long, many missionaries from the west (and beyond) won't even have to learn a new language as English over takes the world. (Still not sure how I feel about that... and I'm an ESL teacher!)

Well, that's my 2 cents. It is a jungle out here. Thanks for asking these questions and getting everyone thinking. Awareness is so vital as it leads to prayer!

God bless! ...

---

In our case, connectivity with home has been a good thing. For us, connectivity had been accomplished via email, internet chat, and VOIP (VOIP is the best).

Connectivity helps keep the support base informed and involved. Connectivity also allows my wife to have continuing involvement in the lives of her sisters. For the two younger sisters, that has been especially beneficial to them.

Could we have done this for 10 years minus the connectivity? I guess we would have done what was necessary, but connectivity has been a blessing--for sure!

We arrived on the field (Taiwan) in 1995 to discover that we were unusual. Unusual in the sense the we were appointed as career missionaries without ever having served in a short-term capacity. Now, our agency (IMB,SBC) will not appoint anyone to career unless they first serve a 2~3 term on the field.

I think we doing okay in the process of adapting to life in Taiwan. The support system for missionaries in Taiwan (e.g., MK school system) has been a plus in helping us adapt. Another plus point is we live in Taipei--large modern, clean, and full of high tech infrastructure. (The multiple Starbucks location don't hurt!)

At this point I think that if we ever had to return to the USA to live and work we would experience reverse culture shock, and we would need to process the adaptation thing all over again.

Peace, ....

---

Doug,

When I was in high school, I visited a Christian camp. With practically non-existent swimming abilities, I took a dive in the pool without testing the depth. I skinned my forehead, nose, chin, and chest. I was extremely blessed that I did not break my neck or nose. Only the Lord's grace kept me from permanent damage due to my stupidity.

The trends today follow my high-school experience. People want to jump in with little preparation and minimal commitment. And it often spells disaster for them, for their supporters, for the work on the field.

One couple decided they were going to serve in Russia. They raised funds, got a big send-off, made big news ... and were back in the U.S. within six months because they couldn't hack it. (But nobody wanted to publish that.) They were as irresponsible as was I to dive in the camp pool unprepared.

The Lord is sovereign and will use even defective efforts for his Kingdom, but we fool ourselves if we think we are going to be truly effective instruments for him when impatience, laziness, and the desire for immediate gratification lead us to go to the field lacking the basic tools for cross-cultural evangelism.

Modern-day missions are leaving little to show for their efforts. We are of all men most self-deceived when we think we can ignore language and culture and still preach a gospel that will ressonate with other people groups. The old saw that people are the same everywhere has just enough truth in it to salve our consciences that we don't need all that study and preparation.

Such approaches leave mission works open to non-Christian syncretism, influence from charismatic false teachers, and, paradoxically, dependence on American funds and influence.

One preacher went on a campaign to a former Soviet republic. He came back telling of great receptivity and showing slides of many baptisms, all the work done through a translator. He returned the next year and could find nothing remaining from the previous year's efforts. His eyes were opened to the sad results of short-term, culturally ignorant efforts.

Nowadays, everybody is a missionary. A high-school group came for a two-week campaign to Brazil, and their home congregation made a big to-do about them being missionaries. I pray that many of them might some day become true missionaries, but calling a thing does not make it so. If everybody is a missionary, nobody is.

What do today's missionaries want? There are exceptions, but, as I see the trends, they want fast results, easy methods, deep relationships with little commitment, and a recipe-book, cookie-cutter approach, all of which guarantee a lot of people are going to be frustrated failures by their own definitions.

There may be fast-growing church movements out there, but real growth, in many instances, is going to be the slow but sure oak that towers over the quick-sprouting underbrush that never gets above one's knees.

Jesus told us to go and bear fruit, John 15. Not any kind of fruit, but "fruit that remains." For that, we must expend great care and give long-term commitments to the field, for otherwise our harvest will be one of weeds.

Or, to return to the diving metaphor, many of us will surface with skinned souls, or broken spirits (if we don't drown from our own stupidity), to the detriment of God's Kingdom and the loss of many for eternity.

Blessings, ...

---

I think many churches want to think they are professionals in missions like they are professionals in other things here in the states. But the difference is that a lawyer in real life can actually be great at adding professional processes to a church which is much like any business and that same professional may not be able to add anything to a cross-cultural ministry context. In fact she may be a great detriment to the ministry in the non-democratic, non-captilistic country. But many local churches want the rewards without paying the price. They want the priviledge of access without the responsibilty of full involvement.

This not only harms the missionary (potentially) but devalues the advisors who have become professionals in the intercultural ministry field.

I think many churches want to think they do not need anything or anyone outside their church.

---

This comes in response to the article #12 of the newsletter: THE BACKPAGE. I'm 23, and I made a commitment for overseas missions for 18 months. I went to Bangladesh and served 5 of those months (loved it) but to my sadness I became critically ill and had to return to the united states. I agree, there are few people in our generation who decide to make a commitment 'for life' to a particular mission field- but I would argue that in spite of this, many have made a commitment to a lifestyle of missions for the rest of their lives. That commitment can take on many manifestations, as is evident in my life, which finds me back in the US but still working with unreached ethnic women in my city.

I think that our generation is hesitant to make those BIG and specific commitments because we want our word to mean something- and there's such a large chance that something will happen which will result in them transferring to another area or country, or even.. ahem... coming home- that they would rather make the commitment-time short than break their word and feel like they've failed.

I agree, it's a totally different way than it was for William Carey- but it's also a totally different world now too. However, my generation of missionaries is a group of passionate, globally aware individuals who are eager to 'jump in'to relational evangelism (as you mentioned) right away.

As for committing to an unseen mission field, I personally do not think that is a good idea. I arrived in Bangladesh with a young american couple, she had never been to a predominately muslim country. Almost a year later, she is still getting over her shock for some of the most obvious cultural issues- dress, women's inequality, etc. She had no idea that's what it would be like- and they are there for 2 more years before furlough-- and doubting if they will make it. I think that had she traveled to Bangladesh before committing 3 years of her life (plus more; they are one of the few long termers); she would have been more mentally and emotionally prepared for what she would face on a daily basis.

Sorry this is so long; this is only my opinion, hope it is of some interest to you.

Keep up the good work!!

in Christ, ...

ps- Hope I don't come across as defensive-- I just like good ole' controversy and discussion!! ---

Dear Doug,

Thank you so much for your informative updates on what’s happening and what’s available out there. I’ve used several of your tips, programs, and links to better our ministry in Mexico City. While many times the conferences are out of our reach, I am still very interested to know what is going on. Thank you again for that. It helps to keep us connected to the States as well as all the great Christian agencies out there.

As far as "what missionaries want," I believe being over 40 and a career missionary that question has been bounced around between mission agencies, many of which are still locked into my "era." The question of the value of short-term teams seems to be up in that category too.

We recently had a short-term team come down from Palm Beach Atlantic University that did a wonderful job in what we are now considering the goals for this new generation of missionaries. They encouraged a church just under 6 months old during a crisis period. And they took a 3 year old church out of a slump. One of the members of the team joined LAM’s Spearhead in Mexico City and was assigned to our church to help a few more weeks.

While I’m sure many others have their opinions, this team of missionaries did their part, and now it’s the Mexican leaders and youth’s job to continue what they started.

Thanks again, Doug.

...

---

My wife and I and our 3 children have been missionaries in Russia for 5 years and in Kyrgyzstan for 4 years. We are self-supporting, visiting friends and churches when stateside to thank them and share what God is doing.

We are very, very thankful for the support that we have received from our home church affiliation, especially the twice yearly european conventions that they hold so that we can gather together and be refreshed and hear portions from mature and seasoned leaders that we don't normally get to hear. It's great to hear what God is doing in and thru the lives of those we know and to share what HE's doing in our areas and in us.

Now we can also tune in to our home church's services and radio broadcasts up to 8x a week by internet ... That helps us feel much more connected - and that's important.

It's termendous to know that people are praying for us, even people we hardly know. That lifts our hands up as Aaron did for Moses. God doesn't promise that, but we sure appreciate oneness and encouragement. Part of that comes through a ministry e-mail newsletter that is sent to anyone requesting it, so we send a general newsletter to that. I guess you would call all of that "community" outside of our local ministry - we're together in the body of Christ.

There's community in our local areas too. Whenever we can, we go out in teams. A few of our "teams" have been large, like 30 people, but most have been one or two families and a few singles. Either way, it gives fellowship and encouragement within the team and reveals more of the Body-concept to those who attend locally. So that's local community, each portion adding to the whole picture.

We need, and have, a clear sense of the call and the vision which is so far beyond ourselves - to know Him first and thru that to be His vessels, as Isaiah was ("Here am I, send me"). Again that is partly communicated in regional conventions, a yearly home-base convention and now by tuning into internet services.

Yes, I'm more interested in "diving in" and just using the Greek scholarship of those who God has called to that portion and that is more possible today with the abundance of resources available on a CD.

The fact that we have electricity, and thus can use computers and phones helps a lot, though many we minister to don't have phones.

With joy, .... ---

Hi Doug-- I really appreciate your comment "This can be both a positive and a negative, depending on the circustances." So many times we have our "viewpoint glasses" tuned so tightly that we lose perspective. On the other hand, how much damage has been done by well-meaning know-it-alls who have not a clue as to how to operate in the culture in which they find themselves--and who think that this trip is all about them! --which brings me to a particular point I wanted to make. Unless your short-term (however you define that term) volunteer can be well prepared for the trip by knowledgable people, the church should factor into the cost of the trip what it will take to pay someone to do this. I could go on and on about this, but you know what I mean! <g>

... ---

Dear Doug

I am a missionary working amongst an unreached Mus1im people group. I'd like to give my opinions to some of what you wrote about "What churches want" from missions. I especially want to preach "be informed before you visit a missionary in the field."

So, in response, perhaps local churches want to create a gentle accountability via their onsite visit. I think accountability is VERY important. But it needs to be accountability to someone who understands. Therefore I love it when people from our church visit us - before they visit they have NO idea of what conditions are like, and after the visit they can't stop praying for us! After almost four years in the field, our pastor visited us for the first time recently. He had a positive attitude to us before, but now it is even more so!

Yet I think all missionaries and churches should understand the Modality / Sodality model - there is a substantial difference in ministering to first world people in a non-hostile environment with plenty of resources of all kinds available; compared to ministering in a hostile environment where there are very few resources. My pastor got a small glimpse of this when he visited us. I think each church (modality) should build up a relationship of mutual trust and accountability with one or more reputable mission organizations (sodalities), and then release or second the missionaries to these sodalities. The missionary's primary accountability in the field should be to the sodality, who truly understands the situation in the field. Secondly, the missionary should be accountable to his sending church, who does not always understand the issues. There should be a regular visitation from the sodality to the missionary, and a feedback from the sodality t o the missionary's sending church. If the sending church wonders "what our missionary is doing" and are not satisfied with his direct answers to them, they should approach the sodality for an explanation.

And beyond all this, the short-term missions movement, which began in earnest in the 70s and 80s, is now producing a generation of leaders who aren't a bit shy about visiting the bush. Their passport is already full of stamps from multiple continents. Some of these (but not nearly all) we call "mission tourists." We have met many people who want to "come and see what the Lord is doing through you" and upon their arrival we are treated to impressive stories of where in the world they have been. They stay a few days, take many photos, and write an excellent newsletter afterwards. Most of these do not come from our church neither do they have anything to do with our sodality. We try to avoid receiving such people.

Meanwhile, many missionaries and humanitarian aid workers have perhaps been laboring under the false assumption that motives and methods have remained unchanged back home. So when leaders of the local church mention their upcoming visit, perhaps it strikes the on-site worker with a bit of surprise. This is why it is important to have two-way communications. Most responsible missionaries send out regular reports to their supporters, which is a must for accountability. Yet I have not come across any who receive any reports back about what is going on in their home church. I'm not saying the church should be accountable to the missionary, just that it is very difficult for a missionary to know about changing motives and methods at home.

I think it is necessary for church leaders who wish to visit missionaries in the field to be open to learning about the situation, and to be prepared to adapt according to the advice of the missionary. Some visitors have been visibly shocked by the fact that my wife wears a head covering and clothes similar to the local population. Yet we know that we would never have been as accepted in the community as we have been had she not done that. Due to past experience with visitors, we now tell potential visitors that women are to wear head coverings, no jewelry except for a wedding band, no dark glasses, long pants for men, they are not allowed to take photos of the local people (offense has been taken in the past) etc etc. If they feel they cannot comply with these recommendations, it is best for them not to come.

Some other problems we've noticed with some short-term visitors: Most make promises to the people (eg "I'll send you the photo I've taken of you" or "I'll send you xyz") but these are never kept. We are the ones grilled afterwards (for up to a year!) about the non-fulfilment of the promise. We now ask visitors to make NO promises. Rather send a photo without promising it than promising and not sending! They tend to use up irreplaceable resources and then give the missionary money. For example, we had a group of visitors while we had a water shortage. We only use 2 litres of water to wash ourselves. We asked them to do the same and showed them how (they only had to do it for a week, after all!). Yet one lady consistently used 15-20 litres of water to bathe. She left some money, but when they left, we had almost no water - just enough for drinking.

Please don't misunderstand what I'm writing - we love visitors, we get many, and we enjoy their company immensely! But I think they should be prepared for their visit beforehand by members of the sodality in the sending country. If I, as a missionary, were to visit a missionary in another land, I'd like to know as much as a can before going, as I understand that the situation will be quite different to ours!

Short-term outreaches can be worth gold, but whether what they wish to achieve is relevant should be confirmed with the missionaries in the field beforehand. I've now moved from leadership visits to short-term outreaches, because sometimes the two overlap.

That's my 10c worth! ....

---

Thanks for the opportunity to feedback...

Praying for God's movement thru the people like the upcoming release of "Purpose driven Life" to the next level due in Oct..

We need to rethink the seperatist notion of missionary and drop it from our vocabulary, as we repent of our western selfishness and see that being a witness is our every day job...no matter what our job...after loving and nuturing and maintaining our loving relations with our Father: Loving Him with our whole spirit, soul and body...as our first commandment...

Just needed to get that out !!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry, may not have answered your question directly about the local church and the foreign field witness.....the net and travel options, as well as Jesus soon return, have put some of these questions as obsolete, as we watch and listen and obey what the Spirit is telling us;

Lord of the Harvest....come quickly and show us how to look like you for your coming, ...

---

[end]

Back Issues -- Submit an item -- Search -- Subscribe -- Sponsor -- Site Map -- Promote Brigada -- Evangelism -- About Brigada