Issues
Facing Missions Today: 39.4 ‘Are We All Missionaries?’
The fourth, questionable point we want to
consider in our hypothetical ‘Mission 101’ course is one that is often heard
from Evangelical pulpits. There is also
an anti-clericalism about it as it relates to both missions and ministry. It is this:
Point 4: ‘We are all missionaries. Missions is not just for a select
group of professional missionaries.’
Such a way of thinking is the product of a
‘priesthood of all believers’ theology, an appropriate theological conviction from
the Reformation period so long as it is not overdrawn to the point of
undermining serious ministerial training and a distinction of roles in a body
of believers with different but complementary gifts of the Spirit. Indeed, in language slightly altered from the
previous post, which tackled the question of broadening ‘missions’ into
everything, if everyone is a missionary,
then nobody is a missionary.
Not everyone is gifted to be a missionary,
however we define missions. If it is a
matter of cross-cultural ministry, we need to stress that some persons who are
highly capable and accomplished in certain ministries in their own culture may
well function poorly in another culture.
For example, some who are highly effective speakers in their own culture
are inadequate communicators in another culture. If missions is a matter of active engagement,
grass-roots involvement, or physically demanding ministry, not everyone is
going to be able to do it. If it is a
matter of going into dangerous contexts, thinking quickly in tense situations,
and facing persecution, or if it is a matter of having linguistic or interpersonal
skills or being able to get things started from scratch, not everyone is cut
out for such challenges in missions.
Of course, there are different sorts of
missionaries, too. And missionaries can
learn certain skills even if they are not so good at them. And, especially, God can equip people to
accomplish tasks beyond their natural abilities—this is, after all, the concept
of being gifted by the Spirit (1 Cor. 12).
Yet we must realize that, just as everything we do is not automatically
the Church’s mission, so too not everyone doing something is a missionary—what the
early Church would have called an ‘apostle’ (lower case ‘a’) or a ‘co-worker.’
All this relates very practically to several
concerns. It relates to having
discernment when assessing a call to missionary work—not just seeing if someone
can raise the support needed to live overseas.
It relates to others being willing to support the properly vetted
personnel for missions—not just support friends or slick fund raisers. It relates to defining clear, long-term goals
in fulfillment of the Great Commission and raising up missionaries to
accomplish these goals—not just some large church flitting around from project
to project to keep the exotic interest in missions hot for the
congregation. It relates to skilled training
for missionary work—not just fielding anyone with a few weeks of mission training. It relates to making changes in churches and
mission agencies in their current approaches to missions in order to encourage
and enable long-term, specialized missionary work (as opposed to costly
short-term mission excursions).
I would turn around the present point being
explored in our topics for the proposed Missions 101 course. I would suggest that one of the primary
concerns in missions today is not the democratization of missions as, for
example, when everyone and anyone signs up for a two week ‘mission trip’ from
their local church. Indeed, a mission
agency’s recruiter recently confided that their approach in recruitment was to
sign up as many persons as possible. The
need to keep funds coming through the mission (as sometimes happens with
colleges and seminaries), a lack of clearly defined goals for missionary work,
and a belief that anyone can be fitted out for missionary service makes fund
raising the primary requirement for missionary service, broadens mission
activities to virtually anything, and lowers admission standards.
Rather, the pressing need in much of what we
call ‘missions’ today is for specialization to accomplish clearly defined (even
if large) tasks related to the mission of the Church and the special training,
equipping, and support of a long-term missionary force. In particular, a gifted and skilled missionary
force in Great Commission missions—evangelism, church planting, Bible
translation, and ministerial training and theological education—needs to be fielded
for long-term work in strategic places in the world.[1]
[1] A
caveat to this statement is that a mission agency needs to develop teams that
accomplish this sort of work. That is, a
mission agency focussed on Bible translation, e.g., will field missionaries with a
variety of gifts to accomplish this goal—not just Bible translators. SIL, or Wycliffe, recruits a variety of
personnel from computer specialists and pilots to teachers and mechanics as it
pursues the goal of Bible translation.
Every mission also needs administrators, and some will work from the
sending country. Thus, there are a
number of positions that need to be filled in a mission society. Yet this does not mean that everyone is or
can be fitted out for missions—even if they can raise the support needed! The pressure here falls on local churches
being wise in their support of missionaries and—perhaps especially—many mission
agencies having clearer goals and greater wisdom in recruitment. Not everyone is cut out for missionary service, even if everyone can be involved in supporting the Church's mission.
Comments