All things ...

Why must I choose?

Polarising can be a useful technique when writing articles, including blogs. Writing strongly from one perspective enables a pithier piece of writing which then provokes more response. However, it can also create tribes, people who share a particular opinion, gather around them likeminded people and then draw together evidence from said people in order to strengthen their own position.

Unfortunately, when things are presented in such a way they create false choices - in other words, if we reflect a little more deeply we realise that there is in reality, no choice that has to be made. It is not an either/or situation and it would be more accurately presented as both/and.

An example...

Qu: Is there still a need to send missionaries from the UK, supported by the UK Church, to other countries around the world?

Many argue that there is, and continue to follow a traditional model of sending, others say that there is not and would argue that our resources would be wiser used by supporting indigenous workers and missions. However, by asking the question in such a way I have forced you to make choice. In my opinion, the answer to the question is both yes and no ... here's why.

• It is too simplistic to sum up the complexity of the contemporary mission context in such a basic choice. God in all His creativity, has found a wonderful diverse array of ways to fulfil His plan. 
• The growth of the church in the global south certainly provides a different world to the one in which missionaries were sent from the west over the past two to three hundred years. However, this does not mean that the traditional models are wrong, rather there is greater variety and newer models may be better in some contexts. 
• If we were to add up the global wealth of the body of Christ then the overwhelming majority of the resources rest in the hands of the Christians in the developed nations, especially North America. How can we share this wealth effectively? Simply giving money with no local knowledge or adequate controls produces some of the worst abuses imaginable and creates awful conflicts of interest for our brothers and sisters in the developing world, however this should not present us with a fear that this is always wrong and not to be countenanced. 
• Of the money spent in the world by the Church, for every £($) we spend only 1p(1c) is spent on reaching these least/unreached people, something needs to be done to address this inequality if we genuinely believe that the Church should be missional and outward focussed.
• One third of the worlds population are still categorised as either unreached or least reached. In other words there is little or no Christian witness, and therefore often no local church projects to support, and unfortunately this means that with no local Church many currently thriving Christian ministries are inaccessible to billions of unreached people if the local Church is the only mechanism through which mission is worked out. Cross-cultural mission is hard-work, and not always the most effective way. However, in some contexts it is currently the only way.
• Whilst english is a global language it can be a haven for the lazy who want to do something overseas but can't, perhaps, be bothered to learn a language. (Which probably means that they are not too interested in learning about a different culture either since language and culture are so linked.) Hence, we have almost every Church in the UK connected to a project in Uganda (which is almost 70% evangelical) or India (at least where the local Church is strong, though not where there are millions of unreached peoples) though few are connected to projects in Tajikistan, Mauritania or Yemen.
• Given the hard economic times in the UK (even this is relative, recession is not the same as poverty) we find giving to the support of mission workers has decreased. I think this is less to do with lack of funds and more to do with lack of vision for unreached areas of the world - e.g. priorities rather than resources.
• Some have a conviction that all mission workers should be bi-vocational. I agree that this works well in some contexts and is actually a very good tool for mission, however it does not work in all circumstances and can seriously limit the effectiveness of the worker who does not have time to do what he/she was sent to do.

So, what am I saying?

There is a place for Churches to share their resources and use them to support local  indigenous Christian communities in their endeavours to reach out and grow and there is a place to send workers into cross-cultural placements do whatever it takes to see Christ known, loved and worshipped amongst the peoples they have gone to.

There is a place for fully supported workers and for bi-vocational ministry whichever is beneficial for the furtherance of the work. When done well, sending a worker overseas is a privilege rather than a resource to manage.

There is a place for traditional evangelism and Church planting activity and their is a place for compassion ministries, the two must work together.

There is a place for resourcing the church in the developing world and there is a place to equip them to develop their own ministry that is sustainable within the context that they are ministering in order to avoid the pitfalls of developing chronic dependency.

Perhaps when embarking on mission some deeper analysis of what is taking place should be undertaken rather than simply recreating what seems right, what has worked in the past or what seems like an easy opportunity.

• What is the strategic impact of sending this person or these resources?
• What alternatives exist and would these facilitate better ministry?
• Is there a more effective model for accomplishing this task and, if so, how should we engage with it?
• Is there a conviction that God is shaping this calling? In which case does it have to make perfect sense?
• Am I genuinely pioneering a new thing or propping up a structure that has passed its sell-by date?
• Am I focussing my missional endeavours in areas of the world that the gospel has yet to be established?

I guess, given my opening paragraph, it should not be a surprise, that I don't have a strong opinion about one particular model of ministry/mission. Nor, that the traditional sending model has no place in the world of missions today. It doesn't make for an interesting blog, but my priority is whole church engagement in fruitful kingdom ministry rather than in writing pithy blogs!!

Press on!