Application of Lim’s Model in Measuring Missionaries’ Job Satisfaction by Evaluating Their Degree of Contextualization in the Mission Field
Rev. Theodore Lim, D. Miss.[1]
Published in Global Missiology, January 2014 @ www.globalmissiology.org
Possibility of Measuring Contextualization
Is it possible to quantify the degree of contextualization by numerical scores? Of course, the work of the Lord is hardly measured or even forecasted by human means. However, the question continues to be of essential importance as the author determined the title of this paper. We have an expectation in writing this dissertation that it could be worthwhile to experiment with this quantification even though this process of measurement does not fully fit with how we normally determine effectiveness in ministry. Hence, we tried to manage the survey questionnaire to keep it as objective as possible according to these expectations.
First, this writer sought to discover what is the most important issue in missionary work. And then came to the process of creating a series of questions. The questions were randomly mixed to minimize bias as low as possible so as to achieve reasonable results from the survey. There were sufficient reasons worthy enough to try this quantification even though it is not a perfect one for this kind of procedure.
Of course, the premise of this research does not consider the role of the Holy Spirit in the ministry. There are many internal and external factors to think of in order to accomplish the work of the Lord. But this attempt of measuring the degree of contextualization and its relation to work satisfaction in the mission field considers only the external factors such as the human efforts. We must not forget the fact that our Lord also depends on us to achieve his goal of evangelizing this world. The Lord always uses willing people with heart and mind full of his purpose in building His kingdom as we can see in the examples in the Bible. Therefore, we have a certain confidence that this kind of attempt at measuring such a correspondence will bear fruit and contribute greatly to these types of studies.
Core Elements Influencing Contextualization
In this article I present four core elements that influence contextualization; language adaptability, education and training, cross-cultural sensitivity, and personality and intimacy.
Language Adaptability
Language is, of course, a significant factor in communication between the people. There are obvious features in each linguistic system which formed through the tradition and worldview of each individual culture. Nida in one place defines the nature of language as, “language, the most complex and significant code employed by man, consists essentially of sounds, shapes and a system.”[2] There might be a thousand different ways of communicating through languages. Hence, it is such an essential thing to master the others' language in seeking proper communication on the mission field.
Language adaptability has a significant impact on the missionaries in adaptation of various other areas in the context of the mission field. The person can get along with the other party well as long as he knows the other party's language well. He enjoys much broader conversation when he can speak their language fluently and can talk comfortably with them. The overall adaptation procedure is much easier once you understand their language. In fact, as I witnessed through his son currently working in Malaysia, that he has real strengths and advantages in ministry by associating with the native people in their own language of Malawi.
Adapting foreign languages is not easy for the ordinary individual. It requires good skills, techniques and sensitivity in the target language in general. Some people have inherited a higher aptitude in learning new languages, but most people have a lot of difficulties in mastering new languages. Therefore, every effort must be expended as aggressively as possible in accomplishing the learning of the language for cross-cultural ministry.
Language aptitude varies and depends on each person. There are some people who understand and learn the other language easily, but other people need to go through tireless efforts to achieve this goal in most of the cases. Language learning is crucial for building trust with the people on the mission field. This increases as the missionary demonstrates his or her language ability. As anyone can imagine it is a fantastic thing to preach the content of the Gospel to people using their own language.
Education and Training
Nowadays, most full-time missionaries complete general courses of academic education as well as a special training required for mission work. This is because they believe these kinds of education or training contribute tremendously to the success of mission activities. In fact, I personally met with one person who prepared with one month's intensive training just for a short-term mission trip of two months. We can clearly expect the fruit of the mission to multiply when workers have intensive training and are well adapted to their situation.
Classroom lectures and practical training are not the only ways of acquiring resources in preparing for mission nowadays. There are many routes for gathering information about the target mission field. The recent development of internet technologies and social network systems can function crucially in preparing for the native language and culture. Not only do we missionaries change greatly but the people in the host culture of the mission field also change a lot as well. Hence, we have to prepare by every means of education and training if we are to be ready to work with host nationals hand in hand.
I met with many missionaries who were regretting that they could not finish the classes offered in the D. Miss. program at Grace Theological Seminary. They emphasized the need of these kinds of academic education before they left for the mission field. As they unanimously mentioned, the reason for studying in advanced programs is not simply for obtaining a degree, but it is practically applicable and beneficial training for their mission activities. Subsequent training is always required as the society in which one works becomes pluralistic and requires a more specific and practical strategy. We cannot leave for the mission field by having only a vague idea of simply following the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We need to have complete preparation and planning upfront. At the same time we need absolutely to have help from the Holy Spirit to do the work of God.
Cross-Cultural Sensitivity
Culture here refers to people of typical groups and how they behave. There are people who can adjust themselves fairly well into a foreign environment, especially the language and culture. We can define these people as sensitive to the cross-cultural environment. Craig Storti gives a particular definition by differentiating culture and behavior, “culture....is an abstraction which can be appreciated intellectually, but it is behavior, the principal manifestation and most significant consequence of culture, that we actually experience.”[3] In other words, culture is encountered in people's behavior which needs to be learned by the outsiders.
The cross-cultural sensitivity varies depending on each individual. There are people who can adapt to different cultural environments very well, but some people do not deal well with those in other cultures. For example, among Korean-Americans in America, there are some who can easily adapt to American culture very well, but some do not cope with American culture well at all. The people who show cross-cultural sensitivity to this foreign culture do much better as I have personally witnessed. In reality, the person who is sensitive to cross-culture encounters can show a great deal of adaptability to that culture, but the one who is not sensitive to it shows a rather exclusive viewpoint of their own culture over that culture.
Therefore, cross-cultural sensitivity pretty much depends on each individual's personality and aptitude for adaptability. We Korean-Americans need to be ready in preparing a cross-cultural mindset as we live in this society of diversity. I found out recently that there are more than 170 tribes and languages interacting with each other just in the city of Los Angeles alone. That is the reason people call the city a melting pot.[4] So we cannot properly deal with our neighbors in Los Angeles if we shut up the door of communication to them by ignoring their culture and language.
The matter of living as a Korean or as an American while living in the land of America depends on one's cross-cultural sensitivity. I know one person who has lived in the United States for the last 30 years, but he still is living a life that would be common only in Korea. He never escaped from the framework of life in Korea as he indulged in nostalgia for its culture including the food, news, events and media. On the contrary, one person I know is completely Americanized to the bone even though his immigration to the United States is fairly recent. He prefers to dine out at American restaurants more than Korean restaurants and prefers the news media of the United States more than that of Korea.
Personality and Intimacy
Each individual's personality and level of intimacy preference are of such importance in adapting to other cultures. We can meet friendly, intimate persons who live around us. These people do not have particular difficulties in relating with other human beings. Of course, this trait can be very favorable for adapting to different cultural environments. On the contrary, the person with a stubborn mind and an unsociable personality can find much difficulty in relating with other people. These people of a closed mind can easily build a wall between themselves and their neighbors even when there is only a slight difference in values. They cannot show understanding and tolerance to those people who belong to the different culture.
I was able to have this kind of experience while he prepared to conduct the survey in writing this paper. There was one missionary who gave me an unpleasant feeling and caused me to be upset. A spontaneous thought arose as I observed this person’s behavior, “he might have lot of difficulties in dealing with people on the mission field when I consider his personality.” Who could follow him gladly if he shows a critical view on almost everything he experiences not even considering the matter of adapting to another culture. Mission work is possible when we view the other culture with an open mind even though we experience 180 degrees of difference in values. In that sense, we should maintain a more inclusive attitude rather than being exclusive concerning the other group’s values. We should keep in mind that the other people’s values may be very different from their own, but these are never wrong in their own eyes.
It is an increasing trend in current days that substantial numbers of missionaries drop out of their duties at premature stages of their missionary lives as was illustrated in the “missionary member care” section of this chapter previously.[5] There are various factors attributing to this premature drop out of missionaries. But, as this writer suspects, these are mainly related with their personalities and attitudes of not appreciating the native culture. They will face a lot of challenges in dealing with native people if their mind is not open to the culture of others.
Survey and Data Collection
The survey and data collection includes the method and participants, the questionnaire, and the results of the data analysis.
Survey Method and Participants
Targeting missionaries with the survey used was difficult. The missionaries who participated in the survey were not familiar with this writer and some were not familiar with the work of preaching the Gospel in remote areas. I am however, first of all, very grateful for support from the Grace Theological Seminary (GTS) community which was very encouraging and helpful in the training he received and in the preparation and carrying out of this survey. However, it was still quite difficult to procure the information needed from mission agencies. It was most difficult to even get a response. I actually received unfriendly communication from some missionaries who told him not to “steal” their information. It was encouraging, however, to conduct the survey and collect information from some missionaries while personally visiting the mission field in Southeast Asia. It seems that Korean missionaries need to know the source of the survey questions in person before feeling good about giving the desired information.
The instrument used was a survey questionnaire which was divided into four main parts, namely: language adaptability, education and training, cross-cultural sensitivity, and personality and intimacy. There may be other elements that affect the subject under study, but these seemed to be the important internal and external elements in missionary activity as they contextualize themselves in the host culture. Thus, these areas related well to the purpose of the research. Each participant was supposed to complete seven questions for each part of the survey and record the most favorable and the least favorable aspects of their ease in ministry as well as their degree of job satisfaction.
This survey was sent to randomly selected missionaries who worked in remote areas as well as to some taking sabbatical leave. Some missionaries were concerned about their personal security and private information being collected which made it difficult to get all the responses I hoped for. The survey was conducted for about a one month period from mid-February through mid-March of 2012. More than 100 of those surveyed responded via e-mail out of 250 missionaries contacted with the survey. This is about a 40% response ratio. I am very grateful to those participants who helped by responding to the survey.
The survey was designed through the web site of www.SurveyMonkey.com[6] and all the items were written in a positive format. It appeared that it might create a certain amount of confusion for Korean missionaries if they were asked to answer items in both negative format and positive format in the same instrument. I received answers ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” and analyzed these responses to the questionnaire for the results listed in this study.
The methodology employed left no risk of sampling errors and provided impartial information to the degree the participants responded honestly. There is no possible way of detecting response errors since the survey was sent and received through the Survey Monkey web site. This also assured accurate responses without interpretation errors in the collection of the data.
Survey Questionnaire
I reviewed the CCAI[7] (Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory) in the content design stage of the questionnaire. The purpose of this inventory is to help in assessing the ability of an individual for adaptation for living and social interaction in another culture. This helped the author shape some of the items on the survey. The actual content of the instrument was written in Korean since all of the targeted participants were Korean missionaries. English translation is provided here for the purpose of the readership of this paper. The content of the questionnaire is as follows:
Greetings, my name is Rev. Theodore Lim, pastor of the L.A. Global Mission Church in Los Angeles, and student preparing a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Missiology at Grace Theological Seminary in Indiana, U.S.A. Enclosed please find a survey questionnaire designed to measure your cultural preferences and tendencies in order to evaluate the degree of cultural adaptation employed and the level of satisfaction you enjoy in your work as a missionary. I would appreciate it very much if you would give sincere and honest answers to these questions which would greatly help the accuracy of the findings of this research.
February 16, 2012
Rev. Theodore Lim, D. Miss. Candidate
Grace Theological Seminary
Survey
Answer the following questions as to how you would express your feelings and life style in regard to the question each area using the following scale: 1 - Strongly Disagree (SD); 2 - Disagree (D); 3 - Not Certain (NC); 4 - Agree (A); 5 - Strongly Agree (SA)
___1. You are interested in learning new languages.
___2. You received mission related education before starting to work.
___3. You have confidence when you work with people in the other culture.
___4. You personally like to work with people in the other culture.
___5. You like to use their own languages as you work with people in the other culture.
___6. You have in-depth knowledge about the culture with which you work.
___7. You like to travel in other counties.
___8. You get along well with the people from various cultural backgrounds.
___9. You feel natural in using other languages.
___10. You received special training to help you adapt to the other culture.
___11. You always think about “common ground” as you meet people in the other culture.
___12. You feel friendly when you meet the people in another culture.
___13. You are always able to communicate with the people in another culture.
___14. You had the chance to take a course on cultural anthropology from an educational institution.
___15. You are very aggressive in learning about new cultures.
___16. You do not feel difficulties in adapting to other cultures.
___17. You usually use their language when you communicate with the people in another culture.
___18. You learn quickly from native people as you work with them.
___19. You enjoy eating the native food even when you are not used to it.
___20. You feel comfortable in your communication with the people in the other culture.
___21. You can easily express your opinion in the other language.
___22. You have received mentoring from persons working in similar cultures.
___23. You maintain the same relationship with people from various cultural backgrounds at your work place.
___24. You can easily make friends even with people you do not know.
___25. You tend to remember cultural procedure well once you have learned it.
___26. You cope well with difficulties in the surroundings of the other culture.
___27. You have confidence in your ability to overcome cultural differences and conflicts.
___28. You seek resolution quickly when you have conflicts with people in the other culture.
___29. You have a high degree of satisfaction in all aspects of your mission work.
30. In which area do you feel you have the most need for improvement in your
cross-cultural work?
Language Adaptability ( ) Education & Training ( )
Cross-Cultural Sensitivity ( ) Personality & Intimacy ( )
31. In which area do you feel the most confident in your cross-cultural work?
Language Adaptability ( ) Education & Training ( )
Cross-Cultural Sensitivity ( ) Personality & Intimacy ( )
Results of Data Analysis
The results of the analysis of this survey were quite interesting. First, the missionary's use of contextualization on the mission field is closely related with the degree of his education, training and practical experience. The missionary's life is greatly impacted by his education and training whether through academic education or through a mission agency. The results coming out of this study indicate that Korean missionaries are well prepared in this area and are continuing to prepare well.
Second, I found that a relationship exists between the missionary's use of contextualization on the mission field and his or her adaptability in the native culture and use of the language. Korean missionaries show a tendency of coping relatively easily with the culture and the habits of the people on mission field in the matters of clothing, food and housing and every aspect of life. However, one typical difficulty we found was the slow rate in adapting to native languages. To grasp the other language is not easy for them. This may be understandable when we consider the characteristics of Korean language.
Third, the personality and the intimacy of individual missionaries are greatly impacted according to the degree of personal contextualization practiced on the mission. It is true that Koreans are not as active in personal relationships due to the cultural characteristics of their agricultural background. But, there are some people who are active by nature and have the ability of shaping intimate friendships. In general, there exists a measure of cultural impact that depends on their personality strength toward building intimate friendships in dealing with those of another culture.
Fourth, the results of the survey show almost identical measurements between the degree of job satisfaction directly felt by missionaries and the degree they are able to contextualize themselves on the mission field. This is such an important point for missionaries in other cultures since they can feel satisfaction with their work in proportion to how much they contextualize themselves in the new setting. In this respect, a missionary can pursue a healthy, long-term ministry if he practices contextualization in his behavior and communication since he will be more satisfied with relationships and work in his ministry.
Fifth, items 29-31 have to do with satisfaction in cross-cultural ministry. In items 30-31 missionaries were to select which personal areas were most in need of improvement for their relationships and work and which were the areas of most personal confidence among the given options. These questions reflect the various personal strengths and weaknesses the missionaries felt they had given the circumstances and situations of their cross-cultural ministry. The areas needing most improvement were the matters of adapting to the native language, overcoming personality difficulties, and improving the skills of personal intimacy. On the other hand, cross-cultural adaptability is revealed as the strength for most of the missionaries. Korean missionaries' assessment of their adaptability to other cultures was excellent which supports the common observation that Koreans cope really well and adapt readily to those of other cultures in most places where they go.
Application of Lim’s Model
Included in the application of this model is an introduction to the model, the application of the raw data and findings reached by applying the model.
Introduction of the Model
So far I have not been able to find any studies on measuring job satisfaction based on the contextualization of the individual missionary in this research. In fact, this attempt is probably not as sufficient for practical use as we thought. The method of measuring the use of contextualization based on the missionary’s assessment is not an objective factor. The perspective of the missionaries in their assessment of themselves in areas of language adaptability, cross-cultural sensitivity, and personality and intimacy carries the same problem of objectivity. Nevertheless, I have a certain degree of expectation in finding a correlation between job satisfaction in relation to the kind and amount of contextualization employed by analyzing and applying the data.
I gained valuable insights on the new model proposed here in a class on “Cultural Anthropology for Ministry” with Dr. Tom Stallter at Grace Theological Seminary in Indiana. He introduced a concept called the “Enculturation Equation.” This equation bases the potential for acculturation (adjustment to the values, beliefs, and worldview in a second culture) on the four elements of Age, Time, Dependency, and Intimacy.[8] Here, I introduce what I call the Contextualization Equation (CE). The equation can be explained as follows:
CE = (LA+ET+CS+PI) ÷ 4,[9] where CE is Contextualization Equation, LA is Language Adoptability, ET is Education and Training, CS is Cross-Cultural Sensibility, and PI is Personality and Intimacy, respectively. This equation is created based on an assumption that each category effects equally to Contextualization Equation.
It appears that the above mentioned elements each have a great importance for measuring the missionary's degree satisfaction in ministry as they employ contextualization in that area. There could be invisible elements of the spiritual dimension; however this equation is measuring the importance of practical values for missionaries who work in cross-cultural contexts. The content of the items in the survey used varied from general ones to those requiring more professional insights concerning these values. The fact that over 100 missionaries responded to the survey allows me to generalize about these practical values to the exclusion of any meaningful concern for other elements that might affect the findings.
All statements requiring a response are given in a positive way in order to get a steady response. In scoring, the instrument gave the values of -10 for Strongly Disagree (SD), -5 for Disagree (D), 0 for Not Certain (NC), +5 for Agree (A), and +10 for Strongly Agree (SA). In this way we can calculate the average scores for each item from 1-29 and then find the percentage for each response for the whole group of respondent. This, then, is divided by four (since there were four different elements in this equation) for an overall rating of the use of contextualization which can then be used to find the correlation between that and the missionary’s satisfaction with their cross-cultural work.
We employed seven different items which corresponded with each element to be measured and three questions regarding overall satisfaction and self-evaluation. Those items revealing information on “language adaptability” were items 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, 21, 25. Items revealing information about “education and training” were items 2, 6, 10, 14, 18, 22, 26 and so on (Refer to Table 1). There are meaningful findings in the average scores for each item. Further, we can contribute to the missionary's further use of contextualization for adaptation on the mission field by suggesting the ideal scores for this based on these findings.
Application of Raw Data to this Model
First Stage
1. Draw column chart for each item in the survey.
2. Each chart should contain the following five response options and record corresponding scores for each response option.
SD (Strongly Disagree) D (Disagree)
NC (Not Certain) A (Agree) SA (Strongly Agree)
3. The interval of scores is five points for each question, i.e. -10, -5, 0, +5 and +10 for Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Not Certain, Agree and Strongly Agree, respectively. The maximum negative score is -10 and the maximum positive score is the +10.
4. Calculate the average scores of all respondents for each item on the survey. For example, the score of Q1 (Survey question 1) shows 7.31 as it receives 0% of SD, 1% of D, 6.9% of NC, 37.3% of A and 54.9% of SA. The actual way of calculation shows (-10x0) + (-5x0.01) + (0x0.069) + (5x0.373) + (10x0.549), which gives a total of 7.31. This score represents a position between Agree (+5) and Strongly Agree (+10) so the response on item one is beyond simple agreement to moderately strong agreement. The scores vary from the lowest of 0.37 on item 26 to the highest of 7.53 on item 7 (refer to Table 1).
Second Stage
1. Table 1 shows all the scores for each element as a simple listing of the items in each element.
2. The total score for each element is to be calculated and then averaged based on the scores on this table. The average score of each element shows: 4.69, 4.07, 5.48 and 4.49 for LA, ET, CS and PI, respectively.
3. Next we can see the comparative analysis on each element. Cross-cultural sensitivity shows the highest score and the element of Education and Training shows the lowest score. In fact, the average of all scores for the overall CE (Contextualization Equation) is over 5 (Agree) in general. But the average score of Personality and Intimacy remains at the +4.07, which is positioned in between Not Certain and Agree.
4. We can now apply the average score of each element into the contextualization equation to find an average score of +4.68 as seen in following calculation. CE = (LA + ET + CS + PI) ÷ 4 = (4.69 + 4.07 + 5.48 + 4.49) ÷ 4 = 4.68
5. Finally, we can now compare this score to the score obtained from practical survey item Q29. The average score based on the practical item concerning the degree of job satisfaction revealed in Q29 is +5.30. In Lim's Model CE is +4.68, which shows an extremely close score to that of Q29. Hence, Lim's Model can be used as an instrument in finding the relationship between the degree of contextualization for cultural adaptation and job satisfaction by individual missionaries as was predicted at the outset of the research. It shows difference of 0.62 out of 20 possible maximum scores (ranged from (-10) to (+10)). In other words, there is 3.1% difference between the score measured by Contextualization Equation and that of actually obtained by the survey. Hence, Lim's model can be used as a major instrument in finding relationship between the degree of contextualization and job satisfaction by individual missionary as I expected.
LA Q1 Q5 Q9 Q13 Q17 Q21 Q25
7.31 5.85 6.29 2.96 4.96 4.49 0.95
ET Q2 Q6 Q10 Q14 Q18 Q22 Q26
6.08 4.70 4.00 5.00 4.85 3.52 0.37
CS Q3 Q7 Q11 Q15 Q19 Q23 Q27
4.70 7.53 6.87 6.28 3.97 4.60 4.40
PI Q4 Q8 Q12 Q16 Q20 Q24 Q28
5.30 5.54 4.46 3.79 4.80 3.43 4.10
Table 1 Scores on Survey Questions (Items) for Each Element
Some Findings by Applying Lim's Model
This model is designed for the purpose of research for a Doctor of Missiology dissertation. It would require more time for a detailed analysis of the collected data in evaluating these 100 respondents and should be tested with a larger sample and on varying ethnic groups to obtain a higher degree of confidence in the positive correlation found here. However, in summary, I has a certain degree of confidence in the finding of the stated correlation in this analysis of the more than 100 responses collected.
First, we were able to find the fact that the contextualization of the missionary in the cross-cultural context by their studies, training, and experience is closely co-related to their satisfaction with their ministry and relationships in the host culture. The studies and training obtained through missionary schools and institutions play an important role in their lives and ministries. Second, there exists a relationship between this contextualization of the missionary and their adaptability to the native culture and language. Third, the individual missionary's personality or inclination toward intimacy in friendships greatly enhances his or her personal contextualization to the cultural environment and work. Typically, Koreans are not very active in social or interpersonal relationships, but some Korean missionaries show a positive value and natural inclination toward intimacy in social relationships. Fourth, the degree of contextualization used and the degree of job satisfaction on the part of missionaries are quite similar as is the most important finding of this research. In other words, the individual missionary is more satisfied in his or her ministry as they achieve a more contextualized approach in ministry.
This is pointed out further by the average score of each element in the contextualization equation which was +4.68. The score obtained from the practical survey item Q29 was +5.30. (Q29) presents the item “You have a high degree of satisfaction in all aspects of your mission work.” Actually, none of 99 respondents showed a response of either Strongly Disagree (SD) or Disagree (D) on the survey. The respondent numbers 17, 59 and 23 show Not Certain (NC), Agree (A) and Strong Agree (SA) respectively. Most of all, the average score calculated based on Lim's model, +4.68, shows an extremely close comparison to that of +5.30 in this item. It shows even less than 1.0 point of difference out of a range of 20.0 points (Strongly Disagree (-10) to Strongly Agree (+10)).
The survey respondents also show that the most needed element for improvement is Language Adaptability as they are conducting missionary work in a cross-cultural context. The element of Language Adaptability shows a difference of even greater than two to one when compared with the other three elements (See Figure 1 below). Actual percentages show 44.7, 18.1, 17.0 and 20.2 for Language Adaptability (LA), Education & Training (ET), Cross-Cultural Sensibility (CS) and Personality & Intimacy (PI), respectively.
The response regarding item Q31, “In which area do you feel the most confident in your cross-cultural work?” shows the reverse of Q30 as one might expect. The element of Cross-Cultural Sensitivity (CS) marks the highest score and that of Language Adaptability (LA) shows the lowest score. Actual percentages on Q31 show 12.1, 28.3, 32.3 and 27.3 for Language Adaptability (LA), Education and Training (ET), Cross-Cultural Sensitivity (CS) and Personality and Intimacy (PI), respectively (see Figure 2).
Figure 1 (Q30) In which area do you feel you have the most need for improvement in your cross-cultural work?
Figure 2 (Q31) In which area do you feel the most confident in your cross-cultural work?
However, it is not as easy to calculate the degree of job satisfaction by using the numerical scores. We cannot ignore the work of God in missions even though He uses people to accomplish this great task. No one can deny the history of the work of God through the Holy Spirit in this. The Apostle Paul, as shown through his work of ministry, was able to achieve many things solely by the grace of God through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We cannot forget the fact that Paul was able to achieve these tremendous fruits of mission in the midst of many suffering and difficulties and this is because of God’s grace. On the other hand, God has decreed the use of human beings in order to accomplish this mission.
The Great Commission, as the Lord commanded his disciples in Matthew Chapter 28 clearly shows this fact.[10] So the work of the Holy Spirit is meaningless if people are not ready to carry the Gospel to the uttermost parts of the world. We should not underestimate the role of human beings since he historically has always achieved this work by mobilizing people. Rather, we need to achieve His will by maximizing the spreading of the Gospel to the nations in order to being used by the Holy Spirit. In that sense, we can evaluate and quantify the role of respondents in preaching the Gospel and other areas of ministry as long as we do not forget the work of the Holy Spirit.
We wanted to find the degree of missionaries' job satisfaction in this paper and its relation to their use of contextualization of their approach to ministry and people in the host culture. This study can present valuable directions in the process of preparing for and conducting mission by missionaries. We can actually see here where the missionary shows a higher degree of job satisfaction if he is better prepared for the contextualization of his approach and ministry. The degree of job satisfaction was revealed as higher even when missionaries were insufficient in some areas.