RE-THINKING “CAREER MISSIONS” IN LIGHT OF PAUL
THE “SHORT-TERM MISSIONARY”
By
Larry Poston
Chair, Dept. of Missiology and
Religion, Professor of Religion, Nyack College, NY
Introduction
The missiological community is currently divided
over the issue of “short-term missions.”
In this essay I would like to deal with this subject from two complementary perspectives. First, I want to examine the
missionary ministry of the apostle Paul, mainly as it is recorded in the book of Acts. Since Paul is
considered by nearly all to be the quintessential missionary, I am particularly concerned with the
length of time he spent in each of the locations where he labored, as well as the total amount of time he devoted
to his missions-oriented tasks. Secondly,
I would like to re-examine the seminal thinking of Roland Allen, the twentieth
century missiologist who ministered
with the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in North China.
In
the words of Lesslie Newbigen, who wrote the Foreword to Eerdman’s 1962 edition
of Roland Allen’s Missionary Methods: St. Paul’s or Ours?,
Allen “quietly but insistently ... challenged the
accepted assumptions of churches and missions.” Since the purpose of this essay
is
essentially
to do the same, I thought that it would be appropriate to enlist Roland Allen
as an ally.
The Focus of This Study is Not “Definition of
STM”
Much of today’s debate regarding “short-term
missions” centers around one’s definition of “short-term,” but I would rather approach the discussion by dealing
with what seem to be the more
pertinent questions of accommodation and adaptation. Simply put,
should we as contemporary missions
strategists accommodate ourselves to the up and coming generation’s propensity for short-lived “experiences” and adapt
our missions strategies and organizational structures accordingly, or should we dig in our heels and continue to
require all newcomers to adopt our
“classical” view of what missionary service “should” consist of?
Now a pragmatist would most likely choose the
first alternative. “After all,” he would ask, “if we do not accommodate ourselves to the new generation’s
worldview and addiction to ‘change,’
from where will we get replacements for the ranks of aging and retiring
missionaries? If we must accommodate their short-term mindsets and
capriciousness, so be it!”
Others, however, decry such an attitude, holding
tightly to their belief that one’s “calling” and/or “giftedness” is for life, and that to treat missions as nothing
more than a “short-term, experience-oriented enterprise that may or may not
confer lasting benefits” is sub-Biblical, essentially amounting to a betrayal of the spirit of the Great
Commission.
Personally, I find it tragic whenever I see
members of an older generation judging a younger using standards that were most likely appropriate for an
earlier time but which should never
have been elevated beyond “temporary” status and which may not be appropriate
for a new
day. To give one of the most poignant examples:
boarding schools for the children of “career missionaries.” During the 1980s and 1990s, a large number of potential
missionary candidates of high quality were lost to certain mission agencies
because those agencies required the children of their missionary personnel to be educated at boarding schools. In many
cases, children were separated from
their parents at age six or so, and were forced to endure a parting that does
not usually take place until a child
leaves for college—a difference of some twelve years. Members of older generations stoically endured such separations,
categorizing them as “sacrifices made
for the sake of the Gospel.”
But consider the fact that during this period on
the North American homefront, the evangelical
subculture was increasingly championing a heightened “focus on the family” in
an attempt to forestall growing numbers of family problems and the alarming
rise in divorce rates among Christians. Having been raised on a steady diet of
such emphases, how would a young couple
be expected to view the insistence of a missions organization that one should
voluntarily separate oneself from
one’s children as soon as they attain school age?
We are essentially facing a similar disjunction
between worldviews when it comes to short-term
missions. Our North American and European cultures are currently geared to a lifestyle that involves constant change.
Our market economies inundate us with fashions and gadgetry that become obsolete on what seems to be
a yearly or even seasonal basis. Audio-visual media, computer systems, photographic equipment, telecommunications
devices and the like undergo a
constant evolutionary process that lures young people into a mentality of
never-ending “shopping” and
“advertisement-watching.” In this sense, the very culture of Western society
has become “short-term,” and to
expect our young people to have any familiarity at all with what an older generation would call “long-term
commitment” is asking too much at this point in history.
Truth be told, however, we should not have been
taken off-guard by this trend. If we had paid closer attention to what Roland Allen told us a century ago, the
“short-term missions phenomenon”
would most likely not have become such a controversial subject. In Missionary
Methods, Allen made several statements that should have
clued us in to the fact that the “short-term trend”—recent cultural changes aside— should never have been
considered a product of modern
“easy-believism,” but instead a significant aspect of New Testament
Christianity.
Certainly Paul’s exploits as recorded in the book
of Acts and as glimpsed in his letters reveal
a ministry of evangelism, disciple making, and church planting that has rarely
been matched. Allen is quick to
point out the many differences between the work of the apostle and the activities of missionaries at the turn of the
twentieth century. But he did not expect his observations to be well-received: “today if a man ventures to suggest
that there may be something in the
methods by which Paul attained such wonderful results worthy of our careful
attention and perhaps our imitation, he is in danger of being accused of
revolutionary tendencies” (p.4). And this may well be the reaction still, for
it seems clear that one of these “revolutionary tendencies” of Paul was the fact of his being the epitome of a
short-term missionary.
Paul’s Missionary Terms of
Service
It is admittedly difficult to determine with precision
the amount of time that Paul spent on his
missionary journeys. But Allen concludes what nearly all Bible scholars must
conclude upon careful study: it was not much. “In little more
than ten years, Paul established the Church in four provinces
of the Empire ... Before AD 47 there were no churches in these provinces; in AD
57 Paul could speak as if his work there were done ...” And Allen admits his
astonishment that the
establishment of viable Christian
assemblies had gone so amazingly fast: “that churches should be
founded so rapidly, so securely, seems to us today ... almost incredible” (p.3).
Careful study by scholars allows us to determine
approximately the amount of time spent in
most of the places the apostle visited.
The First Journey (Acts 13:4-14:28—A.D. 44-46, 46-48, or 47-49).
This first missionary outing lasted
two years and involved visits to twelve locations: Salamis (on the island of Cyprus), Paphos (also on Cyprus), Perga (in
Pamphylia), Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe (and the surrounding country), back to Lystra, Iconium, Pisidian
Antioch, and Perga, and finally to Attalia. If we were to divide a 24-month
period equally between these towns and cities, this would yield an average of two months in each location.
Paul’s ministry on this journey consisted primarily of
pioneer evangelism, including paradigmatic sermons to an
audience consisting mainly of Jewish persons—(see 13:16-41)—and to
an audience of pagans—(see 14:15-17). In 14:21-25, however, we find that “strengthening
the disciples and encouraging them to remain true in
the faith” was also a part of his itinerary, as was “appointing
elders in each church and committing them with prayer and fasting to the Lord.”
Consequently: evangelism, discipling, and church planting—the New Testament
model for missions.
The Second Journey (Acts 15:36 - 18:22) (A.D. 49-52 or 50-53). This
second period of activity lasted between two and three years, with visits to
the provinces of Syria and Cilicia, and with stops specifically in Derbe, Lystra, Phrygia, Galatia, Troas (very
briefly), Philippi (“several days”), Thessalonica (“three Sabbath days”),
Berea, Athens, and Corinth (“one and a half years”).
Significant time was spent in seven cities (mentioned specifically by name). Of
this time period, one and a half years were spent in Corinth (Acts 18:11). Only
(at most) three weeks were spent at
Thessalonica (Acts 17:2), and “several days” at Philippi (Acts 16:12). The rest
of the time (approximately a year)
would have been divided between Derbe, Lystra, Berea, Athens and various smaller villages en route to the larger
population centers. Thus far, then, the longest we have seen Paul stay at any
one place is one and a half years.
The Third Journey (Acts 18:23 - 21:16) (AD 53-57). On the third
missionary tour, which lasted a total of four years, Paul spent half that time
in Ephesus (Acts 19:10)—the longest he is recorded as having stayed at a single place during his career. The other
half of this time period was devoted
to ministry endeavors throughout Macedonia, Greece (where he stayed three months—see Acts 20:3), Troas (where he spent
seven days—see Acts 20:6), and then to Jerusalem by way of Assos, Mitylene,
Kios, Samos, Miletus, Cos, Rhodes, Patara, Tyre, Ptolemais, and Caesarea. In none of these latter towns does he appear
to have stayed more than a few days.
Observations Regarding Paul’s
Missionary Service
The total amount of time that
Paul spent directly engaged in what we would call foreign missionary
activity was 8 – 9 years; the equivalent of approximately two of the four-year
terms of service that have formed the modern missionary’s
standard for many decades now. According to tradition, Paul was released after
an initial imprisonment in Rome, whereupon he traveled to Spain
and then returned to Crete and Asia Minor, during and after which his letters
to Timothy and Titus were written. This trip is alleged to
have added no more than (and perhaps much less than)
an additional two years to his total.
The longest period that Paul
spent at any one location was two years (in Ephesus, Acts 19:10).
The remainder of his ministry was divided between a large number of locations,
where
he spent varying amounts of time. In most cases,
however, he spent no more than a few weeks— or even a few days—in each place. Allen believes
that this limitation was intentional; Paul was working out a deliberate strategy designed to enhance productivity.
There were two elements of this
strategy according to Allen’s characterization. The first was designed to
produce decisions for
conversion: “Paul did not
establish himself in a place and go on preaching for years to men who refused
to act on his teaching. When once he had brought them to a point where decision
was clear, he demanded that they
should make their choice. If they rejected him, he rejected them” (p. 75).
Secondly, Paul was exercising a form of psychology
that contributed to rapid indigenization: “I think that it is quite possible
that the shortness of his stay may have conduced in no small measure to Paul’s success. There is something in the
presence of a great teacher that sometimes
tends to prevent smaller men from realizing themselves ... By leaving them
quickly Paul gave the local leaders
opportunity to take their proper place, and forced the church to realize that it could not depend on him...” (p. 93).
Despite (or perhaps “because of”?) the short
duration of his missionary activities, Paul was able to accomplish an extraordinary amount of work. He planted
churches in a number of towns and
villages in what was for his time a quite widespread territory. But as Allen
notes, “... Paul’s theory of
evangelizing a province was not to preach in every place in it himself, but to establish centres of Christian life in two or
three important places from which the knowledge might spread into the country around” (p. 12).
It is clear from the biblical record that Paul had
a very limited focus to his ministry. Evangelism, basic discipling (i.e., education in the foundational
principles of Christian belief and practice),
and the establishment of a rudimentary church structure were his only objectives.
With Paul we do not find the
“specialized” or “support” ministries that are so common today. We do not find “relief and development” work. We do not
find the establishment of complex educational
institutions; nothing beyond the Ephesian “lecture hall of Tyrannus” seen in
Acts 19:9-10. As Allen summarizes:
“by teaching the simplest elements in the simplest form to the many, and by giving them the means by which they
could for themselves gain further knowledge,
by leaving them to meditate upon these few fundamental truths, and to teach one
another what they could discover, ... Paul
ensured that his converts should really master the most important things” (p. 90).
In the midst of his itinerancy, Paul was constantly
thinking strategically, planning how best to accomplish the
indigenization of his church planting efforts. He “... and his fellow-workers
admitted first only a few people of known reputation, who showed unmistakable
signs of faith, and thereafter left the duty of accepting or refusing
candidates very largely to these men ...” (p.98). Further, “he lived
his life amongst his people and dealt with them as though he would have
no successor. He remembered that he is the least permanent element in the
church ... [ifJ he disappears, the church remains.
The native Christians are the permanent element” (p. 153). And he
was “careful not to lose touch with his new converts ... he was in constant
communication with them by one means or another” (p. 87). With
respect to this latter observation, he was able to
lay the foundations for doctrine, practice and polity for the Christian church
through the instruction given in his letters, which were
recognized even in his own day as “scripture” (see 2 Peter
3:16) and eventually incorporated into the Biblical canon. Consequently: go in,
bring the populace as rapidly as possible to a point of
decision, appoint leaders from among the new converts,
and then withdraw so that indigenization can occur. Keep in touch through
regular and, if necessary, detailed correspondence. And “pray
without ceasing...”
Paul’s “Edge” Over Today’s
Apostles
There were two distinct advantages that Paul had
over modern-day apostles. According to some,
these advantages make it difficult to compare his situation with that of
short-termers
today.
First, and certainly most significantly, Paul did not need to spend any time
at all in language study.
Since all of his ministry experiences were restricted to the Roman Empire, Greek
was the only language he needed in order to communicate the Gospel and to
educate converts regarding the faith. Whereas modern missionaries
often spend two years or more in language study, Paul and his
companions were able to minister to a multiplicity of people groups immediately
upon contact.
Second, Paul was not hampered by the need to conform
to regulations and restrictions regarding movement between
different nation-states. Again, the fact that he
remained within the Roman Empire meant that he had
none of the bureaucratic hassles associated with the procurement
of passports and visas that are essential today for travel between countries.
Are we unable, then, to make a legitimate
comparison between Paul’s ministry and that of contemporary short-termers? Allen was convinced that this was not the
case: “...however highly we may
estimate Paul’s personal advantages or the assistance which the conditions of
his age afforded, they cannot be so
great as to rob his example of all value for us.” (p.4). Indeed, to the
abovementioned conditions I would offer the following observations. First, with
respect to the issue of learning a
foreign language, many—if not most—of the other apostles of Paul’s day were certainly forced to do so. According to
tradition, other early apostles preached from the Northern and Eastern African
coasts to as far eastward as Southern India. Foreign language acquisition does not appear to have hindered their
itinerancy at all. Second, English has become something of a global lingua franca. While it is certainly true
that an enormous percentage of the planet’s
population has no command of English at all, still it is true that it is the
closest we can speak of as a “universal language.” Native English speakers,
then, along with those who have learned
English fluently, have a tremendous advantage over missionaries who know no English.
Third, language acquisition in
general has made tremendous strides since Paul’s day. There
are many high-quality programs currently available that allow a person to
acquire the basics of a major language in a relatively short
period of time.
Fourth, interest in linguistics
coupled with the acquisition programs mentioned above has produced
a cadre of translators and interpreters which can be enlisted for short-term
enterprises. While communicating through an interpreter is almost always
awkward at best, it is a skill which may be acquired and honed to
ever-increasing effectiveness.
With respect to the issue of visas, short-term
missions may actually be an aid in procuring them. In some countries, permanent or long-term residence visas are
becoming increasingly difficult to
obtain. The reluctance on the part of a host country to issue permits may be
due to anything from a generic
anti-Americanism to a fear of losing native employment opportunities to foreign workers. In such cases, short-term missionary
tours can serve to mitigate the fears of receiving nations: “the Americans (or whoever) won’t be here for very
long,” or “they won’t be here long enough to take a job opportunity from one of
our own.”
But mission agencies can—and should—become increasingly
adept at “working the system” when it comes to
obtaining visas for their expatriate personnel. While some of the larger agencies
have become experienced at navigating the bureaucratic mazes and exploiting loopholes,
others have not yet learned to be “shrewd as snakes and innocent as doves.”
A case in point: I know of several organizations who refuse
on principle to pay what are usually considered “bribes” to
government officials to gain certain privileges. It is assumed that such a
practice would be in violation of
Biblical precepts of morality. Yet careful study reveals that in some
situations, bribery is commended in the Bible as a useful practice. Other
verses notwithstanding, Proverbs 21:14 states that “a gift
given in secret soothes anger, and a bribe concealed
in the cloak pacifies great wrath.” It should be obvious that we do
not want to be deliberately dishonest or
criminal in our dealings—we are bound, after all, by the commands of Romans
13:1-7 and similar passages. But we need not necessarily be restricted by a
decidedly Western
interpretation of what “submission to governing authorities” and “rebellion
against authority”
would consist of. Jesus’ indictment of “the people of light” for their
failure to be as shrewd as “the people of the
world” (Luke 16:8) is disturbing—and we should do everything possible not
to have this indictment apply to us.
Disadvantages of Long-Term or
‘Career’ Missions
There are problematic aspects of contemporary short-term
missions—no one denies this fact. But what we are often unwilling to admit are
the very significant problems associated with longer
missionary terms, many of which are actually mitigated by short-term service.
Such problems include the following.
1.
The loss of a sense of “apostolicity.” In many cases, “career” missionaries become
over time more like immigrants
than temporary residents of a foreign country. As the “unfamiliar” aspects of a
culture become “familiar,” as proficiency in the native language increases, as one’s children grow up enculturated into the
“foreign” culture, missionary agents can—and often do—lose the sense of purpose that originally kept them on the
“cutting edge” of ministry. They
accommodate themselves so much to the culture that unless they are extremely careful and intentional, they become
indistinguishable from the native population.
2.
The loss of a truly global missionary focus due to the intensity of one’s concentration on a
particular target culture.
Ironically, one of the easiest ways to lose a sense of international awareness is to live as an expatriate in a single
place for a number of years, particularly if the place of one’s residence does not provide access to the various means
through which one can remain in
touch with international affairs.
3.
The possible development of psychological
maladjustments, particularly on
the part of the children of families
who spend significant amounts of time at regular intervals in a culture designated as the “home” culture (but which is
actually foreign to the children) and in another culture designated as “foreign” (but which is, in actuality, the
childrens’ “home” culture).
4.
The increase in funding needed to support the various expenses of a
growing family (i.e., food and
clothing costs, educational expenses, transportation necessities, etc.).
Generally speaking, the longer a
couple remains in a foreign culture, the more “cumbersome” their living requirements become, and the more difficult
their decisions concerning ministry vis-à-vis family are to make.
Short-term mission assignments
address each of these problems in turn. With respect to apostolicity,
a short-termer is rarely tempted to think of himself as an immigrant. Indeed,
cultural discomfort is often so intense that a short-term
missionary struggles to remain even for the time allotted.
But focusing intently on the ministry at hand—be it preaching the Gospel or
engaging in relief and development work—and knowing that
one’s commitment is “closed” or “finite” rather than
open-ended can often become the means by which one is able to “stay the
course.”
A
shorter amount of time spent away from the networks and contacts that have
endued one with a strong international awareness, and the
subsequent return to those contacts and
networks would ensure that one’s
missional awareness would remain at a higher level overall. Even if one were to
become involved in a series of short-term projects, this awareness would be
re-ignited by renewed contacts on a regular basis.
Shorter spans of time abroad, with longer periods
in one’s country of origin (similar to Paul’s
“furloughs” in Syrian Antioch after his first and second journeys), could
perhaps go a long way toward
mitigating the negative effects of the “missionary kid” experience. True, not
all (and perhaps not even many) MKs
experience serious psychological trauma or maladjustments, but the available research is clear enough to warrant
the conclusion that at least some families would be better off availing
themselves of the short-term option.
With respect to the need for increased funding
that is often experienced by career missionaries
in the midst of a four-year term and over longer periods, this problem could be
assuaged by shorter intervals abroad
and longer terms at home. Short-termers would be in much more frequent contact with their supporting
churches or individuals during longer periods spent in their native country, and they would therefore
find it easier to cultivate new supporting units for their ministries abroad.
Conclusions: Practical
Implications for Advocates
of Career’ Missions
In what ways could the concept of “short-term
missions” be made more palatable to those who are convinced of an ongoing need for “career missionaries?” First, I
think that we could conclude that it
might be best simply to abandon the concepts of “short-term missions” and “career missions.” It is highly unlikely that the
New Testament apostles would have recognized such a distinction in any case. Instead of focusing on the duration
of a missionary assignment, would it
not be more productive in the long run to focus on the function or task
that will be involved with a specific
missionary project? Instead of distinguishing between “long-term” and
“short-term” personnel, I would suggest that mission agencies simply think in
terms of specific projects, and then concentrate on recruiting personnel
who will be able to undertake those projects.
I would suggest that a minimal term of service (i.e., six months, one year, or
whatever) be required of anyone
appointed to a particular task, for the sake of efficiency and stewardship with
respect to the raising of support and the expenditures of the agency on
paperwork, procurement of visas, training, and the like. But beyond such a
minimum requirement, the term of
service should be on an “as needed” or “as able” basis. When a person has
completed his assignment, or is
unable (for whatever reason) to continue with an assignment, he should be redeployed or be accorded the option to return to
his homeland.
From
a financial standpoint, one could determine a monthly support rate schedule
that would be valid for all personnel, irregardless of how
many months a person spends in a specific ministry.
The basic schedule would, of course, have to be adjusted according to the
cost-of-living in specific countries, but I
would like to suggest that mission agencies abandon the “years of service”
pay increases and instead adopt a “piecework” mentality that rewards
productivity instead of longevity. Built into such salaries or
schedules could be a fund for special ministerial or
capital needs. Permanent structures owned by a missionary organization,
however, should be kept to an absolute minimum.
Rental or leasing agreements should be concluded wherever possible.
I realize, of course, that “ministry” cannot be quantified in the same way
that, say, a construction project can be, and so varying means
of quantification for assignments will need to
be worked out. But I am
convinced that this can be done, and that as a result “bearing much fruit...fruit
that will remain” will become the order of the
day.
Secondly, training for one’s assigned
task—whatever its duration—must become paramount.
Such an emphasis could serve to mitigate one of the most criticized aspects of
the modern “short-term” trend: the
lack of preparedness on the part of individuals sent on overseas assignments. Cross-cultural encounters between
nationals and church members who have received little or no information
regarding how one’s speech, dress, and general manner of conduct might be perceived by those native to a
specific country have often been disastrous. “Longer-term missionaries” constantly run the risk of having their
identification as Christians and the
ministries they have spent years laying foundations for compromised, damaged or
completely ruined by native
encounters with “Christians” who exhibit ungodly or inappropriate behavior. But thorough, in-depth training
combined with careful supervision during the ministry period can help to reduce to a minimum such negative
encounters.
Training programs that are required of individuals
before deployment should be designed so
that they are intensive, comprehensive, and appropriate to the
assignment that is envisioned. Intensiveness
will be necessary because many have only limited amounts of time to commit, and
these persons will want to get to
the task at hand. Comprehensiveness, however, will be necessary even in the midst of the intensiveness;
candidates should be required to learn a certain minimum of language and cross-cultural adjustment skills, as well as a
basic familiarity with the target
culture. Such items should be quantifiable, and “examinations” should be
designed and required so that only
those who “pass” will be allowed to depart on a missionary assignment. Such measures will impress upon candidates the
seriousness of the undertaking and will serve to motivate them to study diligently and learn thoroughly.
As part of all training programs, I would highly
recommend a thorough discussion of Timothy Tennent’s excellent article entitled
“Six Dangerous Questions About Short-Term Missions” that appeared in Vol. 33 of
Gordon-Conwell’s publication called Contact. These questions include the following: What is the
goal/motivation of short-term missions? What is the cost of short-term
missions? Where are short-termers going? What is the witness of short-term missionaries? What is the impact on field
resources/personnel? What is the impact of short-term missions on long-term missions? The answers that
Tennent provides are vital to producing a successful short-term ministry experience.
Thirdly, I believe that while we recognize that
contemporary young people indeed comprise
a “new” generation, this fact should never be cause for discouragement or
criticism. Rather than emphasizing
all the alleged “differences” between “them and us,” might it not be better to acknowledge all the ways these young
people are just like the “older” generation? Are they really so different? I personally do not believe they are. Note
the following.
• They are technology-oriented and
“gadget”-oriented. But these traits have certainly
characterized previous generations of missionaries.
Almost every modern-day apostle I have ever
known seems to have been enamored of technological advances, whether these are
connected with audio electronics (i.e., radio broadcast equipment); visual
technology, such as film production and projection,
VHS and DVD imaging, etc.; cellular telephone technology; computer
hardware and software; automobile and aircraft technology; new medical procedures,
and the like. I would like to see a camaraderie develop between the “older
geeks” and the “younger geeks,” with the older being able to
learn about the use of some of the latest “gadgets”
in the process. Let’s use these interests and skills—which can serve as pre‑
evangelistic and evangelistic
“lures,” discipling and educational aids, and even measures for relaxation
and recuperation from the pressures of constant involvement with people.
·
Many are just as devoted to God and focused on the
Great Commission as the members
of the previous generations have
been. And this should be our expectation, should it not? God is continually raising up new “laborers for the
harvest”—this is, after all, His mission. Why should we believe that He
would raise up workers today who are less committed than in previous
generations? Let’s encourage that devotion, and channel it in solid ministerial
directions without stifling the
fresh creativity of young people and without forcing them to adopt our “older” views of things.
·
Many—perhaps a majority—have a greater interest
in Relief and Development types of activities than they do in the “traditional” missionary
activities of evangelism, disciple making
and church planting. But rather than criticizing them for having given in to a
“social gospel” orientation, let’s
understand why they have focused on the areas they have. Let’s remember that they have been raised in an
environment of social awareness, hearing school programs and watching television documentaries concerned with world
hunger, poverty, modern slavery,
human sex trafficking, AIDS epidemics, and the like. In most cases they have simply never been confronted with the issue
of New Testament missions versus social gospel activities. Let’s educate them, introducing them to evangelical
figures who in the course of the history of Christianity carried the Gospel to
millions while simultaneously easing
the physiological and psychological burdens of the human race in general. Let’s
also recognize that this emphasis
often has more to do with an American mindset than with an inappropriate theology. Quite simply, relief and
development work is quantifiable in ways that the trio of ministry tasks
mentioned above is not. Young people want to see results of their labors. They want to be able to check off
small boxes on checklists signifying the measurable and observable completion of tasks. They have in many
instances never been shown that such
quantification is indeed possible—within limits—with respect to evangelism, discipling, and the establishment of
churches.
As a fourth recommendation, let me suggest that at this
juncture in the history of the Christian world mission, the
wisest course going forward would be to intentionally develop short-term,
“strike force” mentalities and the concept of “multiple
project” or “multiple assignment”
approaches to what were formerly called “career missions.” Rather than
continuing to castigate today’s young people for their lack
of long-term commitment, we should instead capitalize
on their short-term bursts of energy. Such an adaptation could take two forms.
First, I would like to see the development of a
“missionary band” or “strike force” mentality that assembles teams
that are lightly but strategically equipped and which are highly mobile.
Paul operated with a series of such groups. The first was comprised of himself,
Barnabas, and (for a time), John Mark, moving through
the itinerary of the First Journey. The second
“band” began with just Paul and Silas (Acts 15:40), and along the way were
added Timothy (16:3) and Luke (16:10 ff). The third “strike
force” included at least Paul and Luke (20:5),
and it is implied that there were other members as well (see 21:18).
The
CoMission cooperative effort of the early 1990s is an example of this concept.
When it became apparent that the former Soviet Union was undergoing a rapid
dissolution and that a window of opportunity was
opening for Christian missionary activity, a number of mission agencies
pulled seasoned veterans from various fields where work was well-developed and
redeployed them to Russia and associated nation-states.
Let me suggest that modern
pioneer-oriented “strike forces” be comprised of the following:
·
At least one proven evangelist;
·
Educators with enough knowledge
of theology to ground new believers in the basic precepts of
New Testament Christianity;
·
A mixture of “visionaries” and
“strategists” on the one hand, and “nuts and bolts” detail-oriented
planners on the other, to provide both a direction and a structure around which
a new work can be formed;
·
Singles or couples without
children, who will be able to give their undivided attention to the work
at hand, and who can easily be moved to new locations upon completion of their assignment.
Finally, for those who desire to remain in a more
“fixed” location, I would suggest a more
intentional and strategic utilization of the current pattern of alternating
periods of overseas ministry and
“home service.” Each overseas term and home assignment could be cast as completely independent segments of missionaries’
lives and ministries. Each of these time periods would thus become in effect a “short-term” assignment, with
clear goals and objectives partitioned
off by a starting date and an ending date. Some missionaries might be moved
around within a single country or
even within a specific geographic area from term to term in order to maintain young missionaries at their peak
effectiveness.
If not the geographic location, then perhaps the
specific ministry or work assignment could
be changed on a regular basis. For a number of the “Baby Buster” generation as
well as the “Gen Xers” (or
“Millennials”), a variety of experiences is considered necessary to develop
one’s “self” to its “full
potential.” This is not necessarily a “New Age” concept, as some have categorized it, for the Bible itself indicates
that we are all being “transformed into his likeness with ever increasing
glory” (2 Corinthians 3:18). Does this passage not imply a process of development toward maturity? I believe that such
means of spiritual growth and self-fulfillment for missionaries can and should
be made an integral part of both missional and denominational long range purposes and goals. If young people
see their activities leading to internal and personal growth as well as external and institutional development, is
it not likely that they will throw themselves much more wholeheartedly into
their work?
Some Closing Thoughts
When all is said and done, the “new trend of
short-term missions” is not new at all. As we have seen, the precedent for this
missiological methodology was set by the apostle Paul himself; indeed, we can easily make the case that
“short-term missions” was the original pattern for the spread of the Gospel that was designed and
implemented by the Holy Spirit and revealed by Him through the New Testament writers. Consequently,
mission agencies adopting short-term philosophies
of ministry represent not an innovation but rather a return to a New Testament pattern of mission.
Due to the exponential growth of the population of the
planet in general and the revivals being experienced by many of the
major world religions, Biblically motivated, properly educated,
adequately equipped, and strategically synchronized “missionary strike forces”
with a laser-like focus on the tasks at hand are certainly more
than ever the “need of the hour.” Let’s do all we can to mobilize the current
generation to meet these challenges.