REDIRECTING MEMBERS OF SHORT-TERM MISSION
TO UNREACHED PEOPLE GROUPS
By
Dave Williams
Dave Williams has served as a
student mission mobilizer in North America and in Asia.
He and his wife now serve in Muslim Africa amongst an unengaged unreached
Muslim people group.
SHORTAGE OF MANPOWER TOWARDS THE
UNREACHED
One crucial
and fascinating but often-overlooked aspect of taking the Gospel to the remaining Unreached People Groups of the world is
how new missionaries choose their countries
of service.In 1983, when we first read that there were only about 85,000
missionaries serving in the world, we were shocked. Still, we felt sure
about one thing: We need more missionaries.[i]
As Justin Long stated recently in Momentum Magazine, “Reaching the unreached is a challenging task, but our primary problem is
not the cultural, economic, logistical or political barriers we face. It is more simple: we lack
sufficient manpower.”[ii]
A few years later, when we discovered that 90
percent of all missionaries were serving in the already-reached parts of the world, we became deeply concerned.[iii]
Not only do we need more
missionaries, but we need more people in the places where no one ever volunteers
to go or feels “called” to serve in.
Since that time, we have had a great interest in observing how future missionaries choose their countries of service.
Missionaries Serving Reached Peoples: 420,000. Missionaries Serving
Unreached Peoples: 10,000
THE UNREACHED
PEOPLE GROUPS
Over the past 30 years, as the Frontier Mission
Movement has focused on taking the Gospel to Unreached People Groups
around the world, the situation has improved slightly. Nevertheless, the vast
majority of missionaries (90%) still serve where the church is already established.[iv] If we consider
all
missionaries (as shown above), then actually 98 percent serve in reached areas and only 2 percent serve among the
unreached. (See “Missionaries to the Unreached . . . A Very Small
Slice”).
Dr. Ralph Winter and the U.S. Center for World
Mission, along with many others, have called
attention to the thousands of ethnic groups yet to have their own church. The
Lausanne and AD 2000 and Beyond
Movements, as well as Luis Bush’s development of the 10/40 Window concept, have impacted and influenced
mission agencies, churches, and Christians worldwide to place heightened attention on the unreached peoples of the
world.
The Perspectives
course, which clearly paints the picture of the world situation, was created in part to give future missionaries (e.g.,
the Urbana mission conference long-term mission commitment card signers) information on the world situation so
that they could make a well-informed
decision regarding many aspects of their future mission service. Major topics addressed in the course include where in the
world to serve and what approaches to use. Yet in
2
all
these years, the simple idea of assigning new missionaries to the Unreached
People Groups has somehow been overlooked.
With as few as 10,000 workers serving today among
the thousands of Unreached People Groups of the world, however, the vast
number of Unreached People Groups will remain unreached
as new missionaries continue to join the throng of missionaries already serving
in the reached areas of the world.[v]
The Church (Senders) and most missionaries (Goers) both seem to be echoing what Moses said to God in Exodus 4:13
“O Lord, please send someone else to do it.”
THE “ZEAL FOR ME”
In previous mission eras, most candidates simply
went to the country where they were assigned by their mission agency or
denominational sending board.[vi] Today’s self-oriented individualism, however, has resulted in a
Christianized form of Maslow’s hierarchy with the ultimate goal of “attaining my own personal
spiritual fulfillment.”[vii] Perhaps this has blinded many people, causing them to focus more on the
gifts and “calling” of the missionary instead of the command to take the Gospel to every tribe, tongue, and nation (ethne or peoples). Indeed, we fully endorse the scriptural teachings regarding
wise stewardship of our spiritual gifts and talents, but where we use them also needs to be guided by the
Scriptures, not just our personal preferences.
Trying to seek our own self-fulfillment, a
spin-off of modern psychology, is contrary to the most basic concept that Jesus taught His disciples. “He knew that
the only path to true fulfillment lay in denying self. The only way to
find truly abundant life is to throw your life away for Jesus’ sake.” [v.. The vast majority of new
missionaries today simply go where they want to serve and do what they want to do. They add to the masses—today
still 90%—serving among
already-reached peoples. “The biggest hindrance to the missionary task is self.
Self that refuses to die. Self that
refuses to sacrifice. Self that refuses to give. Self that refuses to go.”[ix]
We would add another hindrance: self that refuses
to go where few, if any, missionaries are serving.
Almost completely lost today is any consideration
of the point of view of the unreached peoples themselves who are still waiting
for missionaries to bring the Gospel to them for the very first time. If a lost Libyan (who deep down longs
to really know God) were on a church missions committee or mission
agency leadership team, where would he or she vote to send a willing missionary candidate?
This
“zeal for me,” which often results in new missionaries going where they want
to, means that the current 6,000 to 10,000 Unreached People Groups will
continue to remain unreached unless mission agencies change their policies, ask
candidates to be willing to go anywhere,
and work together with each team of willing candidates (and their sending
churches) to research and select an
Unreached People Group.[x] No one knows better than mission
agency leaders which specific
Unreached People Groups no one ever volunteers for. These “unengaged” (with
few, if any, missionaries) Unreached People Groups should be at the top of the
list that agency leaders begin recommending
to willing candidates.
3
WHY DO MOST NEW MISSIONARIES END UP SERVING IN
WELL-EVANGELIZED COUNTRIES RATHER THAN
UNREACHED PEOPLE GROUPS?
During almost 20 years of mingling with
pre-candidates (future missionaries), we have observed that most new missionaries select their fields of service based
on an initial short-term trip. “Indeed, recruitment is a primary reason agencies
began facilitating short-term missions. The Southern Baptist International
Mission Board (SBIMB) appointed 885 new missionaries in
1998. Of those, 85 percent said God used
short-term mission experiences to confirm their call.”[xi]
Many pre-candidates choose where to serve
long-term by first going on one or a series of short-term trips to a country. They fall in love with the place and the
people. We must work together to
change this trend, however, because the primary result seems to be that most
new missionaries continue to go where the majority of missionaries are
already serving—that is, in the reached
parts of the world.
One simple
reason for this pattern is the reality that long-term field missionaries who serve in the already Christianized parts of the
world are the primary hosts for the vast majority of short-term mission trips. Deeply influenced by
their short-term experiences, most new missionaries often choose to go back to
serve long-term in the same countries, or even as teammates with, the long-term missionaries that
they met on their short-term trips. Nevertheless, this very fact means
that new workers continue to throng to the already-reached areas where most
missionaries are based. They end up joining in the work of those missionaries
who are primarily working with Christians in
churches that have already been established. This self-perpetuating pattern is
a major factor in keeping the Unreached People Groups from being penetrated.
If a pre-candidate asks for advice from the
missionary they got to know on their short-term trip, the field missionary likely will invite this new missionary
to come and serve where the long-term missionary is already serving. Almost
every missionary we have met over the past 25 years was understaffed and would
rarely turn down the possibility of a fully-funded new worker to join in their
ministry.
Most new missionaries feel “led” based on this
kind of personal contact and information from missionaries they meet out on the field during short-term trips.
For some pre-candidates, the field
missionaries they met on short-term trips may be the only missionaries they
know, and for some new missionary candidates, this kind of personal invitation
from a long-term field missionary may be the very “sign” from God that they
were praying for.
For some new,
young missionaries, it may be very prestigious (and quite an honor) to have an older, senior field missionary recognize
the young missionary candidate who may not yet have their own sense of confidence and direction. An offer from the
older missionary to come and serve
together may literally be too hard for the younger missionary to turn down. The
result is that many new missionaries will accept such offers and thus,
continue to go where churches are already
established rather than to Unreached People Groups.
In the past, contact with long-term missionaries
was likely minimal, perhaps during a furlough
visit to the pre-candidate’s home church. The dusty missionary photo next to
the world map in the church foyer really is a real person who springs to life
every four or five years on the church
stage. Maybe there was time for the pre-candidate to meet with that field
missionary
Published under “Featured Articles” at GlobalMissiology.org,
October 2008
4
during
the following week over lunch. Maybe not. Either way, contact was minimal with
little sense of relationship.
Due to the exploding short-term missions movement,
the one-on-one relationship-building
that many pre-candidates have with long-term field missionaries has greatly increased.[xii] Now,
pre-candidates can more easily get to know a long-term missionary out on the field during their short-term mission trip
experience. In fact, some pre-candidates may meet the same missionary every year during multiple trips
to the same place. In some cases today, the frequent short-termer may actually visit a field missionary on the
field more than that same longterm missionary visits the supporting church
that the short-termer calls home. The relationship is not only deeper but also more dynamic because it
develops out on the field rather than inside the walls of the home
church.
Now it is much easier for the aspiring mission
candidate to literally visualize themselves living and working in the very same
place as the field missionary they met on a short-term trip. Some new
missionaries have already lived in their selected country of service for days,
weeks, or even months via short-term trips to that place. The resulting
impact on the young future missionaries is often
an even stronger feeling of being “called” to work long-term in that well-evangelized country, possibly even with that
missionary.
REDIRECTING MEMBERS OF SHORT-TERM
MISSION
TO UNREACHED PEOPLE GROUPS
This cycle must either be broken or at least greatly
redirected. We must begin to explore both creative and very tangible
ways to see the spinning-out-of-control short-term missions movement make a radical shift toward short-term
mission trips to Unreached People Groups.[xiii] How else will we see a new wave of
missionaries who feel “called” to go to these people groups?
This will not be easy, though. The first obvious
major barrier to seeing short-term vision and pre-search trips to Unreached People Groups is the reality that so
few long-term workers are already serving among Unreached People Groups. Thus,
few are there to arrange short-term trips. Also, if we are talking about
the Unengaged Unreached People Groups, then workers serving among them and information about them is scarce,
and short-term trips there are almost unheard of. Thus, as it is today,
and has been for many decades, there is almost no way for aspiring missionaries
to feel “called” or “led” to an Unreached People Group in the normal pattern of
going on a short-term trip there first.[xiv]
In one sense, it would almost be better for
future missionaries not to talk with long-term field missionaries if one of the primary results is more new workers
serving in the well-evangelized parts
of the world. Ironically, however, many of the same long-term field missionaries who help organize short-term trips
often (but not always) have the latest and best information on nearby Unengaged Unreached People Groups.
How wonderful it would be if the short-term mission
movement took a major paradigm shift in purpose toward being
used specifically (or could we hope and dream . . . even exclusively?)
as a tool to get new workers into people groups that currently have few or no
missionaries serving among them. Perhaps we need to further challenge,
encourage, and train
5
field
missionaries on how to organize and host vision and pre-search trips primarily
to Unreached People Groups.
We do indeed highly recommend that new
missionaries sit at the feet of and learn from experienced missionaries. Churches sending missionaries directly
without leaning on the decades of
wisdom, experience, and knowledge that both long-term field missionaries and
their agencies have has been a
mistake. Traditionally, new missionaries may serve their first and even second term
under the wing of a senior field missionary. Those senior missionaries know
well how to work strategically in that
area, region, and country.
If we assume that passing the baton of knowledge
and experience can only occur when younger
and older missionaries actually work together (on location) in the same field,
however, then we have raised yet another barrier to getting new
missionaries into Unreached People Groups.
The only way for new missionaries to actually reach Unengaged Unreached People Groups is to go beyond where other missionaries
are already working.
We must find a better way to pass on this crucial
knowledge and experience. Many agencies
today use email, telephone, and visits by traveling regional supervisors to
wherever new missionaries are
working. The real root problem, however, is that many new missionaries actually prefer having a live person around all
the time who can help them at a moment’s notice. This is another strong factor
enticing new missionaries to choose to serve in the already reached parts of
the world.
Short-term mission trips, invitations to serve
with missionaries working in evangelized areas, lack of vision trips to Unreached People Groups, and a pattern
of serving directly under the
constant personal supervision and guidance of veteran missionaries are all
reasons why most new missionaries end
up going to the “reached” parts of the world. Perhaps an even larger factor is the reality that it is often just much easier to
serve in reached areas. That ease is a big attraction for many missionaries. The biggest factor, however, may well
be something much less tangible, yet
far more influential, than any factor we have presented thus far. It is called
one’s “calling.”
The Awe of the Call
There is a long-standing, hallowed
tradition—primarily held, guarded, and promoted by missionaries—that one must be “called” to serve in
a certain country and to a specific kind of mission work. Kevin Howard boldly challenges this by stating: “But
Scripture doesn’t teach this concept of
a call for all believers, or even for most believers.”[xv]
In fact, it seems that most
“mission folk” are rather in awe of this mysterious call. If we step back for a
moment, however, and realize that the flip-side of our “calling” to missions is
millions of Christians who are sure they are “not
called,” then we may want to go back and reexamine
this tradition in light of Scripture.
It is a sad irony that those most devoted to missions are
often also the ones most perplexed by the fact that the vast
majority of Christians think missions is irrelevant. Perhaps mission
leaders, missionaries, and mobilizers have helped fuel this dichotomy between
the “called” and the “not called” that is not found
anywhere in Scripture. We have been trying for
6
decades
to figure out how to get more pew-sitters (who could care less about what we
love most) actively involved in missions
either as Senders or Goers.
We (mission folk) are sure the Great Commission
is a command for all believers, not just those of us who were “called” into full-time mission service. Indeed,
with all our hearts we also believe this is true! But the very way we
talk about our own “calling” may well be one of the prime factors fueling the masses of Christians who do not have missions
anywhere on their “page,” much less
their hearts.
Many mission leaders have tried for years to show
that all Christians are commanded to be
involved some way in missions either as Senders or Goers. There is no third
option for sidelined benchwarmers (or
pew-warmers). Everyone is in the game! Yet today, most data continue to reveal the fact that, worldwide, only
about 10 percent of those who call themselves Christians are actively involved in world evangelization.[xvi]
Those 10 percent, sometimes referred
to as “Great Commission Christians,” would almost all fall into the popular new
category called “Senders.” (And if we dare try to calculate what percentage the
10,000 missionaries to the Unreached People Groups represent out of all
2.1 billion Christians in the world, then
we are only talking about 0.0005%). Seemingly lost today is simple obedience to
the obvious command clearly found in the Scriptures: “Go into all the
world and preach the good news to all
creation” (Mark 16:15 NIV). Also overlooked is the great need found in the
world situation today (still 10,000
Unreached People Groups with few missionaries serving among them).
Perhaps we
need to develop a better way of talking about our “callings” with more emphasis on the Scriptures—such as God’s command
for everyone to be involved in taking the Gospel to the whole world (Matthew 28:18–20)—and less talk about our own
personal “callings.” Sharing how God
is “guiding” us or how the Holy Spirit is “leading” may both be more
biblically-based terms. They are certainly applicable in the daily lives of all
believers.
Some may argue at this point, “Well that is just
semantics; it does not really matter which words you use.” (Semantics, by the way, is the study of the meaning of
words). The point here, however, is
that the images and meanings conjured up by the word “calling” have tremendous ramifications on both new and old missionaries
alike, as well as on non-missionaries. For many, the meaning of the word
“calling” is very powerful, almost sacred.
Many people seem to have more of an “Awe of the
Call” to mission service rather than an actual awe of God Himself. We
wonder if perhaps individualism and the pursuit of a Christianized self-actualization may also at times be cloaked in the
“call” with its often high-priority focus on me, my gifts,
and my
desires.
Maybe Christians cloak their choices in spiritual
language—“God’s calling me”—to make
themselves feel better about their choice or to keep people from questioning
their choice. Why not just say: “The Bible tells believers to make disciples.
Therefore, I want to go to Egypt,” or “Even though I have reservations
about going to Egypt, I think they could benefit from my help as a follower of Christ”? What harm is there
in approaching Christian service in that way? God is still glorified.[xvii]
Most likely, the “Awe of the Call” evolved over the
centuries from two key biblical models: Isaiah’s “call” and Paul’s “call.” The
following passages are perhaps those that many
7
have
used over time in attempts to base the idea in Scripture, along with the
long-held tradition of a “calling” to missions service.
Isaiah’s Call
Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom
shall I send? And who will go for us?” And
I said, “Here am I. Send me!” (Isaiah 6:8 NIV)
Paul’s Call
Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared
to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen of me
and what I will show you. I will rescue you from your own people and from the
Gentiles. I am sending you to them to open their eyes and turn them from
darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive
forgiveness of sins and a place
among those who are sanctified by faith in me (Acts 26:16–18 NIV).
It is rather easy to show that
Isaiah’s “call” was to serve as a prophet in Israel, not as a missionary.
Paul’s “call” is more likely the foundation that any missionary would love to
use to scripturally substantiate their own personal
“calling.” I know I would. I am unashamed to admit that
after Jesus Himself, Paul is my hero! Some have questioned, however, whether
there really is sufficient biblical evidence to confirm the idea of the
traditional “call” to missions so popular in the jargon of
missionaries.
Kevin
Howard, referring to different passages than those above, wrote in EMQ
in 2003:
As we think about a calling, let’s consider the
first missionary journey in Acts 13:2. It says, “And while they were
ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, ‘Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I
have called them’” (NASV). The other passage that comes to mind regarding God’s call to missions is the Macedonian
Call in Acts 16. Paul wanted to preach in Asia, but was forbidden by the
Spirit, and a vision led him to Macedonia. Many Christians conclude that all
believers must therefore have this kind of clear calling. But, can we make
either of these experiences the standard for all other missionaries? If so,
why? Nowhere does Scripture promise this
sort of clarity when doing God’s will.[xviii]
I agree with Howard that there
seems to be scant scriptural evidence to support the long-held tradition of a
“calling” to missions service. Perhaps, though, we are actually arguing against
this idea of a “calling” for a different reason than
Howard.[xix]
Few
argue with the concept that the Great Commission indeed applies to all
believers, and teaching all believers to
obey the Great Commission is actually part of that commission (“teaching
them to obey everything I have commanded you,” Matthew 28:20 NIV). Perhaps if we let go of this tradition of requiring
missionaries to have a “calling” we will actually see many more Senders and Goers raised up who are
motivated to “send” and “go” simply by obeying the Great Commission.
8
Howard’s
article received a strong critique through a long letter to the editor of EMQ from a well-known missionary who was “shocked and
deeply disturbed” that someone questioned
the idea of the “call” to missions service.[xx] In this
article, we are not really challenging
the idea of the “call” so much as the way I think it is often misused. In fact,
my own “call” more than twenty years
ago is still foundational to what I am doing today.
The general “calling” or decision to serve in
career missions work perhaps needs to be differentiated from the specific
“calling” to a certain country or people group. Many mission folk tend
to use the term “calling” to describe both, even if our “calling” to serve in
career missions and our “calling” to serve
in a specific country came many years apart from one another, as often is the case. Our focus here is on “calling” as we
use that term in relation to place of service (country and people group).
Rather than fully entering into a theological
debate as to whether or not the idea of a “calling” has substantial scriptural footing, we simply would like to
think about how the traditional “call” to a specific country does not
seem to be well-guided by the biblical emphasis to take the Gospel to those who have never heard. “It has always been my
ambition to preach the gospel where
Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation”
(Romans 15:20 NIV).
How do we
explain God’s calling only 10 percent of all missionaries to the Unreached People Groups? Are only two missionaries out of
every 100 hearing the Holy Spirit call them to these 10,000 Unreached People
Groups still waiting to hear the Gospel? Does not the Holy Spirit want to send
missionaries to these Unreached Peoples? Is the problem the Holy Spirit, or
perhaps is it the fact that we are
not truly listening? Perhaps we are not able to really listen to God mainly because we already thought for sure God “called”
us to go somewhere else based on being “led” through our short-term
experience and contact with a missionary we met there in a well-evangelized
country.
Do we perhaps mistakenly apply the concept and
especially the timing of when we receive
our personal “call” to serve in a certain country? If this is the case, then it
is possible that mission agency
leaders, who are best suited to steer people to Unreached People Groups, do not
suggest specific people groups
because these leaders also have the same “awe” and respect for the mysterious “call” of service to a certain
country. In fact, these agency leaders likely hold very dearly their own personal “call” to the country they
formerly served in and are not about to tell a new missionary, even
someone willing to serve anywhere, which country or people group they should serve in. That would be tantamount to
breaking the long-held tradition and perhaps even putting in jeopardy their own previous “calling”
to the field they served in. However, it does not need to.
What we are suggesting is that the “calling” to a
particular Unreached People Group (and country)
can just as easily take place after the mission agency assigns the new
missionary to a specific people and place. This is simply a timing
change. Both old and new missionaries could still
gather years later and share stories about their “calling” to serve in a
certain country with a specific people group.
Would not almost all mission
agency leaders be thrilled if a new generation of applicants began
filling in their application forms as follows: Country of Calling: Anywhere.
People Group: Assign us. If
this actually began to happen, these leaders could not only maintain the
integrity of their own previous “calling” but
also help many new applicants discover their own “calling”
Published
under “Featured Articles” at GlobalMissiology.org,
October 2008
9
through the new process
of being assigned to the peoples and places that few people ever write on those lines of their application forms. As it
stands today, in general, most agencies simply want the missionary to go where the missionary feels “called” to go
(and possibly just where the missionary wants to go).
Frontiers and
Pioneers are two of my favorite mission agencies. They each grew out of the Frontier Mission Movement in direct response
to the shift toward Unreached People Groups; in fact, these fine agencies send missionaries only to Unreached People
Groups. If most sending agencies,
including Frontiers and Pioneers, still follow the traditional “awe of the
call” concept, then thousands of
Unreached People Groups that these two agencies (and many others) would love
to target will still remain unreached, and workers they recruit and send will
continue to amass among certain “popular”
Unreached People Groups.
The long-held tradition of having a “calling” to a
specific country and people group before
joining a mission agency may actually be thwarting many agencies’ original
vision to get workers into as many
Unreached People Groups as possible. It certainly seems to be thwarting Jesus’ original command to go to all peoples.
Why not look more at how the timing of the
“calling” to a specific country and people group might come as a process in community between the sending church,
the candidate, and the sending
agency? Could it not occur closer to the actual time of departure to the field
or even after arriving to the place
of service one has been assigned? One biblical model that seems to support a post-arrival (or arrival at their post!)
“calling” is the way that Paul and Barnabas were sent off by the Antioch church. In fact, these two new missionaries got
most of their direction to various
cities, countries, and peoples after they landed on the mission field!
In the church at Antioch there were prophets and
teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger,
Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and
Saul. While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting,
the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas
and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” So after they had fasted
and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent
them off. The two of them, sent on their way by the
Holy Spirit, went down to Seleucia and sailed from there to Cyprus. When they
arrived at Salamis, they proclaimed the
word of God in the Jewish synagogues. John was with them as their helper (Acts 13:1–5
NIV).
The way Paul and Barnabas were sent off seems to
provide biblical support to the idea of receiving one’s “calling” at the time of departure or even after
arriving on the field. They had no short-term
experiences. Their “calling” (or sending, if you look at it from the church’s
point of view) involved no sense of
specific countries or peoples. They were not limited by imagining God had told them years earlier to serve in a
specific country. Their prime directive seemed to be that which applies to all believers—to take the
Gospel to the whole world. “It really is God giving the vision for the world rather than just the specific country,”
as the director of training at a mission agency once told me.
Therefore, we propose that new
missionary candidates should wait, pray, and be willing to go anywhere. Then,
they should receive their “call” from God closer to their departure time, just
at Paul and Barnabas did, with confirmation of their “call” through specific
guidance from God and the leading of the Holy
Spirit while already on the field they are sent to.
10
The simple, two-part solution that we are
suggesting is to encourage pre-candidates not to choose a country or people group, but be willing to serve anywhere while
at the same time asking mission agencies to assign them to Unreached
People Groups, especially those people groups
that have the fewest missionaries.
Willing
and Waiting
How many stories do we know of
missionaries who were on their way to one of the 141 already
well-evangelized countries of the world that have 60 percent or more church
members when they were redirected to an
Unreached People Group.[xxi] I personally know of only one or
two examples in 20 years of working with pre-candidates.
On the other hand, how many stories do we know of
mission candidates who marched off to
serve in countries where the church is well-established? Probably most of the
missionaries we know serve there, since 90 percent (or more) of all
missionaries are serving in the evangelized parts
of the world. In Romans 15:20, Paul clearly emphasizes his desire not to work
where other missionaries are already
serving to ensure that he is taking the Gospel to those who have never heard. This should be our desire as well. For
centuries since Paul penned this prototype “mission statement,” the Church has almost completely lost
this desire to avoid “building on someone else’s foundation.” Sometimes, we actually seem to prefer the places
with established foundations.
The simple idea we are suggesting begins with asking
pre-candidates (as well as new mission agency applicants),
during their long years of preparation, to wait and receive their “call”
by submitting to the mission agency and their sending church with a willingness
to be steered or guided especially to a country and an
Unreached People Group that no one is volunteering for.
We feel that mission agencies and churches should
ask those seriously considering longterm
mission service not to decide where they want to go but rather to wait and be
willing to be assigned to an
overlooked country and people group. Actually, pre-candidates should be challenged with this concept early on, perhaps
before or during their first short-term mission trip, because many decide where to go years before
joining a mission agency and departing for their long-term place of
service. Where to serve (meaning country and ethnic group) is perhaps the most crucial decision that missionaries, mission
agencies, and sending churches make.
We believe the Spirit is calling. Yet new missionaries
are often not in a position to listen because
of what they already thought God told them regarding their country of service.
The Bible certainly seems to support the idea of having
a willing obedience to God without first having
all the details spelled out. Surely flexibility, submission, willingness, and
obedience are all qualities that every
aspiring missionary should have. Encouraging new missionaries to have a willingness
to serve anywhere is not asking them to do anything more than what God is
asking them to do. Agencies and sending churches should
then work together to assign these willing candidates
to Unreached People Groups.
11
Agencies Assigning
Most of us have experienced an uneasy feeling
when individual members of a Christian group, committee, or team
disagree on what should be done in a given situation. Impasse, deadlock, and delay are often the results. As the
Holy Spirit is sought through prayer, however, the affirmation that indeed the Spirit is speaking, and not just
people, can be found through agreement.
The Holy Spirit can guide different people—sometimes with their own personal agendas—together in unity regarding an important
decision.
The Bible teaches this simple,
yet too rarely applied, principle for discernment in decision-making. When the
Holy Spirit speaks, directs, and guides, confirmation can be discovered
by the agreement of those in spiritual authority.
The situation in Antioch, described in Acts 13,
shows that the church leaders (which many
believe included Paul and Barnabas) all agreed on the decision to send out
these two as missionaries. We can
more clearly discern the Holy Spirit’s work in community to affirm a decision than we can by ourselves. It
is far easier to be misled when making a decision on our own. Deceiving ourselves goes back all the way to
the Garden. All of us are naturally pretty good at it.
We see the same pattern in Acts 1:23–26 when a
new apostle was appointed to replace Judas.
They began with two choices, prayed, and then all agreed to select Matthias.
Again in Acts 6:1–7, when the problem
about distributing food to the widows arose, agreement among the leadership regarding what to do and who to have do
it was confirmed by one thing: agreement. Actually, the 12 apostles agreed to delegate the decision to the much
larger group (the disciples) who, amazingly (because it is not always
easy to see large groups come to agreement), were able to agree upon seven men
to fulfill this need.
We believe that these (and other) biblical models
suggest that God’s will can best be both sought and confirmed through a
communal decision. Thus, regarding the country and people group placements of
new missionaries, we suggest that the three-legged community of church, the applicant (new missionary), and the mission
agency as the closest modern application of these biblical models. To achieve this, we need to literally (e.g. by
email and phone) connect the new
missionaries, their home or sending church leaders, and their mission agency
leaders so that together they can
pray, discuss, and discern which country and Unreached People Groups to send the
new missionaries to.
Once all three parties agree on the same country
and people group, then together they can all be much more assured that
they are truly hearing from God. If two or three of the parties begin by choosing different countries and people
groups, then they must go back to the prayer room until a unified decision is
reached.
One
caution with this approach is in order. If the mission agency, sending church,
or missionary is not fully committed to sending and
going only to Unreached People Groups, especially
where few or no missionaries are serving, then this communal decision process
may actually backfire, resulting in more new
missionaries going to the well-evangelized parts of the world.
If at least one or even two of the three parties have this conviction and
commitment to go where other missionaries are not going, however, then
the other parties can be moved by the Holy
Spirit to eventually agree on one and the same direction.
12
Leadership teams at churches, mission agencies,
and other types of ministries spend a significant
amount of time meeting and discussing where to place, replace, assign, and
reassign (or sometimes even release)
staff members serving under their authority. Just because new missionaries are not working directly on location
in those ministry “offices” does not mean that less time should be devoted to discussing these new candidates’
specific placement on the field. Should
not the placement and role of their “field staff,” the home churches and
mission agencies of the new missionaries, justify as much or even more time for
discussion among those leaders? The
same unity in decision making used daily among spiritual leaders can also be
used in assigning new missionaries to the field.
This process may well be more biblical. In fact,
it may actually offer even more assurance
for the new missionary than the commonly-heard argument that one must have a
sure “calling” to a country or they
may later lose heart, give up, and come home when faced with difficulties. Seeing these three parties start
with possibly three different choices, yet later end up agreeing on the same
country and people group, can also provide assurance of the Holy Spirit’s guidance. It may provide even more confidence and
joy, as it seemed to do for Paul and Barnabas.
They did not seem to struggle with doubts about the decision that was made by
the leaders in the Antioch church.
In the old
paradigm, where placing missionaries in specific countries was the primary focus for most mission agencies, there were far
fewer options than with today’s focus on reaching the remaining 10,000 Unreached People Groups. In previous
mission eras many agencies specialized
on one continent, a certain region or a specific religious bloc. The number of
options was radically lower when discerning which country to assign the new
missionary applicant to. For large denominational agencies who desired to have
representation in every country of the
world, there were less than 200 options. And for continental or regionally
focused agencies, the number of
country placement options often would have been well below 50. This is nothing compared to 10,000 options for placement!
Perhaps the sheer number of Unreached People
Groups in the world today has made some
agency and church leaders think “Why only God can choose where to assign you,”
so they opt out of the tremendous opportunity God has given them to
place new missionaries into overlooked
people groups. Therefore, we are challenging mission agencies to turn the clock
back and once again begin assigning willing long-term workers, this time not
only to countries but specifically
to Unreached People Groups.
1. Future
missionaries should wait and pray that God would give them a heart willing to
go any where.
2. Mission
agencies and churches should assign these willing new missionaries to Unreached
Pe ople Groups.
One of the major reasons for this approach is the
fact that mission agency leaders know best
where they really need workers (i.e., where no one ever signs up to go). These
leaders have access to the latest
data on the number of missionaries serving in creative access countries, something hard toet on the Internet or in books
such as the excellent Operation World by Patrick Johnstone.FXxii]
If mission agency leaders would assign new
candidates, not just to countries but also to specific Unreached People Groups, we believe we could speed the day of
Christ’s return. Indeed,
Published
under “Featured Articles” at GlobalMissiology.org,
October 2008
13
we
should hope and pray for the coming glorious days when so many new missionaries
are spreading out to serve among the remaining 10,000
Unreached People Groups that assigning new missionaries eventually
becomes a “10 . . . 9 . . . 8 . . . 7 . . . ” countdown.
We hope and pray for the coming day when the
Unreached People Group lists become so short
that new missionaries might actually know the “limited” options of where their
service is needed before filling out their application. “Bummer . . . so many
workers have already flooded Libya .
. . I guess the only choice left for me is Somalia,” might be recorded and
saved on the audio portion of the
online application as the candidate mutters to themselves just before their webcam interview with the agency director in the
year 2025. Yet we never will reach that point if we continue to allow
new missionaries to go wherever they want.
Our main point here is simply this: If mission
agency leaders, many today who long to send
more new missionaries into Unreached People Groups, are not willing to take
measures to assign willing candidates to specific Unreached People
Groups, then the majority of new missionaries
will continue to go to well-evangelized countries and work with Christians and churches
they got to know through previous short-term mission trips. According to Kevin Howard, the “calling” is perhaps the biggest
barrier of all:
What
frustrates me with the advice “go where God calls you” or “find where God is working and join him” is that it is given as sort
of the panacea answer, the ultimate solution to all my questions and doubts.
But this advice only begs the question. To tell me to go where God is calling
me leaves unanswered the very question it proposes to answer—where do I go?[xxiii]
Longing, praying, strategizing, and even making
new agencies focused exclusively on unreached
peoples will not break this pattern unless seasoned field veterans, who know
very well the places and peoples who are being overlooked, help to assign these
young new missionaries. Relying solely
on God to “call” new missionaries to the remaining 10,000 groups sounds spiritual and reliant on God. Perhaps agency
leaders need to realize that God has appointed them to their position of leadership for “such a time
as this.” Directing new missionaries should be the primary function of a
mission agency director. Many young new missionaries may simply lack this broader global vision and will end up making
their own private decision based on personal preferences. Likely, the majority will continue to go to the places
where many missionaries are
already serving.[xxiv]
TROUBLED BY
“STRATEGIC” MISSIONS?
Some will argue that this approach of assigning
new missionaries to Unreached People Groups is simply a “strategic”
approach and thus, void of the leading of the Holy Spirit or lacking God’s
guidance. Perhaps the entire category labeled “strategic missions” always has been a misnomer. The word “strategy,” especially
in the eyes of the fastest-growing segment of the church worldwide, the Charismatics, has likely always been a poor
choice. It just does not sound
spiritual enough and seems void of the Holy Spirit.
Many assume that the word
“strategy” involves only human-made plans simply because we
associate the word with the fields of business or the military, two things we
are sure God has nothing to do with (which, of
course, is not true. God has His hands into just about everything). The term
was borrowed from the business and military worlds, so some may assume that a
14
“strategic” missions approach
must be directed by humans and have little to do with the leading of
the Holy Spirit. Perhaps we should develop a different term such as “Spirit-Led
Missions” or “God-Guided Missions” instead of
the term “Strategic Missions.”
One only
needs to look a little closer at what “mission strategy” is actually talking
about to see that it speaks volumes regarding
the leading of the Holy Spirit and the main thing on Jesus’ heart: His desire to have a relationship
with the peoples who have the fewest opportunities to come to know Him, and how we can be led of and
used by the Holy Spirit to accomplish Jesus’ mission.
C. Peter Wagner, one of the top missiologists
advocating the Holy Spirit’s role in missions explains how the Holy
Spirit is using “mission strategy” in the Frontier Missions Movement. "xv] The
Scriptures and the heart of God clearly reveal what the Holy Spirit wants to do—to bring the light and Person of Jesus to
those who have not yet heard. This is what strategy is all about!
HYPER-STATISTIC
APPROACH?
Others may fear that statistics alone and a
desire to be “strategic” will cause people to be assigned to serve among
a specific Unreached People Group without a clear sense of God’s leading. For many, however, God uses statistics to
reveal the presence or lack of presence of the Holy Spirit around the world. William Carey, Hudson Taylor, Ralph
Winter, Luis Bush, Patrick Johnstone,
and many other mission leaders who have helped awaken the church to places no
one was working have all used statistics extensively.
I often enjoy using Operation
World at the end of my daily quiet
times. The statistics have never
seemed dry or made by humans. Rather, they have always represented the voices
of the masses calling out for people
tell them about Jesus! Statistics, coupled with the Word of God, have been two of the main ways that the Holy
Spirit has spoken to me with regards to where to serve and what to do there. If you have never done this before, open
your Bible and a copy of Operation World together, lay them side by side, and read a little
from each. Then, pray that the Holy Spirit would speak. Watch out! Your plans
and even what you “thought” God had already told you to do might be turned upside-down by the Holy Spirit.
Statistics are just numbers, but they represent real
souls and the reality we must face in the
world today—the lack of the presence of the Holy Spirit among 10,000 Unreached
People Groups. My heart has been breaking for more than
twenty years at the thought of the millions of people
who have no church, no missionaries, and no Jesus.
The Holy Spirit used statistics to open
my eyes to this reality. Statistics are not just numbers on paper or from a
website on your screen. They represent the lost sheep that Jesus is
trying to bring home, but so few willing shepherds
are hearing the Master Shepherd’s voice.
15
PROMOTING, MOBILIZING, RECRUITING, AND ONE MORE THING:
ASSIGNING NEW MISSIONARIES TO UNREACHED
PEOPLE
GROUPS
During the birthing years of the Frontier Mission
Movement, many missionary applicants began
asking to be sent to Unreached People Groups. In response to the requests of
those pre-candidates, new agencies
focused exclusively on Unreached People Groups began to form. Today,
many churches want to send missionaries to and support work in Unreached People
Groups. All of this has caused workers to
gradually begin trickling into Unreached People Groups around the world.
At Urbana 2006, we would guess that almost all of
the hundreds of mission agencies on display somewhere mentioned what they were
doing with Unreached People Groups, even if, in reality, they were not doing much. Today, a variety of projects,
campaigns, and even specialized ministries have also sprung up.
Nevertheless, through all of the promotion, mobilization, and even specific recruiting, there are still only
10,000 missionaries working with Unreached People Groups.
What we are
suggesting is one more crucial step: the actual placement or assigning of new missionaries to Unreached People Groups, with a
priority focus on the Unengaged Unreached
People Groups. The well-established pattern of new missionaries going to where other
missionaries are already serving is now also happening in some prominent
Unreached People Groups while other Unreached
People Groups are left barely touched. It is just a numerical coincidence that 10,000 workers are
serving in Unreached People Groups today and that 10,000 Unreached People Groups remain unreached. Do not assume
that this means there is one worker
in each group! In fact, the reality is that in some of the groups there are
1,000 workers, while in other groups,
there are just five, and in still others, there are not any workers.
Shorter
Lists: A Step in the Right Direction
I am very excited about a project where several
agencies are cooperating together to focus on the Unreached People
Groups that are being overlooked. The project leaders are developing a priority list of Unreached People
Groups and collaborating between several mission agencies to get new missionaries into these overlooked groups while at
the same time not duplicating or
overlapping but rather combining their efforts. We are also thrilled to be
involved with the Vision 2015 project
to send 300 new Asian missionaries to 50 Unreached People Groups.
These
and other similar projects are a major step in the right direction for two
reasons. For one thing, the lists of people
groups are shorter. For another thing, challenging new workers using these shorter lists may be just one step
shy of assigning new missionaries to specific people groups. We
recognize that the main way people choose countries or people groups is through
personal contact. Would it not be better if
that personal contact was from the director of a mission agency that wanted to send new missionaries to Unreached People Groups
rather than a field missionary
serving in a well-evangelized country?
16
We live in an age of information, but information alone
is not the answer. Any pre-candidate in the world could pray
daily over the lists of thousands of Unreached People Groups at
the Joshua Project website
and still never know where to go.[xxvi] The shorter lists
being used by Vision 2015 and other similar
projects may be less overwhelming simply because they are shorter,
more focused, and thus, easier both for pre-candidates to choose from and for
mission agency directors and church
leaders to assign from.
We are now producing our own list of more than 70
Unengaged Unreached People Groups for
a multi-country region. If a pre-candidate we come in contact with is already
leaning heavily to one country in our
region, then the number of people groups to choose from is even shorter. As we develop these priority people group
lists, we hope to assign these new missionaries to a specific people
group from the list, if they are willing.
We recognize that new
missionaries still need personal contact as they discern where to serve.
Our hope is that we can help to facilitate that kind of personal connection for
these people groups. Though there will be few
or no missionaries who may be able to set up short-term trips, we
will work to make a way for pre-candidates to have some form of short-term trip
as part of their process of discernment.
We also want to promote a stepping-stone or
interim practice that new missionaries can use before the “waiting and
assigning” process becomes commonplace (as we earnestly pray that it someday will). We recognize that it may be
many years from now before the process we are suggesting actually is put into
practice both by the majority of new missionaries and by several mission
agencies. Because so few agencies today are willing to assign missionaries to
specific countries and Unreached People
Groups, we suggest that new missionaries ask to be assigned to (or
choose on their own) a general region to serve in, move there, and then do
field research to look specifically for the
people groups that no missionaries are serving.
These new missionaries can then report their
findings to both their sending churches and their mission agencies.
Then, through what they discover together, they can discern which Unreached People Group to focus on. This interim
procedure can help the new missionaries to obtain fresh information before discerning where to serve. Abraham
simply left his country and trusted that God would show him the specific land
to go to after he was already living in the new region (Genesis 12:1).
Another biblical example is the way that Paul and Barnabas left their church
and received guidance for the specific places to minister after arriving on the
field (Acts 13 and beyond).
Still
Willing to Be Assigned
The convictions we have shared here are the result
of a five-year process of discernment about
where to serve, as well as almost 20 years of watching others go through the
same process. As of this writing, my
wife and I, as new missionaries ourselves, are still open to our agency and sending
church to tell us which country and Unreached People Group to serve in. The
long tradition of hearing from the Lord
(having a “calling”) has been one of the major blocks in our experiences.
For years, we felt led to a T-1 country.[xxvii]
Once we learned that another couple from our home church was on
their way there, however, we were willing to go elsewhere. One day in
17
early
2004, my wife and I were sure that God told us to go to a T-2 country. This
happened quite by accident as we were just
“shooting the breeze” one night. There was no reason for us to discuss other countries
since we were so certain of our “calling” to the T-1 country. But the uncanny way it came up, along with the peace and
full agreement that we had, actually made us even more sure of our “calling” to the T-2 country. As a result, we
prepared for more than a year. We went on a pre-search trip to the T-2 Country,
did six months of intensive fundraising, and participated in four months of
intensive training.
Just months before our departure to the T-2
country, two leaders in our agency had the courage to approach us and suggest
that we not go to the T-2 country because it was one of the “popular” Unreached People Groups, with over 1,000
workers. It was awkward since we were almost
ready to leave, but we were willing to follow the guidance of our spiritual
leaders.[xxviii] We
struggled because of our “calling,” but eventually, we grew convinced that the
opportunity to go where almost no missionaries were serving was really
what God had been “calling” us to do all along (Romans 15:20). We believe that
this is what God is calling many new missionaries to do.
We understand why none of these leaders
approached us earlier during our five years of searching and seeking where to go. If God had already told (“called”) us
to go to a specific country, then
what leader would feel free to suggest another? The system and current
tradition (requiring a “calling”)
prevented these leaders from telling us where to go since we were so sure that
God had called us first to the T-1 country and then to the T-2 country.
God has used our journey to open our eyes to this
concept: We think agencies and churches should tell willing applicants where to
go, especially to the places where few people ever go. Maybe God has
allowed us to go through this wilderness so that we can personally know and understand how so many pre-candidates
feel who truly are willing to go anywhere during the discernment process. Some
may give up and just go to the well-evangelized places where they went on
short-term trips. That is our temptation too!
It is simply too easy for most
Christians to say they have never been “called” to missions, and
for most missionaries to say they have been “called” to well-evangelized
countries.
MISSIONARIES TO
THE UNREACHED . . . A VERY SMALL SLICE
However you slice it, most researchers agree that
just a handful of all missionaries are serving
in Unreached People Groups.
Ninety Percent of All Missionaries
Serving in the Well-evangelized World
Those
passionate about the unreached are simply asking Christians to bring resources
to bear on the unreached. In spite of years of talk,
over 90 percent of the world’s cross-cultural missionaries
are still focused on areas that are largely evangelized; less than one percent
are focused on places that call themselves
non-Christian or anti-Christian. Some significant portion of
these mission resources should be brought to those who have nothing.[xxix]
18
429,000 Missionaries from all branches of Christendom.
(Only between 2 and 3% of those missionaries work among
unreached peoples.) 140,000 Protestant Missionaries.[xxx]
Only
10,000 Missionaries among Unreached People Groups
Only an estimated 10,000 of the global foreign
mission force* are working within the 10,000
unreached groups, while 41 times that number of foreign missionaries continue
to work within people groups already
reached. What an imbalance! Even if you include the foreign missionaries working with Christians within the
entire major cultural blocs, reached and unreached . . . it is still a glaring fact that most foreign
missionaries work within peoples which are
predominantly Christian.
*The global foreign mission force includes all
kinds of Christians (Protestants, Anglican, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, etc).[xxxi]
In 2000, 26 percent of 6.0 billion people were
unevangelized = 1.6 billion [and only] 10,000
cross-cultural missionaries work among them.[xxxii]
Missionaries
of All Kinds in the World Today
World Christian Trends estimates there are 420,000 missionaries
worldwide (including Orthodox,
Marginals and Roman Catholics).[xxxiii]
The global totals show 201,928 [Protestant,
Independent, and Anglican] missionaries sent and received. Of these 104,196 are serving within their own country and
58,357 within a near culture. There
are 97,732 missionaries serving in a country other than their own.[xxxiv]
The
Short-Term Missions Explosion
We believe the short-term missions movement is
spinning out of control primarily in that it can sometimes be one of the
greatest deterrents to long-term mission service. While it is true that almost every long-term missionary today has
been on a short-term trip, a smaller and smaller percentage of short-termers ever decide to serve long-term. This is true
both due to the massive numerical
increase in short-termers and the slowing down of Western missionaries going
out.
If it were true that the short-term missions
explosion was producing long-term workers, then the sheer explosion of the past 15 years should have resulted in a
corollary explosion of new workers rather than an overall decrease in the
number of workers from Western countries. Notice these thoughts from prominent mission thinkers:
Timothy Erdel asks pointedly, “Is this the first
major missionary movement carried out primarily for the personal benefit of the
missionaries?”[xxxv]
Frampton Fox also notes this trend: “Involvement
in and spending on missions trips is seeing an unprecedented increase, while
recruitment for full-time mission service is flat.”[xxxvi]
Don
Parrot identifies the problem as:
19
Anti-long-term sentiment. Fifteen years ago a
missions-minded church could identify the people from its
congregation who were preparing for long-term service. Today, many of those same churches cannot name one such person. Of
greater concern, they seem content with this disparity. Their priority
on so many people in short-term trips seems to replace any need to prepare
people for long-term service. Simply stated, the number of people being
challenged to long-term cross-cultural
ministry is declining every year.[xxxvii]
Lastly,
Ryan Shaw notes that,
As we look with realistic eyes on
today’s student mission world, we find some things nee d
an overhaul if we are going to be serious about pursuing this goal. First is
the imbalance d
focus on short-term ministry to the neglect of the importance of long-term....A
generati on
is coming of age familiar with the long-term goal but only thinking about
short-term o ptions.
Hence short-term trip participants are increasing dramatically while long-term
wo rkers dwindle....We believe in
the importance of short-term ministry, but it must not be s ubstituted
for long-term ministry. Short term mission should be presented as a stepping st one
for God’s lifelong call to radical discipleship and wholehearted obedience,
which incl udes long-term service.
Unfortunately this is not the underlying philosophy of a majority of trips anymore. One discouraged campus leader
said, “short-term trips highlight having a spiritual experience rather than producing prepared laborers for the
harvest.”[xxxviii]
NOTES
[i]
Keith Green,
“Why You Should Go to the Mission Field,” The Last Days Magazine, 1982.
[ii] Justin
Long, “Where Are We Going?” Momentum Magazine, July/August 2006, 7, http://www.momentum-mag.or
g/.
[iii]
Ralph D. Winter, “The Task Remaining: All
Humanity in Missions Perspective,” in Perspectives on the World Chr istian Movement, ed. Ralph D. Winter (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1981), 324.
Figure 7 reveals the situat ion 25 years ago: 81,500 workers (or 91%) of the mission force serving
in reached people groups and only 8,000 Wo rkers (or 9%) serving in unreached people groups.
[iv]
Long, “Where Are We Going?” 7.
[v] Long, “Where Are We
Going?” 7. See “Missionaries to the Unreached . . . A Very Small Slice.”
[vi] A missionary
“candidate” is a new missionary in the final stages of joining, training with,
and being deployed by a
mission agency. While our point here
is that we are proposing a return to the old days of assigning candidates, we
ar e suggesting
this only if there is clear collaboration among mission agencies that are
committed to the goal of seeing missionaries in all of the remaining 10,000 Unreached People Groups.
Sadly, in previous eras, the denominational a gencies’ process of assigning missionaries was
(at least in part) for the purpose of each denomination’s desire to hav e their own missionaries and churches in each
country of the world. One only needs to glance briefly at Patrick John stone’s Operation World to see the
resulting long lists of a variety of denominations in some countries and
virtually no Christian presence
whatsoever in others.
[vii]
Stan Nussbaum, American Cultural Baggage: How
to Recognize and Deal with It (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2 005), 40. Nussbaum explains that
“self-actualization” is a top American cultural value: “American culture has
adopt ed the view
of the psychologist Maslow, who taught that “self-actualization (fully becoming
the person you could be come) is the highest level of human development.” It is my personal
belief that we have Christianized this core Ame rican cultural value in the Church with an overt
focus on our gifts and our desires rather than God’s
desires.
[viii] Thomas Hale, On
Being a Missionary (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1995), 46. Hale
explains further:
“Why is no one psychologically
suited to be a missionary? Because being a missionary means denying self, and
that is contrary to that teaching of modern secular psychology, which says,
‘Affirm self.’ Secular psychologists preach se lf-fulfillment; Jesus preached self-denial. But
Jesus was a better psychologist than them all.”
[ix]
Hale, 29.
[x] For one of the best brief, yet thorough,
explanations on why different groups report different numbers of Unreache
d
People Groups, see Joshua Project, “How Many People Groups Are There?”http://www.joshuaproject.net/how-ma ny-people-groups.php
(accessed August 29, 2008). We personally lean towards the higher numbers of
10,000, thus t he reason for using that number herein versus the more
popular 6,500 per the Joshua Project website.
[xi] Scott and Sandi Tompkins, “The Short-term
Explosion,” Moody 101, no. 2 (November/December 2000): 14.
[xii] Tompkins, 13–14. One statistic, published in 2000,
states that, “The Evangelical Fellowship of Mission Agencies e stimates
that in 1999, a half million North American Christians participated in
cross-cultural, short-term missions ou
treaches, a number that
has quadrupled in less than 10 years.”
[xiii] For more information about short-term and
long-term mission, see “The Short-term Missions Explosion.”
[xiv] See http://www.takeitglobal.org/?q=node/91.
Indeed, there are Joshua Project Research trips that are now called “Research
Expeditions,” and other similar initiatives from some cutting-edge agencies
committed to Unreached Peo ple Groups (e.g., Pioneers, Frontiers, and several others). These small
efforts, however, are dwarfed by the massive number of trips in the
Christianized world.
[xv] Kevin L. Howard, “A Call to Missions: Is There Such a Thing?” Evangelical
Missions Quarterly 39, no. 4 (Octobe
r
2003): 462–465. Included below is an important excerpt from Howard’s article to
demonstrate how his emphasis is different than mine: “Most Christians have struggled in
similar ways as I did to discover God’s specific calling for t hem.
I want to explore the idea of a calling, and see if this is really the best way
to talk or think about ministry. In 19
80, Garry Friesen and J.
Robin Maxson wrote Decision Making and the Will of God (Portland, OR:
Multnomah Boo ks, 1980). Friesen deals in detail with all of the
passages that supposedly promote the specific will of God, and argue
s that there is no specific will of God for each
believer. Rather, believers should make wise decisions based on what Scripture has revealed.
[xvi] David B. Barrett and Todd M. Johnson, “Status of
Global Mission, AD 2006, In Context of 20th and 21st
Centurie s,” International
Bulletin of Missionary Research 30, no. 1 (January 2006): 28. Since 2000,
in many different public forums,
several mission leaders have stated that only about 10% of the church worldwide
is actively involved in mis sions. I have tried to find published data to substantiate this, but
without success. The closest figure I know of that m ay somewhat substantiate this is the 695 million
Great Commission Christians listed by David Barrett on the table ci ted above (out of 2.1 billion Christians of all
kinds). But this would be over 33% of all who call themselves Christia ns. Yet, 10% seems to fit what I have observed in
Asia, South America, Africa and North America in the churches in each continent the past 25 years of watching.
Also, for a one-page summary with statistics that summarizes and furt her illustrates the term “Great Commission
Christians,” see http://www.thetravelingteam.org/?q=node/194.
[xvii] Kevin L. Howard, “Kevin Howard Responds,” Evangelical
Missions Quarterly 40, no. 3 (July 2004): 276–279. It may be far better for missionaries to drop the
term “calling” and instead talk about how God has guided them, somet hing clearly taught in Scripture and applicable to
all believers in all situations. It is simply too easy for most Christia ns to say they have never been “called” to
missions, and for most missionaries to say they have been “called” to wel l-evangelized countries.
[xviii] Howard, “A Call to Missions: Is There Such a Thing?”
462–465. See also Hale, On Being a Missionary, 16–29. I h ighly
recommend this book to all new missionaries and deeply respect the author as a
humble man of integrity. Chap ter 2, entitled “The Call,” represents well the common
views among most “mission folk” about the “call,” also know n
as the “call to missions” or the “missionary call”. The entire chapter about
“The Call,” however, provides little scri ptural basis to
substantiate this mysterious call. All of us who have personally experienced a
“call” to serve as a miss ionary need to openly search the Scriptures to see how we
justify this. (Hale’s “call” was two days after accepting C hrist
and was both his mission calling and country calling wrapped together in one
event). This is what I am challeng ing, even though I also believe that I have been “called”
to missions. In the preface, Hale states, “I write in the belief that
there is no higher or more glorious calling than that of being a missionary of
Jesus Christ.” This sounds like the “Awe of the Call” that I have also had in the past.
[xix] For more on the topic of “calling” in the
Scriptures, see Howard, “A Call to Missions: Is There Such a Thing?”
[xx] Wesley Duewel, “No Clear Calling?” Evangelical
Missions Quarterly 40, no. 3 (July 2004): 276–279. See also Ho ward, “Kevin Howard Responds,” 276–279. Duewel,
in his letter to the editor, responds to Howard’s article, yet fail s to give a scriptural basis for the “call.” It is
possible that even more people may be released into missions service (not less, as Duewel fears) by moving toward
emphasizing the scriptural command for all believers to obey the Grea
t
Commission. Also, emphasizing obedience to the Great Commission would allow for
more open confrontation of t hose who say they are “called” to already-reached lands.
If we drop our emphasis on the “calling,” then we can more directly
challenge new missionaries regarding where they are going. As it is now, who
can question what God told (“called”)
any new missionary to do? Howard responds by challenging Duewel’s lack of
scriptural references and us
e of experiences alone to argue his point. Howard says:
“Hinting that my position opens the door to liberalism is unf
air, especially when I’ve
used Scripture to make my point, and you’ve used feelings and experience to
support yours.
Published under “Featured Articles” at GlobalMissiology.org,
October 2008
21
My view challenges Christians to take another
look at Scripture, probing whether or not it teaches what so many ha ve labeled as a “calling.” Does Scripture warrant
the commonly held ideology of a calling? No, Scripture doesn’t pre scribe a calling—a clear and unalterable sense of
God’s leading—as the norm for most believers.”
[xxi]
David Barrett and Todd Johnson, “Global Diagram
34: Today’s Global Mission: The Status of World Evangelizati on in AD 2000,” World Christian Trends (Pasadena,
CA: William Carey Library, 2001). This chart explains that 141 countries in the world have more than 60%
Christian populations (and are more than 95% evangelized). To further make our point, we may have included the World B
figures, the 59 countries that are half evangelized (50% evangeli zed countries with church members less than 60%).
With these additions, the total together is 200 countries. These a re the 200 countries that almost all missionaries
work in.
[xxii] Patrick Johnstone, Operation
World (Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster USA, 2001).
[xxiii] Kevin L. Howard,
“A Call to Missions: Is There Such a Thing?” 462–465. I recognize that Howard
is using the arg ument both in his article and the further thoughts in his response to
the letter to the editor from Duewel, possibly alm ost in an opposite way than I am using Howard’s
quotes to make my points. The end result of Howard’s argument is a freedom to go anywhere. The end result I am
searching for here is to see that the Scriptures really are urging us to see more missionaries go where no one goes. But
Howard and I seem to agree on the central point, and that is, that t he Scriptures do not teach a specific “calling.”
I am using this argument in hopes that more will obey the clear com mand to make disciples everywhere (both as
Senders and Goers). I am also using Howard’s arguments to release the misuse, or subjective personal use, of the term
“calling” by so many who say that they are “called” to the reached n ations.
[xxiv]
The next step should be to conduct a simple (yet
broad) survey of The Mission Exchange (formerly EFMA) and Cr ossGlobal Link (formerly IFMA) member mission
agencies regarding three key numbers: (1) the number of new mis sionaries that chose their long-term country of
service in relation to a previous short-term trip to that country; (2) the number of applicants willing to go anywhere,
desiring the agency to place them; and (3) the number of new mission aries being assigned by agencies to Unreached
People Groups. The results of such a survey may be a much-needed e ye-opener for mission agency directors.
[xxv] C. Peter Wagner, “On
the Cutting Edge of Mission Strategy,” Perspectives on the World Christian
Movement, ed. Ralph D. Winter
(Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1999), 531–540.
[xxvi] See http://www.joshuaproject.net/.
[xxvii]I will use artificial
names for security purposes.
[xxviii]
We believe that only the people who trust God
enough to submit to spiritual authorities (whom they can see) can al so be trusted to truly submit to God (whom none
of us can see). In other words, if you cannot submit to human autho rities, how can you submit to God? Submitting to
leaders is another clear biblical command, and it is essential to app lying the concept that candidates would willingly
submit and go where they are assigned by agency and church lead ers. We believe that emphasizing submission to
authority can be conveyed to (and embraced by) Gen X’ers and the next generation because they long to do what the
Bible says. This is why we argue for a return of agency placements rather than subjectively leaving the choice to
the missionary. Having a “calling” to a specific country is just not that clear scripturally as a principle.
[xxix]Justin Long, “‘Unreached’ is Not a Fad” Momentum
Magazine, September/October 2005, 7, http://www.momentummag.org/.
[xxx] Mobilization
Division, USCWM, “Approximate 2002 AD Global Missions Statistics,” http://www.uscwm.org/.
[xxxi] Ralph Winter and
Bruce Koch, “Looking at the Task Graphically,” Mission Frontiers, June
2000.
[xxxii] Justin Long,“Where
Are We Going?” 7.
[xxxiii]Justin Long, “What Will it Take” Momentum Magazine,
September/October 2006, 27, http://www.momentum-mag. org/.
[xxxiv] Johnstone, Operation
World. See appendix 4, “The World’s Missionary Force.”
[xxxv] Timothy Paul Erdel,
review of Between Past and Future, by Jonathan J. Bonk, Evangelical
Missions Quarterly 40, no. 2
(April 2004): 250.
[xxxvi] Frampton F. Fox,
“Screwtape on Summer Missions” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 39, no. 4 (October
2003): 483.
[xxxvii] Don Parrott,
“Managing the Short-term Missions Explosion,” Evangelical Missions Quarterly
40, no. 3 (July 2004): 357.
[xxxviii]
Ryan Shaw, “From Trips to Careers” Momentum
Magazine, November/December 2005, 24, http://www.momentu m-mag.org/.