As a young person growing up in a missions-oriented church, I was practically weaned on the mantra “PRAY, GIVE, GO.” It was a simple way to approach missions: All of us can PRAY, most of us can GIVE, and some of us can GO. Working it the other way around, the message was, “God calls all of us to GO. If you can’t GO, then GIVE so someone else can GO. If you can’t GIVE, then you can at least PRAY.” Of course, I am oversimplifying it, but this is how the message came home to me.
Words Shape Our Thinking
These words had an impact on my thinking about missions.
- I felt guilty for not wanting to GO.
- I believed GIVING and PRAYING were less important and secondary to GOING.
- I believed the real business of missions happened ‘out there’ where the GOERS were.
- I also believed there were basically two options for me regarding missions: go all in by GOING or sit back and be a silent partner with no hands-on involvement in global evangelization.
Over thirty years ago, Charles Handy wrote, “Words are the bugles of social change. When our language changes, behavior will not be far behind.”1 The converse of this may also be true; when our language does not change, behaviour also may not change!
Language shaped my youthful thinking about missions, but does our missions language still shape our thinking to the point of trapping us in the behavioural patterns of a couplebof generations ago? Is our missions language actually limiting the creativity we can bring to this Great Commission of the Church? I believe it is. Recently, a representative of a younger generation shared with me that the word ‘missions’ carries so much baggage of colonialism, racism, and abuse that it is a relatively ‘bad’ word for youthful believers today. So, we can struggle to redeem the word or find a new term without the old baggage!
Handy goes on to say, “New ways of thinking about familiar things can release new energies and make all manner of things possible,”2 and “New imagery, signaled by new words, is as important as new theory; indeed new theory without new imagery can go unnoticed.”3
Does Our Missions Language Lead To Systemic Condescension?
When I first heard and read about systemic racism and systemic sexism, my immediate reaction was, “I am certainly not one of those! I am neither racist nor sexist.” But on closer and deeper self-examination, I became aware of some deeply ingrained attitudes that, while not qualifying as blatantly sexist or racist, still unconsciously shaped my thinking and impacted my decisions. Becoming aware of these tendencies is, I believe, the first step to combatting what is a kind of ‘sexism lite’ or ‘racism lite’ we see as innocuous in ourselves but others see as dangerous seeds which could bear hurtful and injurious fruit.
Let’s look at some of the missions language and ask if it needs rethinking for a new generation.
What about “Mission”?
Aside from the baggage mentioned above, the word is task-oriented. It is about a job to do rather than a relationship to be cultivated. Once the ‘mission’ is accomplished, we can return ‘home’ and resume our lives. The implication is that this is a special and perhaps important task, but it is not necessarily ‘normal’ life. Is the ‘mission’ of the Church to plant more churches or to grow the Body of Christ? Planting churches is a task that can be accomplished and then deemed complete, while growing the Body of Christ will not be finished until Christ returns. Growing the Body of Christ must be a way of life more than a mission; it must be ‘normal’ living for the Christ-follower.
The word also fosters systemic condescension. The trajectory of ‘mission’ is from the haves to the have-nots, from the rich to the poor, from the informed to the uninformed; it is taking something ‘good’ to people who do not have that ‘good’ and who we believe need it. We are charged to bring the Gospel to those who have never heard it; however, we must be careful that the way we bring it does not imply that we are superior beings who have ‘arrived’ while they are poor, needy, and somehow ‘lesser’ than we are. Like systemic sexism or racism, we may harbour condescending attitudes, which could be destructive to the message we are preaching.
The incarnation of the Eternal Son of God was a perfect and pure condescension telling the poor and needy they were infinitely valuable to God. Our mission work may tell the ‘poor and needy’ as much about our sense of personal sacrifice as it tells about their value to God.
Then There’s “Cross-Cultural”
In the strictest sense, the term may be acceptable, but common usage in mission language has enough systemic condescension to it that we need to rethink the idea. Cross-cultural refers to stepping out of one culture and entering into another so we can bring something to people from the culture. There is a one-way movement to the idea, which, if we are honest, suggests a superior-to-inferior relationship. It might even be said it implies the receiving culture is somehow deficient.
When my wife and I went to Africa to serve in the ‘mission’ of the Church, we had no anticipation of being enriched by another culture; we only thought of enriching the other culture with our message of salvation through Christ. Our eyes and spirits were gradually opened up to a more two-way intercultural experience, both giving and receiving. We met people who had deep joy despite their meagre possessions. We were challenged to value relationships more than position or influence.
As long as the Church in the developed world sees ‘cross-cultural’ as a predominantly one-way movement, the Church will have a tendency to a smug self-confidence that does not wear well with the people of the rest of the world. If missions is done with a we-know-what’s-best-for-you attitude, there will likely be a limited openness to the message we preach. Changing the language we use can help change the attitude it fosters.
Redecorating or Renovating?
I believe this generation of Christ-followers needs a renovation in how missions happens, not just redecoration. When we redecorate, we change the wall colour and the furnishings, but the structure of the home stays the same. New language can be more of a change of colour and new furnishings than a renovation of the structure itself. In our missions’ thinking and work, we need to knock down some walls and open up some spaces for a new way of living as the Family of God.
I do not wish to offend anyone, but terms like UPGs (Unreached People Groups), 10/40 Window, homogeneous units, and even “On Mission: Everyone, Everywhere, All the Time” are more akin to redecorating than renovating. The same agencies continue to make the decisions, recruit the workers, and assign the tasks. So, it’s the same structure but with fresh colours and furniture. These terms were all good for a season, getting fresh enthusiasm for the same fundamental ‘mission,’ though in different parts of the world and different nations. You may change the wall colours and the furniture, but you will soon settle back into the same old routines and behaviours if the structure doesn’t change.
How Do We Go About Renovating?
A good renovation needs a good plan, and I confess I don’t have one. I have some ideas, but I don’t have a plan. A good renovation cannot happen without consulting the people who will live in the renovated building. If we try renovating missions thinking using only input from developed-world churches, we will be showing our systemic condescension. We need input from non-Western Christ-followers as well as Western ones. It will probably be messy, and there will be mistakes along the way, but the new structure may turn out to be amazing and transformational.
A renovation specialist will ask many questions before coming up with a plan. Questions like, what do you want to do in this space? How do you want to feel when you are in the space? What are your dreams about how you will live in this space? Let me share some of my dreams for renovating missions in the Church today.
Flattening the Decision-Making Mountain
My missions experience has always been of a sending agency that determines the plan, raises funds, chooses (and maybe trains) the workers, and sends them out ‘on mission.’ The local church becomes a source of funds and prospective workers. The funds and the workers get funnelled into the decision-making process and are sent out. The receiving culture has little or no say in what is happening; the workers arrive and set up shop to work. The sending church is informed of what is going on but remains a distant source of cash support, prayer support, emotional support, and sometimes short-term teams for the international worker.
Not too many years ago, it seemed how missions worked was that the international worker went up the mountain to receive instructions from the decision-makers and strategists and then descended the mountain to carry out those instructions. More recently, there are increasing levels of consultation in the process, but for the sending church, it might as well still be the up-the-mountain-down-the-mountain process. The sending church is left back in the last century to do the PRAY, GIVE, GO part of missions. How can we flatten the decision-making mountain and involve the sending church as an active participant, not just a praying and giving silent partner?
Not a Missions Task but an Intercultural Partnership
I realize ‘Intercultural Partnership’ isn’t exactly a bugle call of change, but it begins to frame our mission activity as a relationship of equals, not haves and have-nots. In some ways, I am saying that we need to move from a complementarian view of missions to an egalitarian view of missions. It will not be possible in every situation, but as soon as there is even a small group of believers in the receiving culture, they need to be involved in planning and strategizing for the growth of the Body of Christ in their locality. In some circumstances, it could be two or three churches in a country like Canada partnering with two or three churches in a developing country to send a team into a third country to share the Gospel and watch Christ build His Church there.
The Missions Agency as Relationship Broker and Coach
As a pastor, I have counselled many couples in the months leading up to their marriage. However, once their vows have been exchanged, it is my job to stand back and let them develop their relationship while being prepared to be a coach and advisor should they ask for help.
When it comes to growing the Body of Christ internationally, I dream of the former missions agency being absorbed into an international association of globally-minded churches (the Alliance World Fellowship could actually become this association) with three functions.
- Setting standards and best practices. To be part of the association, member churches would agree to follow common standards and best practices.
- Matchmaker. The Association would be a relationship broker, bringing groups of churches together into relationships spanning oceans and continents. For example, three churches in Edmonton, Alberta, could partner with two churches in Lima, Peru, and a team in Spain to grow the Body of Christ in Spain. The partnership would be for a minimum of five years (renewable). The churches in Lima and Edmonton and the team in Spain would work out the goals, budget, and personnel for their joint ministry in Spain.
- Coach. In an age when we have life coaches, relationship coaches, spiritual mentors, and guides for various aspects of living, the Association could function as a coach for the Intercultural Partnership. The coach would not tell the member churches what to do but would be available to offer wisdom and insight into how to grow the relationship and make it effective. The beauty of this is that the ‘specialist’ knowledge is readily available today, and we no longer have to go up the mountain to get the advice of the specialists!
Of course, this implies the brokered relationship should be a long-term relationship growing as the various churches in the partnership grow, a relationship in which all the parties enrich each other through working together for the growth of Christ’s Church. It would not be a till-death-do-us-part relationship, but longevity would deepen and enrich the relationship, making it transformational for everyone involved.
Deep and Narrow, Not Broad and Shallow
The Builder generation, and to a certain extent the Boomer generation, wanted to be part of a large organization with global aspirations. Success was sometimes measured by the number of international workers deployed and the number of countries in which they were deployed. This broad and shallow approach, totally appropriate for one generation, is probably not for the present one.
Today’s generation wants to make a difference that is more personal. An older generation felt they were making a difference by giving a little bit to each of many projects; a younger generation wants to make a difference by giving deeply to one or two projects they can personally follow and pray for. It is a narrow focus with a deep and hands-on involvement.
As a young person growing up, I was acquainted with many missionaries. My parents made a point of having them in our home at almost every opportunity. But that acquaintance did not translate into personal knowledge of those missionaries. What’s more, I could easily forget what kind of ministry each of them had.
What would it be like if a young person in a Western church grew up not just acquainted with five or six international workers but knowing them more personally, participating in their ministry, knowing their families, knowing their successes and failures and praying through those experiences with them? This is just one possibility if the young person is in a church engaged in a long-term Intercultural Partnership for the Gospel.
Imagine the impact of a partnership like the Edmonton-Lima-Spain one I suggested above. Short-term teams might be 50/50 Canadian/Peruvian. Teams from the Lima churches might come to Edmonton to train workers for short-term teams. A musical group might come from Spain to minister in Lima and Edmonton. Online prayer meetings could be three-way, depending on timing, and would not be about someone else’s ministry but about ‘our’ shared ministry and ‘our’ people. I believe this kind of partnership would grow believers who have an international perspective and a commitment to be part of growing the Body of Christ worldwide, not just in their corner of the world.
Imagine the impact if a group of businesspeople in the Edmonton and Lima churches saw an opportunity to develop a business in the city, town, or region where the team in Spain was working. What about people who work from home with a global team connecting remotely? Could an individual from Edmonton or Lima relocate to Spain and continue with their job by working remotely? There are all kinds of possibilities.
Shared Ministry Personnel
It is possible the group of churches in the Intercultural Partnership could share one or two ministry people among them. The three Edmonton churches might jointly hire a global impact pastor who would spend time in each church, keeping the vision alive and coaching the church members involved with the partnership. This pastor would spend four to six weeks each year working with the team in Spain as well as working with the Edmonton churches. They would have a counterpart in Lima, leading global impact there.
For years The Alliance Canada has required prospective international workers to demonstrate their ministry effectiveness by serving at least two years in a ‘home’ ministry before serving in another country. Would we not develop the global church if we required pastors who serve in Canada to spend at least one year (why not two?) in ministry in another cultural setting before taking up ministry in Canada? Another option would be to require Canadian pastors to engage in ministry in another cultural setting for a minimum of four weeks every two years. The Intercultural Partnership would be the ideal setting for this.
Shared Ministry Responsibility
Wherever there is privilege, there is also responsibility. I see it as a great privilege for a group of churches to enter into a working partnership where together they determine, under God, the direction and scope of a ministry, including a budget, personnel, equipment, and other expenses. I believe fundraising changes dramatically when church members look at the partnership and say, “This is our mission. God gave us the vision. We joined together and hired the people. We made the commitment. These are our people (our family) in Spain (or wherever it is). If we don’t raise funds, they won’t be able to do the ministry. We need to stand with them shoulder to shoulder and ensure they have what is needed to do their ministry.” It is no longer a missions agency making a year-end appeal for funds to support 300 international workers in 50 countries. Instead, it is a group of five or six churches saying, “These are our people doing the work God gave us. We have no choice but to find the funds.” This is going deep and hands-on.
Speaking of Money
Setting budgets and planning to share the Gospel in a particular city or region of our globe is no easy task. It requires input from experienced people. But this does not mean the planning and budgeting must be centralized in a missions agency or denominational headquarters. This is where the international association of globally-minded churches mentioned above can coach the Intercultural Partnership on how to proceed.
Just as a first-time homebuyer or investor needs expert advice, the Intercultural Partnership churches will also need guidance. When a group of churches comes together to plan for ministry in another part of the world, their hearts will soon be inextricably linked to the ministry they are doing.
Jesus told His followers, “…where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Matthew 6:21). The corollary of this statement is, “Put your treasure where you want your heart to be!” When I donate to a missions agency with 300 workers in 50 countries, my treasure ends up too far away for my heart to be there! On the other hand, when I give to a specific ministry project partnered with my church and four or five other churches, I know where my treasure is invested, and my heart can follow.
This money question is where ‘deep and narrow’ engagement will reap huge rewards. When I visit the ministry developed by my Intercultural Partnership, I will not only get to know the ministry workers who come from my part of the world but will also develop friendships with local believers. Those relationships will grow over time because the Intercultural Partnership is for a minimum of five years and could be renewed. Those friendships will immensely broaden my sense of what it means to be a Christ-follower, and my commitment to share the Gospel in my home community will also be deepened. On top of it all (dare I mention it?), the ‘deep and narrow’ engagement will likely result in greater funding for what we call the ‘mission’ of the Church than the ‘broad and shallow’ approach would do with young Christ-followers today.
Rethinking Pray, Give, Go
I dream of being part of a relationship that transforms my youthful understanding of the PRAY, GIVE, GO mantra. I don’t want the question to be, “Will you PRAY, or GIVE, or GO?” Rather, it should be “Will you Pray AND Give AND Go?” And the answer should be, “YES, and YES, and YES! I will do all three as my church partners interculturally with other churches and believers to grow the Body of Christ in our world.” I dream of feeling my church family is not limited to the geographic region where I live, but I have true brothers and sisters in Christ in other parts of the world who have ministered to me just as much as I have ministered to them. And I dream of finding youthful Christ-followers who will carry this vision forward.
This is an excerpt from the book, On Mission Volume 5. Download your free copy today.
- The Age of Unreason, Harvard Business School Press, 1989, p. 17.
- Ibid., p. 24.
- Ibid., p. 25.