How Is it with the Missionary?

by Fred C. Renich

The experience of revisiting an area of the world after an absence of over twenty years is both exciting and frustrating. This latter is especially true when one is expected to submit his impressions to the scrutiny of the public.

The experience of revisiting an area of the world after an absence of over twenty years is both exciting and frustrating. This latter is especially true when one is expected to submit his impressions to the scrutiny of the public. Having worked with missions and missionaries at the intimate level of personnel development is some help, for such experience did serve to alert me to factors on the observable missions landscape that might possibly escape the glance of some. The frustration factor was heightened, on the other hand, by the lack of time I was able to devote to any given area because the visit was intended to be a rapid over-view of a variety of fields. The thoughts expressed in this article are a summation of impressions gleaned from an intensive five weeks of exposure and ministry in seven mission areas of the Far East: Singapore, Saigon, Hong Kong, the Philippines, Taiwan, Korea, and Japan.

Amidst the fascinating turbulence of industrial, technological, and social development, upheaval and conflict, there is the heart-thrilling evidence that God is at work! He is building his church. This is evident everywhere. Matthew 24:14 is being fulfilled. Whether embryonic, barely emerging, adolescent, or mature and of full age-the church is there! This indisputable fact is not sufficiently known or recognized by the masses of Christians in the sending countries of the West.

What may seem surprising to some is that the problems of the church in historic "mission" lands are no. different, basically, than the problems so obvious in churches in the sending countries.

Taiwan illustrates this fact. With a population of barely fifteen million, with the church firmly planted in the major population centers on the island, and with about eight hundred evangelical missionaries working there, it is estimated that still approximately ninety percent of the population are idol worshippers!

Splintering and factionalism is another problem common to us at home as well as in the church in the Far East. While this may be caused in part by the multiplicity of mission organizations working in a given country, the problem is deeper, inherent in the nature of fallen man. The prevalence of splintering exists even in churches that are independent of missionaries. This underscores the fact that in any culture the true unity of the church, functional love among brethren, the ability to live, work, and witness in harmonious togetherness is a grace that must come from the Lord of the church continuously. As we in the West have not found solutions to the problem of factionalism apart from the gracious working of the Holy Spirit, so the churches planted abroad are dependent upon that same mighty moving of grace for the melting of hearts and removal of carnal barriers to functional oneness among brethren.

As in the West, so in the church across the seas, there is a deep need for the renewing influences of genuine revival. Complacency, lack of motivation for aggressive gospel work, and the existence of sin undealt with have the same debilitating effects there that one sees in the sending church. This is not only a need in older churches, but it is equally a need in the new, emerging church. This, however, should not be surprising, for the newer churches are for the most part the direct result of the labor of the missionary. And how can he produce beyond what he is? And how can he be more than that from which he sprang and which sent him forth? Since the missionary is an extension of the sending church, we should expect at the most a reproduction through his labors of the best in that from which he came and of which he is an integral part.

In the light of these facts, how is it with the missionary?

Faced as he is with the sometimes frightening winds of change: industrialism, urbanization, political and social upheaval, and an emerging and developing church which is characterized by the same basic problems that afflict the church in the West. What stands out as light or shadow in this kaleidoscope that is modern missions? Especially as it relates to the missionary himself?

Generally speaking, the "specialist" is doing good work. Where the job is clearly defined, measurable as to content and form as well as product, the missionary seems generally contented and fulfilled. Linguists, technical people, medical personnel, literature workers, radio personnel and teachers and administrators in educational institutions are examples of the kinds of missionaries who appear to be doing quite well.

But the picture is different with the "general missionary" and/or the "church planter." Where he has been able to persevere over the long haul, a harvest is being reaped. Persistence and faithful labor have paid off. But the intangibles inherent in the church planter’s task are a source of frustration and difficulty. How does one really measure spiritual impact? The linguist knows how far he has come in his work because he works toward a clearly recognizable goal. In fact he really doesn’t need to ask about the validity of his spiritual impact on a given area. But it’s different with the church planter.

That he came from an activist, measurable-result-oriented society only adds to his problem. In the homeland he could measure results by the size of the church, or by the number of decisions registered over a given period of time. But the church abroad may not necessarily be built by an emphasis on "decisions" for Christ. Consequently, it is proving very difficult for many "church planters" to find their feet, to know what they are really there to accomplish, to get their teeth into the work and hold steady in a task difficult to define in measurable specifics. The frustrations involved are proving disastrous to more than a few. The lack of a "long-haul" mind-set in increasing numbers of missionaries is disturbing.The experience of revisiting an area of the world after an absence of over twenty years is both exciting and frustrating. This latter is especially true when one is expected to submit his impressions to the scrutiny of the public. Having worked with missions and missionaries at the intimate level of personnel development is some help, for such experience did serve to alert me to factors on the observable missions landscape that might possibly escape the glance of some. The frustration factor was heightened, on the other hand, by the lack of time I was able to devote to any given area because the visit was intended to be a rapid over-view of a variety of fields. The thoughts expressed in this article are a summation of impressions gleaned from an intensive five weeks of exposure and ministry in seven mission areas of the Far East: Singapore, Saigon, Hong Kong, the Philippines, Taiwan, Korea, and Japan.

Amidst the fascinating turbulence of industrial, technological, and social development, upheaval and conflict, there is the heart-thrilling evidence that God is at work! He is building his church. This is evident everywhere. Matthew 24:14 is being fulfilled. Whether embryonic, barely emerging, adolescent, or mature and of full age-the church is there! This indisputable fact is not sufficiently known or recognized by the masses of Christians in the sending countries of the West.

What may seem surprising to some is that the problems of the church in historic "mission" lands are no. different, basically, than the problems so obvious in churches in the sending countries.

Taiwan illustrates this fact. With a population of barely fifteen million, with the church firmly planted in the major population centers on the island, and with about eight hundred evangelical missionaries working there, it is estimated that still approximately ninety percent of the population are idol worshippers!

Splintering and factionalism is another problem common to us at home as well as in the church in the Far East. While this may be caused in part by the multiplicity of mission organizations working in a given country, the problem is deeper, inherent in the nature of fallen man. The prevalence of splintering exists even in churches that are independent of missionaries. This underscores the fact that in any culture the true unity of the church, functional love among brethren, the ability to live, work, and witness in harmonious togetherness is a grace that must come from the Lord of the church continuously. As we in the West have not found solutions to the problem of factionalism apart from the gracious working of the Holy Spirit, so the churches planted abroad are dependent upon that same mighty moving of grace for the melting of hearts and removal of carnal barriers to functional oneness among brethren.

As in the West, so in the church across the seas, there is a deep need for the renewing influences of genuine revival. Complacency, lack of motivation for aggressive gospel work, and the existence of sin undealt with have the same debilitating effects there that one sees in the sending church. This is not only a need in older churches, but it is equally a need in the new, emerging church. This, however, should not be surprising, for the newer churches are for the most part the direct result of the labor of the missionary. And how can he produce beyond what he is? And how can he be more than that from which he sprang and which sent him forth? Since the missionary is an extension of the sending church, we should expect at the most a reproduction through his labors of the best in that from which he came and of which he is an integral part.

In the light of these facts, how is it with the missionary?

Faced as he is with the sometimes frightening winds of change: industrialism, urbanization, political and social upheaval, and an emerging and developing church which is characterized by the same basic problems that afflict the church in the West. What stands out as light or shadow in this kaleidoscope that is modern missions? Especially as it relates to the missionary himself?

Generally speaking, the "specialist" is doing good work. Where the job is clearly defined, measurable as to content and form as well as product, the missionary seems generally contented and fulfilled. Linguists, technical people, medical personnel, literature workers, radio personnel and teachers and administrators in educational institutions are examples of the kinds of missionaries who appear to be doing quite well.

But the picture is different with the "general missionary" and/or the "church planter." Where he has been able to persevere over the long haul, a harvest is being reaped. Persistence and faithful labor have paid off. But the intangibles inherent in the church planter’s task are a source of frustration and difficulty. How does one really measure spiritual impact? The linguist knows how far he has come in his work because he works toward a clearly recognizable goal. In fact he really doesn’t need to ask about the validity of his spiritual impact on a given area. But it’s different with the church planter.

That he came from an activist, measurable-result-oriented society only adds to his problem. In the homeland he could measure results by the size of the church, or by the number of decisions registered over a given period of time. But the church abroad may not necessarily be built by an emphasis on "decisions" for Christ. Consequently, it is proving very difficult for many "church planters" to find their feet, to know what they are really there to accomplish, to get their teeth into the work and hold steady in a task difficult to define in measurable specifics. The frustrations involved are proving disastrous to more than a few. The lack of a "long-haul" mind-set in increasing numbers of missionaries is disturbing.

Is this one reason why so many recruits are applying for specialist roles, or are interested in short-term assignments?

For those missionaries who find themselves working in huge metropolitan areas there is an added dimension to the problem just mentioned. How does he "find himself" in a vast metropolis such as Hong Kong where masses of people are jammed together in a sea of high-rise apartment buildings? Hove can he develop a meaningful and significant witness in the midst of such a sea of humanity?

In rural areas the missionary can have a district-wide ministry in which he goes from village to village, preaching, teaching and nurturing those who respond. In such a setting there is a feeling of scope. He doesn’t feel swallowed up by an ocean of people. There is a greater sense of having accomplished something by day’s end or term’s end. But the missionary working in the city tends to feel inundated, overwhelmed, and rendered insignificant by the very mass of humanity he is seeking to reach. Like the disciples with only a tiny basket of lunch and faced with five thousand hungry people, they find themselves asking the obvious question: "What are these among so many?"

For not a few missionaries the answer is found by working in an institution. Here there are tangible jobs, such as the nurse in a clinic, the teacher in a school, or running a Christian literature center. Getting involved in such tangible jobs takes the pressure off the bewildered missionary who went to the field to take Christ to the millions-only to find himself hopelessly frustrated by the very millions he went to save. It’s a lot easier to relate to those masses via the microphone in a strictly defined thirty minute radio broadcast than it is to get his teeth into meaningful involvement with lining people out in the concrete or asphalt jungle.

The deeper problem that overshadows all others is a seemingly unrecognized one. What, aside from some specialty, does today’s missionary really have to give? This is the question that the sending church, the mission society, and the individual missionary must all begin to ask seriously.

The most vivid expression of this problem is seen in the alarming degree to which the missionary has difficulty working with the national church. A missionary (aside from the specialist) is a person set apart by God unto the sacred ministry of the gospel of Christ. As such he must by life, spiritual gifts, and labor commend himself and his calling to God’s people (in this case the national Christians in a local national church). One senses that not a few missionaries seem never to ask themselves this critical question: What have I from the Lord that says to my national brethren that they should listen to me? Have we accepted the validity of the statement: We must win the right to be heard by our brethren?

Being a missionary (even when well trained) does not in itself give me a right to "be somebody" to the national Christians. Only the evidence of the hand of God upon me and his gifts to me for ministry give me a right to be heard by God’s people, whether American or overseas nationals. It is God’s hand upon a person that gives him a "right" to be a messenger of God to others, not the fact that he is a "missionary" sent to a foreign shore by a supporting constituency!

One significant key to lessening the alarming tensions that exist between missions and the national church is a greater degree of the "evidences of apostleship" in the missionary. And to the degree to which the missionary is sensitive to the presence and authority of the Holy Spirit both in his own life and in the church, will he be quick to recognize and accept God speaking through his national brethren. In the nature of the case, however, this necessitates a significant spiritual deepening in both the missionary and in the national church.

There is also a need for the missionary to recognize the degree to which he lacks a "mind-set" geared to working with the national church, inasmuch as its members are equals with him in the family of God. He goes to "reach the heathen," and when he thinks national church, it is in terms of "training the national" so they can get the job done. But the missionary subconsciously sees himself as the key person and his group as the key organization. He is there on the field to do "his thing," or the "mission’s thing," rather than to seek the mind of God in fellowship with his national brethren and work with them in pursuing its fulfillment. How seldom does one see national brethren serving as members of mission field councils, or having a significant voice in determining basic field policy or strategy.

To be able to work with the overseas church also requires an ability and a willingness on the part of the missionary to build bridges of understanding, communication, and accommodation that will help span the very real though subtle cultural differences between the missionary and those to whom he goes.

In the light of the problems, particularly between the Western missionary and the national church, some may be asking: Should we send more missionaries? The question is really academic. It is a simple fact that for the present at least, American Christians are going to continue to go overseas to serve Christ. They will go in varying capacities: specialists, church planters, short term, long term, and "summer workers."

Is this one reason why so many recruits are applying for specialist roles, or are interested in short-term assignments?

For those missionaries who find themselves working in huge metropolitan areas there is an added dimension to the problem just mentioned. How does he "find himself" in a vast metropolis such as Hong Kong where masses of people are jammed together in a sea of high-rise apartment buildings? Hove can he develop a meaningful and significant witness in the midst of such a sea of humanity?

In rural areas the missionary can have a district-wide ministry in which he goes from village to village, preaching, teaching and nurturing those who respond. In such a setting there is a feeling of scope. He doesn’t feel swallowed up by an ocean of people. There is a greater sense of having accomplished something by day’s end or term’s end. But the missionary working in the city tends to feel inundated, overwhelmed, and rendered insignificant by the very mass of humanity he is seeking to reach. Like the disciples with only a tiny basket of lunch and faced with five thousand hungry people, they find themselves asking the obvious question: "What are these among so many?"

For not a few missionaries the answer is found by working in an institution. Here there are tangible jobs, such as the nurse in a clinic, the teacher in a school, or running a Christian literature center. Getting involved in such tangible jobs takes the pressure off the bewildered missionary who went to the field to take Christ to the millions-only to find himself hopelessly frustrated by the very millions he went to save. It’s a lot easier to relate to those masses via the microphone in a strictly defined thirty minute radio broadcast than it is to get his teeth into meaningful involvement with lining people out in the concrete or asphalt jungle.

The deeper problem that overshadows all others is a seemingly unrecognized one. What, aside from some specialty, does today’s missionary really have to give? This is the question that the sending church, the mission society, and the individual missionary must all begin to ask seriously.

The most vivid expression of this problem is seen in the alarming degree to which the missionary has difficulty working with the national church. A missionary (aside from the specialist) is a person set apart by God unto the sacred ministry of the gospel of Christ. As such he must by life, spiritual gifts, and labor commend himself and his calling to God’s people (in this case the national Christians in a local national church). One senses that not a few missionaries seem never to ask themselves this critical question: What have I from the Lord that says to my national brethren that they should listen to me? Have we accepted the validity of the statement: We must win the right to be heard by our brethren?

Being a missionary (even when well trained) does not in itself give me a right to "be somebody" to the national Christians. Only the evidence of the hand of God upon me and his gifts to me for ministry give me a right to be heard by God’s people, whether American or overseas nationals. It is God’s hand upon a person that gives him a "right" to be a messenger of God to others, not the fact that he is a "missionary" sent to a foreign shore by a supporting constituency!

One significant key to lessening the alarming tensions that exist between missions and the national church is a greater degree of the "evidences of apostleship" in the missionary. And to the degree to which the missionary is sensitive to the presence and authority of the Holy Spirit both in his own life and in the church, will he be quick to recognize and accept God speaking through his national brethren. In the nature of the case, however, this necessitates a significant spiritual deepening in both the missionary and in the national church.

There is also a need for the missionary to recognize the degree to which he lacks a "mind-set" geared to working with the national church, inasmuch as its members are equals with him in the family of God. He goes to "reach the heathen," and when he thinks national church, it is in terms of "training the national" so they can get the job done. But the missionary subconsciously sees himself as the key person and his group as the key organization. He is there on the field to do "his thing," or the "mission’s thing," rather than to seek the mind of God in fellowship with his national brethren and work with them in pursuing its fulfillment. How seldom does one see national brethren serving as members of mission field councils, or having a significant voice in determining basic field policy or strategy.

To be able to work with the overseas church also requires an ability and a willingness on the part of the missionary to build bridges of understanding, communication, and accommodation that will help span the very real though subtle cultural differences between the missionary and those to whom he goes.

In the light of the problems, particularly between the Western missionary and the national church, some may be asking: Should we send more missionaries? The question is really academic. It is a simple fact that for the present at least, American Christians are going to continue to go overseas to serve Christ. They will go in varying capacities: specialists, church planters, short term, long term, and "summer workers."

They will go with varying degrees of age, maturity, and experience. And they will be supported by the American church. The affluence of the West, the decreasing cost of travel, plus the desire to "serve God in the exciting place" away from the drab and monotonous "here" wall assure a continuous stream of "missionaries" moving out to a world beyond Western shores. The American church has a hard time accepting the reality of the missionary "drop-out." But if present conditions and trends say anything, we may expect the drop-out gate to increase. What then is the answer?

We tend to think of the missionary as being "ready to go," or "not ready to go." God doesn’t think that way. He probably takes very little notice of geography. He sees the total picture; the sum total of the factors and situations involved in building men of God for the building of his church. And since the world is becoming a "global village," God will use the pressures and challenges of the total "village" to accomplish his work in his developing servants. This means we must be prepared for drop-outs and possibly an increasing degree of negative spin-off in missions. But God will build his men for the accomplishing of his worldwide purposes. He will take young men and women of this generation, build into them his likeness, endue them with his spirit, and use them to communicate effectively his gospel to this generation.

Let us use all the tools, employ all the wisdom, and dap all the resources we can find for developing young people for service overseas. But we must keep in focus the whole issue from God’s perspective. God is doing his work! It is not so much "preparation now and here," for "service then and over there." It is rather God building his men both here and there, for effective service when, where, and as he deems one is ready for divine commissioning and appointment. And in the process he will use the individual while he is preparing him.

Some Practical Considerations

1. God is moving and his work is being accomplished. But it must be remembered that while God uses missions and missionaries as we commonly conceive them, nowhere in Scripture does it indicate that God is confined to doing his work through the Western church.

2. The church in the West must become much more aware and accepting of the existence and equality of the national church. Missions and individual missionaries have responsibility for communicating to the sending church a more realistic picture of what God is doing overall in given areas. In the past the sending church has been left, too often, with a mission/missionary centered image of the work. In the minds of most western Christians the missionary is central – not the national Christian and the church of which he is a part.

3. There must be a return to the importance of God’s hand being demonstrably upon an individual for the service to which he aspires. The desire to serve is not in itself an adequate credential!

4. A much greater emphasis must be made on the necessity for recognizing the Holy Spirit in our national brethren, and for developing mission work in fellowship with them as co-workers.

5. Practical steps by mission organizations must be taken to insure adequate language acquisition by new missionaries, along with the development in them of an awareness of and sensitivity to and appreciation of the culture and ethnic self-hood of the nationals.

6. There is great need for close liaison between mission societies and Christian training institutions so that the training of young people for missionary service is related more realistically to the nature of the task in today’s Third World.

7. The multiplication of Western personnel and programs overseas is not the primary answer to the problem of reaching the pagan masses.

They will go with varying degrees of age, maturity, and experience. And they will be supported by the American church. The affluence of the West, the decreasing cost of travel, plus the desire to "serve God in the exciting place" away from the drab and monotonous "here" wall assure a continuous stream of "missionaries" moving out to a world beyond Western shores. The American church has a hard time accepting the reality of the missionary "drop-out." But if present conditions and trends say anything, we may expect the drop-out gate to increase. What then is the answer?

We tend to think of the missionary as being "ready to go," or "not ready to go." God doesn’t think that way. He probably takes very little notice of geography. He sees the total picture; the sum total of the factors and situations involved in building men of God for the building of his church. And since the world is becoming a "global village," God will use the pressures and challenges of the total "village" to accomplish his work in his developing servants. This means we must be prepared for drop-outs and possibly an increasing degree of negative spin-off in missions. But God will build his men for the accomplishing of his worldwide purposes. He will take young men and women of this generation, build into them his likeness, endue them with his spirit, and use them to communicate effectively his gospel to this generation.

Let us use all the tools, employ all the wisdom, and dap all the resources we can find for developing young people for service overseas. But we must keep in focus the whole issue from God’s perspective. God is doing his work! It is not so much "preparation now and here," for "service then and over there." It is rather God building his men both here and there, for effective service when, where, and as he deems one is ready for divine commissioning and appointment. And in the process he will use the individual while he is preparing him.

Some Practical Considerations
1. God is moving and his work is being accomplished. But it must be remembered that while God uses missions and missionaries as we commonly conceive them, nowhere in Scripture does it indicate that God is confined to doing his work through the Western church.

2. The church in the West must become much more aware and accepting of the existence and equality of the national church. Missions and individual missionaries have responsibility for communicating to the sending church a more realistic picture of what God is doing overall in given areas. In the past the sending church has been left, too often, with a mission/missionary centered image of the work. In the minds of most western Christians the missionary is central – not the national Christian and the church of which he is a part.

3. There must be a return to the importance of God’s hand being demonstrably upon an individual for the service to which he aspires. The desire to serve is not in itself an adequate credential!

4. A much greater emphasis must be made on the necessity for recognizing the Holy Spirit in our national brethren, and for developing mission work in fellowship with them as co-workers.

5. Practical steps by mission organizations must be taken to insure adequate language acquisition by new missionaries, along with the development in them of an awareness of and sensitivity to and appreciation of the culture and ethnic self-hood of the nationals.

6. There is great need for close liaison between mission societies and Christian training institutions so that the training of young people for missionary service is related more realistically to the nature of the task in today’s Third World.

7. The multiplication of Western personnel and programs overseas is not the primary answer to the problem of reaching the pagan masses.

——-

Copyright © 1973 Evangelism and Missions Information Service (EMIS). All rights reserved. Not to be reproduced or copied in any form without written permission from EMIS.

Comments are closed.