The Best Missionary Training Model

by George Schultz

The author assesses three primary training models: Providers (42%), Out-sourcers (31%), and Partners (19%).

How can you know if the pre-field missionary training model you are using or considering is best for you or your agency? This is a question I have been asking for a number of years. Having served in two different mission agencies and being involved in training and leadership, I have observed the success and failure of training on a variety of levels.

As director of a missionary training program, I desired to improve the quality of our training to better suit the need of both agency and missionary. To do that, I sought the answer to one fundamental question: Which training model is better—or even best? I have come to the conclusion that “one size definitely does not fit all.” My recent research among the Interdenominational Foreign Mission Association (IFMA) mission agencies has helped me understand that certain models may be better than others based upon an agency’s values, available resources, size and level of commitment to training. These are just some of the factors that strongly impact what model may be best suited for them.

To assess which model may be best for an agency or missionary I looked first at how training has been approached. While all agencies require at least some basic training, I have found that the type, quantity and level of training vary greatly, as do the means selected to do that training.

It is not the intent of this article to determine the appropriate amount of training. Rather it is to identify the primary models used by IFMA mission agency respondents, note their own assessment of strengths and weaknesses and draw some conclusions based on that research. The three primary training models used can be described as: Providers (42%), Out-sourcers (31%), and Partners (19%).

Providers are agencies that provide all the training to their own candidates, prefielded appointees and missionaries. Outsourcers provide little or no training for their personnel but send them to other organizations for training. Partners are those who officially cooperate together with other agencies by sharing decision-making, services and properties for the training of their missionaries.

Research indicates that none of these models is better in and of itself. It is the model as it relates to the particular need or situation that makes it better or worse. Our analysis here reflects those agencies that provided at least two-thirds of their career missionaries’ training (particularly pre-field) through one of these models. One-third of the agencies indicated that their orientation and training were so intertwined that they could not be viewed separately.

Providers Model
Top Rated Strenghts
1. Can integrate agency ethos and philosophy of ministry into training
2. Control training content
3. Inherent ability to influence all aspects of training
4. Control of doctrinal purity
5. Cost effective for the missionary
6. Cost effective for the agency
7. Good recruitment tool for attracting candidates

Top Rated Weaknesses
1. Increased responsibility for staff who may be already overworked
2. Greater administrative time commitment
3. Staff expertise is limited
4. Small group size
5. Limited range of training options
6. Not cost effective for the agency
7. Timing of training offered not ideal for trainees

PROVIDERS
The list above outlines how the responding agencies ranked the top seven strengths and weaknesses of the Providers Model.

Given the top four strengths of this model, agencies that value exclusive control of their training content are often organizationally and philosophically served best by the Providers Model.

However, agencies that choose this model must also face realistic limitations. Because of the increased responsibility for staff and the limited expertise of onsite trainers, it is not always cost effective. Agencies must compensate for the above weaknesses either though increased staffing and funding or through the recognition and acceptance of diminished quality of training. Another option to offset the limitations of this model would be the possibility of using the agency’s orientation to implant their ethos, philosophy and doctrine, and then either outsource or partner other aspects of needed training. The orientation and training components would need to be separated into distinct elements. In this way they may be able to derive the best elements of the various models.

Agencies that train moderate numbers of missionaries may want to consider extending their services to those who are not able to be a Provider or Partner with other agencies and institutions. Since they have the expertise, funding and facilities already in place, they have much to offer others.. In turn, they could benefit from the input of others who do not have the resources to be a Provider on their own.

Outsourcers Model
Top Rated Strengths
1. Access to trainers and experts outside the agency
2. Additional training available at times appropriate to the need of trainees
3. Enhanced learning through exposure to larger training groups
4. Larger range of training options
5. No agency staff required
6. Demonstrates greater unity of the body of Chirst
7. Cost effective for the agency

Top Rated Weaknesses
1. Diminished ability to implant specific agency ethos and philosophy of ministry
2. Loss of control for agency
3. Negative exposure to philosophies of ministry incongruent with one’s agency
4. Timing of training not ideal for trainees
5. Location of training is too distant
6. Dilution of theological distinctives
7. Not cost effective for the missionary

OUTSOURCERS
The list above reveals what the responding agencies ranked as the top seven strengths and weaknesses of the Outsourcers Model.

Agencies that do not have staff expertise, facilities or other assets may best be served by outsourcing their missionary training to others who have competence in desired areas. They could contract with trainers or organizations with expertise for specific competencies needed in the targeted ministry.

This option is ideal for agencies that train smaller numbers of missionaries or who want to use their limited resources in other ways. Outsourcing is likely to be the least expensive for the agency because they do not have the full responsibility of programming and cost. This may be more expensive for the missionary, however, since the agency may not assist in absorbing some of the costs.

Outsourcing is ideal for churches that assume the full responsibility in sending their own missionaries. Churches often do not have the cross-cultural resources necessary to adequately train future missionaries in cultural analysis, cross-cultural communication and other skills pertinent to cross-cultural work (i.e., language acquisition, ethnomusicology, transition and family adjustment, English as a second language and more).

A partial list of resources for outsourcing includes:
• Center for Intercultural Training (CIT), Union Mills, North Carolina (www.cit-online.org)

• MissionPrep, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (www.timecentre.com/missionprep)

• Institute for Cross-Cultural Training (ICCT), Wheaton, Illinois (www. wheaton.edu/bgc/icct)

• Mission Training International (MTI), Colorado Springs, Colorado (www.mti.org)

Partners Model
Top Rated Strengths
1. Access to trainers and experts outside of agency
2. Enhanced learning through exposure to larger training groups
3. Demonstrates a greater unity of the body of Christ
4. Larger range of training options
5. Shared costs of trainers and facilities
6. Additional training available at times appropriate to the need of the trainee
7. In control of content of training

Top Rated Weaknesses
1. Diminished ability to implant specific agency ethos and philosophy of ministry
2. Costs associated with maintaining a partnership
3. Loss of control for the agency
4. Timing of training offered not ideal for trainees
5. Negative exposure to philosophies of ministry incongruent to one’s agency
6. Increased responsibility for staff who may already be overworked
7. Location of training is too distant

PARTNERS
The chart above shows what the responding agencies ranked as the top seven strengths and weaknesses of the Partners Model.

Partnering is an excellent option for agencies that have some staff expertise, facilities or other assets to offer. Together they can create something that alone they could not do at all. Pooling from their limited individual strengths and resources they can develop a training program that would equip and prepare their candidates much more effectively.

Even agencies that have adequate staff expertise and facilities to be a Provider may want to consider inviting other organizations or trainees to partner together. This is likely to produce training that is likely to be better and more cost effective than either could do alone. Such participation would also be a wonderful demonstration of Christian kindness and unity.

Partnering may provide a mid-range option addressing both control issues and missionary funding concerns. By partnering they do not have full control, but neither do they have no control. Also, by sharing the costs, the missionary is likely to find reduced training expenses through partners sharing in the total costs.

On the field the missionary will likely be rubbing shoulders with missionaries from various agencies and in many cases working together or at least in close proximity. Being with missionaries from other agencies in training may help break down unnecessary walls of division and provide a good platform for future work together on the field.

MODELS COULD BE AN ADVANTAGE IN RECRUITMENT
Agencies should give further thought to how training could be a useful tool in attracting candidates. For some candidates, coming to a full-service agency may be attractive. Though the research showed this was a number seven ranked strength of the Providers Model, it could prove to be a beneficial factor for growth of the agency. There may be candidates who would be attracted to an agency where all of the required training is provided and where they do not have to go to different places for various components of their training. Those who Partner may also find this to be a hidden benefit of cooperative (Partner) training.

Agencies who have low costs in training may also find this training to be a helpful recruitment tool and a way to speed the process to the field. This would mean that the missionary candidate has to raise less support for outgoing expenses (assuming these costs are the responsibility of the missionary) thus enabling them to cut the time of support development.

CONCLUSION
So which model is best for you or your organization? It depends. It depends on your values, resources and what your particular needs are as an organization or just as a missionary needing training. A good decision based on the true understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the various models will enable you to achieve better results for your particular situation. Study these strengths and weaknesses and then make an informed decision. You may find that you can improve on the delivery of training for you and your organization or avoid some of the pitfalls of a training model not well suited for your situation.

For an expanded version of this article see: Schultz, George. 2001 Models of Missionary Training: An Assessment of Alternative Approaches to Training for Cross-Cultural Ministry. D.Min. diss., Columbia Biblical Seminary and Graduate School of Missions.

—–

George Schultz is the director of the Center for Intercultural Training in Union Mills, NC. Previously, George, Kathy and family served for fourteen years in Alaska with InterAct Ministries as director of the Arctic Bible Institute and Alaska/Russian field director.

Copyright © 2003 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.