The Changing Face of World Missions
& The Challenge of Missionary Training in the 21st Century
by Stephen Davis
How can
we communicate the unchanging Gospel of Jesus Christ in the midst
of a changing world? This is one of the great missiological questions
of our day. Gone are the days when the isolated West sent missionaries
to unknown lands and people. Apart from isolated ethnic peoples
in yet unreached regions, the world has taken on more of a global
character. Contact between ethnic groups, whether resulting from
immigration, warfare and displacement or tourism, is unprecedented.
Times have changed. We have more opportunity, more resources and
are the benefactors of more past experience and research than any
previous generation. The changing face of world missions presents
unique challenges, among them the preparation of missionaries for
effective cross-cultural witness.
The Changing Face of World Missions
From western cultural superiority to "biblical cultural
relativism"
We are cultural beings. It is difficult and undesirable,
if not impossible, to separate our form of Christianity
from our culture. Yet Christianity is a universal religion
not bound by one cultural expression of it. It is unavoidable
that western churches have a certain flavor that reflects
elements of culture. However one should not expect that
this flavor be reproduced in churches planted among other
peoples. Their cultures, in need of transformation, are
adequate, albeit imperfect, sociocultural environments in
which the Gospel can take root. No cultural way of life
or its Christian expression should be absolutized. It is
in this sense that we might hold to a philosophical cultural
relativism. We do recognize the baggage implied with such
terminology due to the popular and non-technical usage of
this concept which equates cultural relativism with ethical
relativism. We should be more concerned with the practical
implications of the concept rather than the fear of misunderstanding.
On one hand, we must not impose our culture on those we
seek to reach for Christ, resulting in disloyal cultural
conversions that prevent the new church from taking root
in its culture. Allegiance to Christ should not necessarily
entail disloyalty to all elements of cultural and religious
structural form. Obviously those elements which are clearly
contradictory to Scripture must be abandoned. But a paternalistic
church which refuses to allow for cultural variables may
attract those who are disenchanted with their own culture
and way of life and are ready to embrace western Christianity
in order to receive not only salvation but also the "cargo"
of Christianity.
On the other hand, cultural relativism should not be confused
with absolute relativism that postulates that no absolute
standards exist outside of culture. Neither should it be
confounded with ethical relativism that insists that practices
which exist in other cultures be allowed in all cultures.
"Biblical relativism is an obligatory feature of our incarnational
religion, for without it we would either absolutize human
institutions or relativize God" (Eugene Nida, God's Word
in Man's Language, 1952: 282).
From planting institutions to planting indigenous churches
Institutions, due in part to their emphasis on meeting societal
needs, often draw from those marginalized by society. Short-term
needs are met but dependency easily sets in. Nationals are
then employed by outsiders with outside funds that may lead
to "rice Christians." Not only are the models for these
institutions (schools, orphanages, clinics, camps, etc.)
often inadequate for meeting long-term needs but they also
distract from the essential task of planting reproductive
fellowships of believers (i.e. churches). History teaches
us that western institutions related to missionary endeavors
have often disrupted the culture to the point where undesired
and unforeseen consequences have resulted.
Those institutions which follow initial church planting
activity may be termed "second wave" ministry. They are
good works but not essential to the missionary task nor
mandated by the Word of God. We would do well to reflect
on principles proposed by John Nevius in Planting and
Developing of Missionary Churches. Among them were:
New converts should continue in their occupations
and provide witness where they live. Church programs and
methods should only be developed which could be supported
financially by the nationals. Gifted nationals should
be developed for evangelistic work. Nationals should provide
for their own church buildings without being dependent
on outside resources. (Avery T. Willis Jr. in Missiology:
An Introduction to the Foundations, History, and Strategies
of World Missions, 1998: 256)
This would not preclude strategic partnership or sharing
our more than abundant resources with those less well endowed.
But these institutions should not simply be the vision of
the missionary who proposes, funds, and controls these ministries.
If these ministries are not part of the vision of national
churches and under the auspices of local churches then they
effectively become parachurch ministries. These ministries
are good and helpful extensions of a church planting ministry
but they easily become "the tail that wags the dog." And
if not part of the vision and supported by the resources
of the national churches they are likely destined for perpetual
dependency.
The broadened concept of "mission" which seems prevalent
in our days even in fundamental circles has its roots in
European evangelical and liberal thought which equates all
that the church does as mission. We might ask ourselves
if we have so diluted the term "missionary" that it has
become a catch-all word with accrued baggage that allows
for almost any kind of overseas work or anything vaguely
connected with the gospel to be called "mission." As a result
we have career "missionaries" who bear little resemblance
to the New Testament evangelist (perhaps the closest counterpart
to the non-biblical term "missionary"). This is not to criticize
the good work they have done nor to impugn their motives
but when "missionaries" are engaged in ministry that does
not result in planting reproductive fellowships of saved,
baptized disciples, then we do well to reevaluate our preset
situation. Those ministries which result from church planting
should be carried out without neglecting the cultural and
economic realities of the new churches. Such extra-ecclesial
ministries easily divert personnel and resources to doing
"missionary" work that is neither fundamental nor vital
to the missionary mandate given to the Church. These good
works should be developed under the auspices of local churches
and not funded and directed by "missionaries." Should we
ordain men and commit our churches to support them as camp
directors, school teachers and principals, college and seminary
professors, medical personnel, orphanage workers, and then
call them missionaries because of geographical displacement?
Perhaps there are no easy answers but we would be unwise
to not raise the question.
From conversion as implying cultural discontinuity to
conversion as involving worldview transformation
Missionaries should have strong convictions. They will be
confronted with undreamed of challenges to their own worldview
assumptions. But they must also learn to distinguish between
ontological convictions rooted in Scripture and those culture-informed
convictions that, while legitimate implications in their
sociocultural context, should not be elevated to the level
of Scriptural truth. The failure to differentiate between
these kinds of conviction will result in weaker brother
missionaries having strong convictions that they inflict
on others without distinguishing transcendent ethical norms
from convention and cultural conditioning.
There are shared areas of conscience between the messenger
of the Gospel and the recipients through which the Spirit
of God can begin His work of conviction. The missionary
risks emphasizing certain areas of conscience informed by
cultural variables which find no resonance in the conscience
of the receptor. This may lead to change which may only
be superficial conformity and which leads to believers having
compartmentalized lives. On the surface the forms are foreign
(Christian) but at the deeper level converts continue to
attach meanings from their pre-Christian allegiances. The
result can be called Christopagan syncretism. Just as cultural
Gentiles were not required to become cultural Jews (circumcision,
etc) in order to convert, we must not present conversion
as a break from culture per se but from those elements found
in all cultures that are incompatible with kingdom living.
The Challenge of Missionary Training in the 21st Century
Theomissiological training
The complexities of cross-cultural ministry demand not only
a solid theological foundation and strong convictions but
also a relational and analytical competence by which one
can enter a strange culture and develop an effective strategy
for witness. The training of missionaries should provide
tools for understanding the sociocultural adequacy of the
host culture and to see how God can work with its subideals
toward radical transformation at the worldview level. We
are grateful for the training being provided by schools
which God has raised up. However, it is rare that someone
is ready for effective cross-cultural ministry after four
years of post-high school education. Neither does seminary
training necessarily equip one for non-western ministry
but provides additional time and study opportunities and
should provide an outlet for practical experience.
This does not deny that many have had effective ministry
who had neither the opportunity nor encouragement for adequate
pre-field preparation But the idea should be banished that
only minimal training is required since one will be ministering
in primitive societies or among technologically undeveloped
peoples. You may know more than those to whom you minister
but you must know them, their history, their culture, their
real and felt needs, their cognitive framework, their kinship
relationships, their organizational principles, in short,
their way of life, if you want reach them.
There are no short cuts to acquiring linguistic and cultural
competence. We would do well to insist on raising the bar
for missionary training. At the very least we should expect
some exposure to the disciplines of a biblical theology
of missions, history of missions, studies in world religions
and some exposure to cultural anthropology.
Practical experience
Few cultures accord to youth the prestige they receive in
western society. Apart from some of the earlier considerations
on training we need to recognize that youth is not necessarily
an asset in ministry. And youth compounded with inexperience
equals disaster. We ought to question the wisdom of sending
freshly minted graduates, without intensive missiological
studies, to minister in a foreign context with the additional
pressures of language acquisition, life-style adjustments
and child rearing.
One might reasonably ask how old, how long, how much? There
are no simple answers partly due to the differences in gifts,
opportunities and place of service. The point is that we
should not be quick in sending missionaries who have not
been adequately prepared, who have not developed relational
and theological skills and have not demonstrated abilities
and effectiveness in the area of their calling. Cross-cultural
competency cannot be learned in a classroom. But pre-field
training can help prepare missionaries for the challenges
of ministering in another culture and for the culture stress
associated with the strangeness of ones new surroundings.
Training nationals
Great care needs to be exercised in training nationals.
Having them leave their culture to study in a foreign and
prosperous country may prove detrimental. When confronted
with a choice between poverty and chaos in their country
and ministry training in America they are left with little
choice. We must not dangle the carrot in front of youth
seeking a better life. They are often ruined for return
ministry. The western education they receive may equip them
to function in the west but not to minister in their home
culture. It is unlikely that having tasted of the American
way of life they will return to their homeland. When and
if they return they take with them the trappings of their
newfound life and may effectively lose a hearing from their
countrymen.
It seems that few nationals trained in North America want
to return to their homelands as national pastors supported
by national churches. The tendency is to return as missionaries
sent out from North American churches. There are undeniable
benefits for a national in a "missionary" position that
national pastors rarely enjoy. Experience has taught us
that supporting national pastors and national missionaries
with foreign funds and little means of accountability not
only leads to ethical challenges but also prevents the churches
from reproducing themselves without dependency on outside
resources. If we are content to help plant terminal, non-reproductive
churches then this strategy should be continued. If we want
to plant germinal churches then this strategy should be
abandoned.
The training of nationals should ideally take place in their
homeland, in the midst of and involved in ministry of which
they are an integral part. For those who have demonstrated
character and leadership abilities there may be some benefit
to having them occasionally leave their homeland and study
abroad for brief periods in order to sharpen their ministry
skills.
Conclusion:
The changing face of world missions leads us to evaluate present
practices, to seek to be more effective in communicating the Gospel
in other cultures and to plant churches which are neither captive
to culture nor culturally foreign. Missionary training must always
be open to critique in order to face new challenges. We thank God
for what He has done, is doing and will continue to do with us,
through us and in spite of us. Our old ways are not always God's
old ways. We need to be open to His leading toward a better understanding
and greater effectiveness in reaching our world in our generation
for Christ. Stephen Davis is Pastor of
Missions at Calvary
Baptist Church and Adjunct Professor of Missions at Calvary
Baptist Theological Seminary in Lansdale, PA. He spents many
years as a missionary to Romania and France. This essay was originally
presented at the National Leadership Conference in Lansdale, PA.