Paradigm shifts are always resisted! I want to address today some of the resisting comments that have been posted about Re-Thinking Mission Work!
I said that our system is broken because we require our missionaries to first be good fund-raisers. Some argued that the skill set for fund raising is similar to that of a good missionary, so it is a legitimate filter. If they can’t raise money, how could they be a good missionary?
No doubt, good people skills are a prerequisite for both raising funds and missions. Other broad skills like perseverance and the ability to communicate would certainly fit both tasks, so this argument is not farfetched. However, here’s a short list of skills necessary for a good missionary that are not necessary to be a good fund-raiser:
- Prayerful
- A thoughtful student of the Word
- An effective teacher of the Word
- A vision-caster
- A team builder
- Cross-culturally sensitive
- A lover of language—often, the ability to learn a new language.
- A lover of people, not just a manipulator of people
- Extreme faith and trust in an all-powerful God
I said that we need greater access to better pre-mission training for more people! Several suggested that our Christian colleges offer plenty of good preparation.
They are right about the quality of training that our Christian universities offer. It is excellent! But access is the real issue. The general mission preparation is designed for 18-21 year old, full-time students working toward a bachelor’s degree.
- What about the 90% of young people in churches of Christ who do not attend a Christian college?
- What about the young professionals who are called to the mission after graduation?
- What about families—Dad, Mom, and kids—who are called to the mission?
- What about those who can commit only two years? Is it reasonable to ask them to prepare four years for two of service?
- What about early retirees and mature Christians? How will they be trained?
I know about summer seminars, but how many short courses would it take to prepare a novice missionary?
I am happy to report that the idea of required apprenticeships resonated with many of you! It is an idea that I will try to flesh out more in a future posting!
Several readers pointed out the benefits of supporting national workers instead of Americans. I’m a firm believer that American missionaries should all be temporary and that training nationals to reach their own people—and to send their own missionaries—should be given high priority. I am strongly opposed—with rare exceptions—to putting national evangelists on American church support. The problems created by supporting nationals are immense! Sending money is not a substitute for Going!
I have not called for any kind of centralized organization, but some of you who commented did! Several suggested that the historic stand against missionary societies was never well grounded. I believe that we can achieve our goal of better mission work done by more missionaries without a centralized bureaucracy—but not with cooperation. I doubt that we Americans can create a centralized organization that would not succumb to wielding big financial, political, or personal bludgeons, so that’s not the direction I would like to see us go, even if we could get beyond the doctrinal issues.
Look around! The Mormons have over fifty thousand unpaid, full-time missionaries! All of their missionaries go through several weeks of training at one of the seventeen Mission Training Centers, located throughout the world! Mormonism—which began in the U.S. about the same time as the American Restoration Movement– continues to be a growing world-wide movement with over 14 million members!
What other models for supporting and overseeing mission work are you aware of? Can the current model among churches of Christ be improved by learning from other religious groups?








