An Invitation to Expanding Partnership in God’s Mission, the results of a consultation held in January 2008, and…

Doing Mission in Christ’s Way, created in a workshop held in October 2009.

I think you will find them both very thought provoking, especially helpful for local church mission committee’s and groups preparing to for an overseas mission trip.

Sunday, September 28, 2008

Did you know that the Presbyterian Church in Madagascar has more members than our Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)? Did you know that we have a close working partnership with two different Presbyterian Churches in Ghana: the Presbyterian Church of Ghana and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Ghana? Did you know about the efforts of American Presbyterians to establish relations with the emerging house churches, many of which include people with a Reformed and Presbyterian background, in all the “stan” countries (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan)? Did you know there are new efforts to connect our church with the peacebuilding efforts which have been bearing fruit in Ireland for many years, through the work of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland? Did you know about the longstanding effort of American Presbyterians to stand with our brothers and sisters in Columbia against the violence in that nation? Our Columbia Mission Network, in a powerful ministry of compassion, has provided for the General Secretary of the Presbyterian Church in Columbia when he, his wife and young children needed to leave Columbia because of the death threats received in response to their Christian witness? Did you know that because of the influence and support of American Presbyterians, the Presbyterian Church in Honduras, after years of effort, has finally had their legal petitions with the government, which is dominated by Roman Catholic officials, approved. Now the Presbyterian Church has official standing as a religious organization in Honduras. This means, for the first time, that the Presbyterian congregations in Honduras are able to legally own their church buildings and property. Given the lack of social infrastructure in Haiti, do you know about the incessantly difficult work which American Presbyterians are doing to bring a long-term, sustainable, mission effort to that poor country? Did you know, after generations of conflict and war, the church is emerging with amazing life and vitality in Vietnam and Laos and that American Presbyterians are partnering with those congregations? All of this work is being carried and supported by the burgeoning, new Mission Networks of our Church.

This article appeared in the The Presbyterian Outlook on September 8, 2008, and was re-printed in the Presbyterian Cross-Cultural Mission Newsletter Email Group Posting #23 – October 2008 with the permission of the author and The Presbyterian Outlook. www.pres-outlook.org  There are footnote references in the article indicated by parentheses ( ).

You may be surprised that missionary could be in need of rehabilitating, but some readers will have a visceral aversion to hearing this word. It is time to reconsider what we call those who represent the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) in international cross-cultural mission.  The recent General Assembly unanimously approved the Dallas Invitation (Expanding Partnership in God’s Mission) and affirmed the General Assembly Council’s proposal to reverse the half-century decline (from 2,000 to 200) in the number of mission co-workers serving internationally.  These are very significant defining moments for the PC(USA) and they provide us an important opportunity to review our beliefs and actions regarding mission.

Many readers will be surprised that using “missionary” is a no-no for some in the PC(USA).(1)  Officially we have preferred “fraternal worker” (1960’s – 1970’s) and “mission co-worker” since then. Presbyterians are far more influenced in their thinking about missionaries by James Michener’s Hawaii and Barbara Kingsolver’s Poisonwood Bible than they are by mission education provided by the PC(USA). In addition to popular literature this bias is also deeply influenced by western scholars.(2)  It seems that some in the PC(USA) defer to popular literature and academic writers for a critical understanding of missionaries. Maybe we should listen to international partners such as world-renowned missiologist Lamin Sanneh who twenty years ago labeled this lack of nerve “the western missionary guilt complex.”(3)

Have missionaries been paternalistic? Have they cooperated with imperialism and economic colonialism? Have they imposed western theological and Biblical understandings as normative Christian expression? Yes (with emphasis) to all of the above! However, missionaries are no better at sinning than the rest of us. They just get to do it cross-culturally in a foreign language more carefully scrutinized than most of us have had to endure.  Robert D. Woodberry (among many other serious mission historians) reminds us that the knee-jerk, emotional, negative reaction to “missionary” is ill-founded. Woodberry writes:

… religious freedom and missionary activity are usually synergistic;  historically, places where they have advanced in tandem have seen a reduction in abuses of power and an expansion of civil society … they have also been central to the abolition of slavery, the development of mass education, and the flourishing of organizations outside state control … the effects of the 19th and early 20th century missionaries are still measurable in the educational enrollments, infant mortalities, and levels of political democracy in societies around the world … there were many problematic missionary methodologies in the colonial era. … But, we should not lose sight of the positive legacy of missions in the areas of racial attitudes, education, civil society, and colonial reform.”(4)

The fact of our incredible power and wealth has been particularly problematic for North Americans. Jonathan Bonk’s Missions and Money should be required reading for any Christian obtaining a passport for a short-term mission trip. It is indeed frightening to think of how little we have learned from missionaries’ mistakes of the past now that any one of us can “be a missionary” simply by buying an airline ticket.  Does that excuse us from Jesus’ command to … be my witnesses … to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8)? Of course not! But it should put the fear of God into us. David Bosch (5) has helpfully suggested that we should engage in mission with “bold humility.”  Unless we are going to give away all that we have to the poor, we will have to come to grips with participating in God’s mission as part of the wealthy of the world.

The Dallas Consultation this past January gives us an opportunity to reconsider some of the missiological biases into which we have drifted. Future historians will probably consider this meeting as the most important defining moment in mission for Presbyterians since a meeting in Lake Mohonk, N.Y., in 1956. Those at that gathering fifty years ago addressed important issues including what name we would use for “missionaries.” However, fifty years have passed and some of the paradigms to which we cling from that era have not worn well.  They have become parochial and paternalistic.(6)  If you were to search the Internet for “mission co-worker” you would find that virtually all results are PC(USA)-specific. Outside of our denomination the term is practically unknown. We live in a very small PC(USA) world. This term is not known in other North American denominations or in the Majority World (Asia, Africa, Latin America) Church. Koreans, Ethiopians, Sri Lankans, Filipinos, Chinese, Brazilians, and countless others send “missionaries” and they do it in increasingly greater numbers.  These churches want us to be partners, not overlords, but they honor the missionary legacy and they have embraced the calling for themselves in staggering numbers.

Our global partners know that there is good reason to use the word “missionary.”  It reminds us of our roots because it is derived from the Latin missio (mittere), which means “to send.” It parallels the Greek New Testament “apostolic” apo- (out) plus stellein (to send). The wide interest today in the “missional church” suggests that we have lost our basic understanding of the “church” as a “sent people.” We now need an adjective (missional) to remind us that we are not a chapel for the members but a community of believers gathered around Word and sacrament for the purpose of “being sent” into the world God loves, announcing the Kingdom of God. It is time to move beyond our allergic reactions to the term “missionary.” We Presbyterians have been among the leading world mission thinkers and doers in America for more than 350 years.(7) But in the last fifty years we have increasingly become marginalized and irrelevant. We have not kept up with missiological developments. Our official fixation on “mission co-worker” as the “correct” term is evidence of this. The Dallas Consultation and the General Assembly action on reversing the decline in the number of missionaries give us an opportunity to correct this limitation.(8)

We have ahead of us a huge task of “mission education” in discovering what God has in mind for the PC(USA)’s role in the world Christian movement. We have had our “glory days” but those definitely have passed with the emergence and re-emergence of the church in the Global South. We still have an important (although it surely will be more humble) missionary responsibility. However, the stirrings of the Spirit are quite evident in the Dallas Invitation and the re-commitment to the value of long-term missionaries.  We must not miss this kairos moment.

A good place to begin would be to listen deeply to the Biblical witness, especially as it is interpreted to us by the Majority World church. This practice does not come easy to us. But it would be wise to learn it. One place to start would be in this matter of rehabilitating “missionary.” An important voice that could help us would be Yale mission historian Lamin Sanneh, who was mentioned earlier. In his recently acclaimed book Disciples of All Nations: Pillars of World Christianity (9) he says, 

Missions were organized, funded, and directed from the West, a fact that made it easy to construe them as colonialism at prayer, and to see colonialism as the West’s moral mandate. Suitably chastened, missionary organizations have since beat a retreat by speaking modestly of ‘missioner,’ ‘fraternal worker,’ ‘cross-cultural consultant,’ ‘ecumenical partner,’ and anything else as long as it was not the offending word ‘missionary’… I am urging a revisionist history without claiming that missions and colonialism were not in cahoots. (10) 

With bold humility let us reclaim our missionary vocation and our privilege to recognize the particular persons who represent us as cross-cultural missionaries.  There will be some in the North American mission field who will deride us for this witness, but let us humbly engage them without apology for the sake of Christ.

Footnotes:

1. In spite of some recent insistence on using “mission co-worker” Stated Clerk and former director of the Worldwide Ministries Division, Clifton Kirkpatrick, seems quite comfortable using the term “missionary” in his article “Is There a Future for the Presbyterian Church (USA)?” published in the Price H. Gwynn III Church Leadership Series. Not one author in the recently published A History of Presbyterian Missions 1944 – 2007, Scott W. Sunquist and Caroline N. Becker, eds., uses the term “mission co-worker.”  “Missionary” and “missionaries” are used almost 1500 times.

2. See also the International Bulletin of Missionary Research, July, 2008. Any doubt about the widely pejorative assumptions common to the popular definition of “missionary” will be dispelled in an internet search.

3. Lamin Sanneh, “Christian Mission and the Western Guilt Complex,” The Christian Century, April 7, 1987, pp. 330 – 334. Sanneh was then teaching at Harvard.  Soon after that date he moved to Yale where he is today.

4. “Reclaiming the M-Word: The Legacy of Missions in Non-Western Societies,”International Journal of Frontier Missiology, Spring 2008, p17-18

5. Transforming Mission, 1991; see also Mission in Bold Humility, Willem Saaymand and Klippies Kritzinger, eds., Orbis Books, Maryknoll, NY, 1996

6. Lake Mohonk was an important defining moment.  For a fuller understanding see A History of Presbyterian Missions 1944 – 2007, pp. 17 – 18, 65 – 81, 181, 241.

7. What is today the Southampton Presbyterian Church (Long Island, NY) was founded in 1640. Its first pastor was a missionary to the Shinnecock Indians.

8. We now have, for the first time in decades, two World Mission staff members with a Ph.D. in mission-related fields: Hunter Farrell in anthropology and Michael Parker in mission history.

9. Published by Oxford University Press, 2008, and named one of the top five books on world Christianity by Martin Marty and mission book of the year (Christianity Today, April, 2008).

10. Lamin Sanneh, Disciples of All Nations: Pillars of World Christianity, Oxford University Press, 2008, pp. 131 – 132.

[*David Dawson is executive presbyter of Shenango Presbytery, and is from New Wilmington, Pa.]

2 June 2008

Dear colleagues in mission,

I want to share with you an historic decision by our Church’s General Assembly Council (GAC). Last month, the Council voted unanimously to reverse a 50 year downward trend in the number of PCUSA mission coworkers by approving a budget for the approval of the 2008 General Assembly that will increase the number of long-term, fully compensated mission personnel. Due to attrition, by this year’s General Assembly in June, we will have just under 200 mission coworkers (this does not include our nearly 70 long-term mission volunteers). The GAC voted to increase the number of our mission coworkers to 210 in 2009, and to 215 in 2010. We are thanking God for this remarkable decision.

But you know how U.S. audiences are tempted to focus on the 7 second sound-byte. Let me go a bit deeper about this important decision and the on-going conversation from which it emerges.

First, let me say what the decision does not mean:

• It doesn’t mean that the hundreds of faithful Presbyterian missionaries who preceded you and me in international mission were wrong when they “worked themselves out of a job”. A couple who gave most of their life to mission work in the Philippines called to ask if an increased number of mission workers means a change in our Church’s historic commitment to partnership and to empowering the church in every place to do ministry on their own. Absolutely not, I assured them. Our Church honors the work they did and notes the multiplier effect that their work has had for the cause of Christ by empowering the partner church to continue in ministry long after the mission worker leaves the country. Our mission workers pioneered “equipping ministry” long before it became a buzzword in U.S. pastoral theology.
• It doesn’t mean that the face of PC(USA) mission has suddenly, curiously, become an American face. We continue to work in partnership around the world. While many of our congregations continue to equate “mission” with “PC(USA) mission worker” (or “missionary”), integrity requires us to acknowledge that most of what God is doing in the many places we work is done primarily through our global partners. Whatever our own sense of call, whatever the financial resources we may have in our pocket, we still owe to our partners the major “say” in the direction of mission in the communities where God has placed them. While Mission Challenge ’07 effectively highlighted the work that our mission personnel are doing, the WM staff team working on World Mission Challenge ’09 is looking at innovative ways to present to the Church a more accurate vision of our work—one that includes our global partners.
• It doesn’t mean that our long-term national or international mission volunteers are not part of our mission personnel. The historical records do not follow the numbers of our long-term mission volunteers with any consistency, thus the GAC had to rely on the number of mission co-workers to provide the base-line. Nor does it mean that international mission personnel are any better or more “worth counting” than national or local mission personnel. Many faithful Presbyterians follow Christ’s call across the street or across the nation and these are equally valid callings, as our Church recognizes. Nor does it mean that Presbyterian mission workers sent by the GAC are better than faithful Presbyterians sent by other Christian, or even non-Christian, organizations. But Presbyterian mission workers sent by the GAC are sent by the whole Church and are responsible to live and minister according to the commitments of our Church as expressed in the decisions of our General Assembly.
• It doesn’t mean that our Church’s faithfulness can be measured by the numbers of mission coworkers we send out (nor by the number of PCUSA members, nor by the total amount of money given by PC(USA) members annually, etc.). The new realm that Jesus inaugurated is more than a “numbers game” and is not, in the final analysis, about budgets and numbers projections. It is found in the quality and integrity of relationships and each of you is giving testimony to these redeemed relationships as you teach, heal, plant churches, educate our Church for mission, work for justice and reconciliation, and help people through difficult times.

But let me share briefly what I believe the decision does represent:

• It clearly represents a major shift in denominational mission policy to dedicate more resources to the sending of international mission personnel. Note that, in order to fulfill the objectives, $4 million must be raised in both 2009 and 2010. This will require much more than the committed leadership of our colleagues in the Communications & Funds Development (CFD) area– it will require CFD and World Mission staff, mission personnel, global partners and mission leaders throughout the denomination to use mission stories to build a bridge between our congregations and the high quality mission work you and our global partners are doing together. This will be one of our greatest challenges in 2009 and 2010 and we cannot achieve it without your help.
• It represents an earnest attempt to recognize that faithfulness requires that we respond to the call of global partners around the world to share mission personnel with them. We currently have more than 40 prioritized, but unfilled, positions where our partners and we agree we should send mission workers. In addition, our Church is called to consider new areas, new partners and new ways of working that will challenge old models of partnership.
• It expresses that our Church highly values the role our mission personnel play in international mission. This is primarily because of the work all of you and your WM staff colleagues do each day.

The rest of the letter contains information mainly for mission co-workers, but Hunter closes like this:

The Bottom Line…

I sometimes think I have the easiest job in the Presbyterian Center because our global partners, mission personnel and World Mission staff in Louisville are highly dedicated, skilled and called to this work. I’m the guy who gets thanked—sometimes, a gazillion times a month—for the good work all of you do every day…which only makes me more grateful for God’s way of working through “wounded healers” like you and me. Your faithfulness helps me to see God’s faithfulness more clearly.

Pray for a continued spirit of expectant anticipation for the changes that God is birthing among us!

With you in Christ,

Hunter Farrell, Director
World Mission
Presbyterian Church (USA)
hunter.farrell@pcusa.org

Westerners often assume, however, that overseas projects just cannot get along without us and consequently, faithfulness in world mission becomes a matter of writing checks. Glenn Schwartz of World Mission Associates, in his recent book, gives good insight and offers sound advice to churches who seek to encourage self-reliance and curb dependency in their desire to further God’s rule throughout the world. Check it out:

• When Charity Destroys Dignity. Overcoming Unhealthy Dependency in the Christian Movement. by Glenn J. Schwartz (World Mission Associates) available through www.wmausa.org

These are my reflections on Missiology, 34/4 (2006), a special issue devoted to Short-Term Missions (STM’s). The journal is published in Wilmore, Kentucky, and the guest editor of this issue is Robert J. Priest. I was sent a copy by the PCUSA in Louisville, and reflections were invited. I will share these reflections also with my Brazilian church and with Joe Small, both for reasons that will emerge in this paper.

The strong concerns about the all-too-vigorous STM movement did not exactly come out of the blue. Fairly recently I received, from María Arroyo, an eloquent paper (or grito) on the subject by Dennis Smith (By the way, Dennis has had significant professional contact with Leonildo Silveira Campos, a sociologist of religion who belongs to my Brazilian church). Brazil is blessed by distance and high air fares and has thus been spared the tidal wave of STM’s with which Central America and the Caribbean have had to deal. Nevertheless, we do have experience here with mission visits. Personally, I find these articles painful to read in places, because I was part tourist and part STM myself before, at the age of 45, I became a long-term missionary. This part of my history has made me a bit more patient with mission visitors, perhaps, than some of the other long-term missionaries are.

My first recommendation: I hope that, in addition to sending this issue of Missiology to PCUSA missionaries, you have sent it to partner churches or at least some of them. Certainly our Brazilian partners are partners in missiology as well as partners in mission. Also, the article by Edwin Zehner recommends a greater role for partner churches in supervising STM’s, and it seems pointless to debate this without input from partner churches. I will return to the issue below.

Second recommendation: Educate our people about the missionary churches. At my missionary orientation at Stony Point 20 years ago, Marcia Borgeson played a sort of group game with us, calling on each of us to describe our idea of a missionary. Is a missionary somebody wearing a pith helmet? Well, instead of having an idea of a missionary person, I had an idea of a missionary church. That was because, mostly on a lark, I had spent a year at the Waldensian seminary in Italy. To me, a missionary church is a church that sings certain hymns and where the preacher likes to preach on certain favorite texts. For the Waldensians, that seemed to be the missionary instruction in Matthew 10. And I was sent to a missionary church, the Independent Presbyterian Church of Brazil, which sings different missionary hymns and preaches different missionary texts, but which has a mission dynamic that is not always present in the PCUSA. What I’m thinking of is a lot to ask, since PCUSA people don’t learn much church history, let alone mission history. I wonder if 02% of our people know who Francis Mackemie was, and what proportion of them know that Mackemie was sent to our shores by the Presbytery of Donegal. A terribly small percentage of them must know about the Waldensians (Presbyterians under another name) who planted churches all over Italy without foreign personnel, or about the Brazilian Presbyterians who walked out of a Synod meeting in 1903, over one of the issues of the day on which they had taken a conservative position-and have kept up a missionary spirit ever since. Our people need to know more church history, and that includes mission history.

Our people are probably sensing inarticulately that the flame of Christian faith is burning brightly in some places in the world, and that their back yard isn’t one of them. Who wouldn’t want to be in touch with that? If people were clearer about wanting that, then they might start to open up to alternatives to the work camp as a way of achieving it. As for the receiving church as supervisor of STM’s, each church must speak for itself. What I can say is that (1) asking the receiving church for active supervision is to make a demand on the receiving church, and (2) once the receiving church calls the shots, the experience may not correspond to the visitor’s expectations. Living through that is part of what it’s all about, but there does need to be a Plan B for a very young person overseas who just can’t deal with it (We’ve had one).

The recommendation in one of the articles that people go for an experience rather than a mission looks good from receiving end of these visits, but it can’t fly without a good deal of baggage that just isn’t there in the U.S. church. But that’s where a long term goal has to be.

On the fund-raising matter, I am pessimistic. If there is to be funding in the future for anything other than STM’s and church planting, then education about the missionary churches will need to be part of the mix. Managing STM’s in a different way probably won’t cut it. Reason: there are people out there who would have liked to be missionaries but couldn’t, so they sent their money for missions. Now they can go themselves. Only the perception of missions as something bigger than the individual missionary, even the career missionary, can possibly do it.

Third, while taking seriously the alternative “models” of what these people are doing on a two-week trip, I wouldn’t take the word “mission” out of it. If my recommendation number two were successfully implemented, the two week trip would be understood as the privilege of participating in something bigger, which my 20 year career also is. Of all the mission visitors I have been aware of in São Paulo, the most demanding and least adaptable have been the ones who had the weakest identification with mission traditions.

Fourth, while local partnerships (Presbytery to Presbytery and church to church) present many of the same problems as the STM trips do and some more besides, they seem preferable to the two week visit that is complete in itself and has no follow-through in the subsequent life of its participants.

Fifth, the PCUSA does receive STM’s and there is room for more. The Mission to the U.S. program has been important. It helped to create a reciprocity of which my coming to Brazil was a part. It has been a setting for dialogue among Christians from different countries, and significant dialogue seems to be missing from the STM’s as described in the journal articles. At another level, a Brazilian seminarian once approached me after a STM group had just painted a wall at one of our seminaries. He wondered if he could go and paint something in the U.S. He is a mercurial young man, and I don’t know how serious he was. But I was serious in saying that it probably wouldn’t be terribly hard to arrange; we could probably find a PCUSA church that does Habitat for Humanity work and could receive a summer visitor. This particular young man, however, wound up making an STM within Brazil, to the Amazon region.

Sixth, the question of tourism calls for research and reflection in its own right. While Miriam Adeney’s recommendation seems superficial (Be considerate to the maid), the importance of the question is beyond question, and so is the resemblance of the STM and other forms of tourism. Two political magazines that Linnis and I receive, the Progressive and the Nation, have come down differently, although these two magazines carry many of the same authors and come down on the same side of most issues. The Progressive, more than once, has given voice to native Hawaiians who say, “Don’t come here on vacation and then try to show solidarity with us. Show your solidarity by staying home.” Hawaii, going by what they say, is saturated with outsiders, not to mention their golf courses. I ran that past a student from the Dominican Republic, who said, “Lógico” (“Of course”). Going by what she says, the Dominican Republic has a thoroughly toxic tourist industry that buys very little locally and impedes fishermen’s access to the ocean. The Nation said once that instead of burdening local populations with one’s search for an educational experience, one should just enjoy the beach and spend money, on which the local population may depend. Somebody, somewhere, must be working on this.

Seventh, David M. Johnstone’s views on follow-through after an STM look good to me, as far as I can tell without being a professional educator. Essential. I add, from my own life: Before I became a long-term missionary, I had significant cross-cultural experiences, but they were not in a mission context. They were in an educational context-and I got an education.

Eighth, none of the articles even mentioned music. Church visitors are sometimes asked to sing. You can say that’s old fashioned (but work camps go back a long time, too) and that it’s a superficial form of communication (but painting a wall is superficial communication, too). In Brazil, and probably in some other missionary countries, the singing is taken seriously. This gives some seriousness to the idea of young people sharing each other’s music. Also, if you have any rudiments at all of a language, the words to a praise chorus projected on a wall can often be followed. The next time STM’s are studied, the role of music in them might be worth a look.

Technorati: Short Term Mission Trips, Partnership in Mission, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), mission partnerships,

Are Short-Term Mission Trips Worth It?

by Dale Meador

Are short-term mission trips worth it? That question has again been much on my mind, inasmuch as I have just returned from one. Along with six other friends from our church, my brother Gil and son Stephen and I went for two weeks to Santarem, Brazil. In the heart of the Amazon River basin, Santarem is home to Project Amazon (PAZ), an effective church-planting ministry to which Bear Creek Church has enjoyed warm ties for five or six years. In support of PAZ’s diverse ministries (medical/dental boats, water filters, health education, Bible teaching, leadership development, and the planting of more than 300 churches, to name a few) we built 31 heavy wooden seats to be used in a leadership training facility (built by another, earlier team from BCC) in the small river village of Prainha, to which we sailed and where we assembled the seats.

Are short-term mission trips worth it? The question is reasonable and one I struggled with myself, before I had ever been on such a trip. After all, this trip was grueling and not inexpensive. Figured one way, it was 8 people x 64 hours of air travel (round-trip) each, including 18 take-offs or landings + 17 hours of boat travel (again, round-trip) to cover just 110 miles of ocean-like river. The total cost of the trip itself was about $16,000, a figure that includes the material used in the manufacture of the 31 benches (really, more like pews than benches).

I don’t think it wise to frame the worth of such a trip in monetary terms only, since the economics of the kingdom of God operate on a scale not recognized by the best secular economists. But this trip was a bargain any way you look at it, economically and for all the reasons cited below, listed in no particular order. It took me only one hour or so to come up with this list of reasons why I believe that such trips are well worth it. With reflection, more reasons might become clear. I’m not speaking here for all short-term mission trips, since some may not be well-conceived or may be little more than holidays for adults or teens. But of the trips with which I have had the privilege of being involved – I can say that they:

1. Stretch us relationally, helping us to experience the bond known only to brothers and sisters in Christ, even among people from vastly different backgrounds.
2. Help us to arrest our selfishness, as we go and meet and serve and bless others.
3. Retard our nearly insatiable appetite for material wealth, meeting people whose only possessions are the roof over their head and the pots in which they cook.
4. Underscore the worth of language study for the communication of the gospel, and for communication of any kind. Many people spend two or three years learning a language in school, and for what?
5. Dramatize the challenge of the Great Commission of Jesus, called “great” not for its quality but for its scope.
6. Improve the sending congregation’s sense of purpose.
7. Graphically compare the result of dollars spent on things that yield eternal results to dollars spent on things that don’t last.
8. Make possible long-term, intimate relationships with believers from other cultures, relationships unlikely without face-to-face interaction.
9. Plant the seeds of lifelong concern for world missions among participants.
10. Insure that monies given and projects undertaken are well spent or conceived.
11. Protect against small-mindedness; give us reason to recognize, challenge, and abandon prejudices and stereotypes.
12. Shrink our own challenges and problems down to size and putting our lives in global or kingdom perspective.
13. Build an appreciation for the work and calling of long-term missionaries.
14. Hard work and grueling travel allow us to experience a tiny bit of what it means to assume inconveniences for the sake of Christ.
15. Demonstrate our commitment to, and partnership with, the missionaries and their mission in a manner that is encouraging to them.
16. Give us an opportunity to put our lives and livelihood on the line in faith in God, in a way not possible at home, what with the risks inherent in international travel.
17. Lend perspective on what is most important for a disciple of Jesus as we learn and practice the conventions of other cultures, softening us and making us more flexible.
18. Provide sweet opportunity to worship alongside new friends, in an unknown tongue, but with renewed affection for God and zeal for His glorification.
19. Help us to pray for the missionaries and their mission with intelligence and enthusiasm.
20. Use God’s money wisely: in this case, those 31 benches were built and delivered to a remote village at a cost of just $500 each, a price unheard of in the US. The cost of the trip amounted to approximately $135 a day, per person. Many people spend that on their vacation, accomplish nothing eternal and come home only with sunburn.
21. Trips like this challenge us with hard work in difficult conditions.
22. Allow us the privilege of living out that scripture that challenges those of us with much to share with those who have little (II Cor. 8:13-15).
23. Show us how much can be accomplished in a short period of time when our effort is intentional and our aims holy.
24. Remind us of the universality of human need and reveal the sufficiency of Christ’s remedy.
25. Show our lives to be unnecessarily complicated and artificially encumbered, keeping us from service and hindering our obedience in going and serving.
26. Build our appreciation for creature comforts we otherwise take for granted.
27. Encourage our church’s development as an outreach-oriented congregation that sends more teams, involves more people and marshals greater resources.
28. Make a team of unlikely groups of people.
29. Press us to examine our theological boundaries, evaluate critical differences with brothers and sisters of different persuasions, and then demonstrate our unity in essential matters.
30. Encourage our sacrificial giving, reminding us that God blesses us to “raise our standard of giving, not our standard of living”.
31. Challenge people, especially younger ones, to consider the possibility of answering a high call and returning to the field, perhaps as full-time missionaries.
32. Provide an invaluable opportunity for purposeful travel and work by parents and their teens.
33. Allow for the accumulation of photos, video, and artifacts that help to make real the circumstances on the field to the sending congregation.
34. Multiply the joy of the church givers and supporters who enable those sent to go, both in their sending and in their reports upon return.
35. Encourage other believers and congregations to get involved globally, seeing what one congregation is doing.

It is possible to accomplish some of these results right here at home, where there are undeniably many needs and opportunities to serve, and it is important that we stay open to meeting those needs and filling those opportunities. As the Lord leads us to make wise decisions about where to serve, we want to work on both fronts: locally and internationally.

For best global results, we simply have to go. We can say, “We should just send the money to the field and not waste it sending a bunch of north Americans over” but experience shows that people who say that both do not go and do not send the money. The best results come when we give, we send, and when we go ourselves.

Years ago, my friend Tony Sargent, a pastor from the UK whose heart beats for the third-world pastor, told me that I just had to go to the field. Bruce Wilkinson, at last year’s Promise Keeper’s Pastor’s Conference, pled with those of us in the audience to go, especially to Africa, site of the AIDS epidemic. As he put it, there is no substitute for going. And for these 35 reasons and more, he was right.

From: www.evangelizing.us and Pastor Dale

Technorati: mission partnerships, missions, Christianity

Short Term Missions in Peru: Analysis and Proposals

Introduction

Five years ago, I had the desire to meet foreign missions groups that were coming to help our church. The Evangelical Reformed Presbyterian Church of Peru (IEPRP), of which I am a pastor, began to have a relationship through personal contacts with the PC(USA) in 1997, developing in the city of Iquitos and the church of Moyobamba.

As a result of a negative experience in Iquitos, the church felt the need to communicate with the PC(USA). It was regarding a problem that happened because of inadequate missiological principles, and the inadequate guidelines that were used by some short-term missionaries sent by an NGO independent of the PC(USA).

Thanks to the invitation from Dr. Paredes, director of the Andean Amazon Evangelic Center of Missiology, to participate in a case study on short-term missions under the direction of Dr. Robert Priest, director of the doctorate on missiology of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, I was able to take an up-close look at what short-term missions are, and what impact they have in Peru.

In this paper I will present a simple analysis and proposal for the church regarding short-term missions, with the end of giving a detailed contribution about what is happening in Peru and what guidelines should be followed for the future, especially with regard to the IEPRP and the PC(USA), and churches from other countries. Short-term missions are a new phenomenon in the US, Canada, and European countries. How did short-term mission originate? Why did it originate? What are the positive and negative aspects that it poses for long-term career missionaries? What are the new mission ideologies and how do we understand them in the context of globalization and post-modernity? What are the challenges posed to the churches and Theological Institutions regarding missiology that are being investigated? Because of the length of such questions, I will not be able to cover all of this. May the Lord illuminate the missiologists to investigate these mission models to help the churches with the objective of improving short-term missions, and giving a challenge to the theological institutions.

Analysis

According to my observations and the long conversations I have had with pastors, I have found that churches are moved to send short-term missionaries because of love and service, but also because of tourism and desire to learn about Peruvians.

We find an example of love and service in mission groups that look for contact with Peruvians, requesting to stay with Peruvian families from the church, instead of being comfortable in a five star hotel, serving with humility.

As an example of tourist mentality missionaries are those who don’t reach out to learn about Peruvians, take photos, make films and give money and gifts.

On the receiving church’s side there is a tendency to establish relationships with the goal of receiving money and gifts, of getting a visa, or even giving up children for adoption to those who are visiting. But there are also churches that share their knowledge and spiritual riches, that learn from each other’s capabilities and capacities.

Love, serve, and establish permanent relationships should be the reasons that drive short-term mission groups to take action and that drive the receiving churches.

Love should be sought after as if it was the Love of God; a love so great that there is no greater love, because it became real in the offering of his only son, not to dominate, not to invest in white elephants, or to get rich in the world, but to serve and to die in the most horrible torment ever known.

The object of God’s love is the sinful, rebel, lost world (nations, towns, cultures, languages). Mission groups and receiving churches that have the objective to reach the “world without Christ” have to act with love as the love that God demonstrated when he sent his only son.

Pastor Percyn Chumbe said that the short-term missions to Iquitos lacked coordination. “They were bringing their own agenda, but when we gave our opinion they were not receptive, so what kind of love is this, and what kind of service are we talking about? They were coming to do what they themselves wanted.” (July 2005) It is possible that this is not the case for most short-term missions, but it was the case in this occasion. We ask ourselves, what are the reasons that these groups did not respect the leaders or the churches. Where is the love?

Initiatives

The idea in the beginning was that short-term mission work came from “outside,” but today it goes from both sides. Career missionaries from Peru or Peruvian pastors that travel abroad are the contacts that largely participate in short-term mission in local churches, not necessarily denomination specific. When the denomination does not take initiative, or if it takes initiatives but doesn’t develop the ideas, the local church takes its own initiative. We also found that local churches and other pastors from the same denomination get together so that they can discuss with the leaders of mission groups what they know, and that way serve other local churches.

Pastor Mario Perez of the Christian Missionary Alliance in Comas, Lima asserted that “A North American missionary took the initiative to come to Peru and see the church’s well-being.” Later Pastor Perez was invited to visit the churches in the United States to present plans and projects and coordinate visits for the late couple of years for one or two months period trips.

The person that takes the initiative should invite the other party. They can dialogue, get to know each other, see the reality of the church, and share the plans, the projects, the vision and mission. In the case of Pastor Perez, the churches from the US should listen first, get to know the plans and projects of the church in Peru, which is willing to receive the short-term missionaries.

They highlight “respect and mutual consideration.” Authoritarianism should not exist on either side, especially from foreign churches that want to support a local one. It should not happen like the case of the Evangelical Presbyterian church in Iquitos where they did not listen to local leaders, but brought a canned plan and no process to hear each other out, in the local or national church.

They highlight “unity and good relationships.” The initiatives lead mission groups to sit down together, in spite of cultural differences. The language of the Spirit forges unity and good relationships. From the beginning we should work as one, Peruvians and foreigners. When I heard the testimony of Pastor Perez, I said “Halleluiah.” He said, “The initiatives are marked by respect and consideration, of unity and good relationships that glorify God, building the church, for the world to see the good testimony.”

Through this experience, we learn the importance of the PC(USA)’s promise to the Evangelical Presbyterian and Reformed Church of Peru, “as local churches or as a national church, you take the initiative and we will help you.” Furthermore, the PC(USA) carries out the Peru Network Conference inviting delegates that represent the IEPRP.

In the network meeting of April 2005 in Burlington, NC, I shared a document entitled “missiological principles and strategies of the IEPRP” with the purpose that the future short-term missions that visit the IERP be conducted within these missiological principles and mission strategies, and in this way be able to avoid negative experiences like those that occurred in Iquitos.

The “beautiful” agreement was that the missionary groups would coordinate their work with the IEPRP, with the directive in Lima and with the local church. In practice, this agreement was not accomplished as agreed. On the other hand, the IEPRP did not take the initiative to get information about the short-term missionaries. I hope that this agreement will be reevaluated in the May conference in Chicago. This will ensure that local and national churches sending missionary groups will be healthy, it is necessary to establish a mechanism of coordination from both sides.

The Beneficiaries

The beneficiaries are on both sides, but we ask ourselves, who benefits more in short-missions?

The local church benefits with the direct work of those who visit because of their capabilities or professions in construction, finishing, hygienic services, evangelism, theatre, music, leadership training, and the gifts of clothes, shoes, medicines, etc.

There are ways that “help” can be harmful to the church. If the visitors do not value or consider their work as an opportunity to learn together, or when churches do not coordinate the incorporation of the local church members with the missionary groups. For example, doctors and nurses in medical campaigns, brick masons, electricians and handymen for construction sites.

There are also unnecessary benefits of short-term mission. For example, people in the local church could paint their walls, plant grass, distribute tracts and evangelize. Even though they receive the benefits from visiting churches the local churches could do these things themselves if they had the money. More local church members could get work in a context of lack of employment.

The other genuine benefit is that the short-term mission groups make personal contacts that can be permanent. I have found that young Peruvians were invited to the US for a few months, and that a love relationship and marriage was formed. This opened the opportunities for a family to immigrate to the USA.

Short-term missions

Short-term missions give the opportunity to get to know another country, another culture, do tourism. I say to myself, “How great an economic effect could this have for Peru – for hotels, restaurants, and tourist sites. The whole country turns out to be benefited. The adventure and excitement to get to know about other countries gives real people a real incentive to receive short-term missionaries.

There are also spiritual benefits. Young people give their life to God and want to be baptized in the Church, a Church to which they will return to help

(For interest of time and brevity, the rest of this document will be summarized)

Professional people from the sending churches get to practice their profession in missions.

The Cost

How much does it cost for each person to come to Peru on a short-term mission trip? Approximately US$1800-2000 (including travel, room and board, but not work trip costs)
Some mission trips work on planting grass and painting walls. I ask myself, couldn’t work like this be done by Peruvians? If trip groups incorporated local people/church members in work projects, it’d be beneficial.

Short term mission groups must coordinate with the local churches that have a short-term, middle-term, and long term vision of mission, as has been shown with the Presbyterian Church of Moyobamba.

Short-term missions

Humility is the key element of stewardship and generosity. There may be great investments by US churches, but what are the real results? Be sure to take care and be responsible with the resources the Lord has given the church, especially coming from a land of affluence.

Recommendations

For short-term mission teams:

• Avoid making money band-aids, for imposition or predomination, not giving further power to the empire of money
• Please be considerate by not smoking, drinking or dancing, as this is would reflect a respect for the local believers, so as not to create scandal for local believers.
• Avoid creating dependency.
• Reflect about the role that the church serves.

For local churches:

• Don’t feel incapable to participate in the work of short-term missionaries.
• Don’t try to meet your needs with only short-term missions.
• Ensure continuity in the unfinished work or unfulfilled promise of the past.
• Commune with the short-term missionaries so that they will be seen not as a fountain of dollars and cents.
• Give orientation to your members so that the congregation will not use the opportunity to try and take advantage over the general interest of the church

Proposals

The Peruvian church should plan short-term trips. It knows what the community needs. There should be a deep understanding of the mission ideology of the church before a short-term trip is realized. Before the trip takes place, detailed plans and schedules are in order. People should know about climate, etc. Short-term missions should be done within the long-term missions.

Technorati: mission partnerships, missions, Christianity

It was also a time of uncertainty. Worldwide Ministries office and field staff had just been drastically reduced (the latter from 300 in January to 235 in August); I think the largest proportional reduction in my 29 years of service. And more was to follow. A reorganization of the national offices was forthcoming, which furthered the climate of uncertainty. Finally, it was announced that no future assignments to the field would be made beyond June 2008, at least until the budget for beyond 2008 was established in about another year. All that uncertainty, for good or bad, came through when we were interviewed along with Melanie and Scott Smith by Presbyterians Today at the end of the week. The interview was published in October as simply, “Mission Uncertain?” and it provoked considerable reaction.

I do not think that the reporter, Toya Hill, meant to question the mission itself of the church, but rather, the current patterns of support and sending, although that clarification was never made. I’ve thought a lot about this since then, especially as we visit churches and presbyteries in North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Florida and California (with trips to mission consultations in between to Germany and Spain!). I want to share some of these thoughts—they are my own and are not necessarily the views of any official body—in the hope that this may clarify what is happening (if for no one else than myself!) and what the prospects are for the mid-range future (short-range 12-18 months planning is already in gear). They are meant to be positive and constructive, and at the same time, as transparent and realistic as possible.

First, it is important to affirm that there is among World Mission staff and I think in the denomination in general, a strong sense God’s call to the church’s engagement in global witness. That might seem like a strange statement in light of observations above, but I do sense a keen call at both the national and local church levels to the global witness of the church. I do not think there is any disagreement that mission is essential to the life and meaning of the church. Friend and colleague, Sherron George, has written a strong defense to that effect, which should be published in the January issue of Presbyterians Today, including the important role of the national structure for global witness. I think, however, that it is probably time to consider the changing role of our current national structure for global witness. (I say this with some fear and trembling, since, after all, I am an employee of that structure).

Why is it time for this role to be reconsidered? First, it is time, not because of the particular momentary crisis that structure has faced this year due to budget reductions, but because this year was merely the consequence of a long trend. In 1959 the PC(USA) and her predecessors maintained over 2,000 fully-funded missionaries. Those numbers dropped to nearly 1,700 in 1966, less than 700 in 1976, 500 in 1986, 400 in 1996 and the current 235 today. At the same time, PC(USA) churches are spending more on global witness! So the challenges the national structure faced this year were not simply sporadic and cannot be addressed by one more structural downsizing. Second, it is time to reconsider the role of a national structure for global witness because that structure is no longer alone as a channel for that witness within the PC(USA). During my 29 years of service, local churches have assumed more and more responsibility and initiative for global witness. Local congregations, presbyteries and synods are increasingly more directly involved and we have seen the growth of specific interest groups such as the validated ministries of the PC(USA) and other national initiatives within the denomination such as World Mission Initiative in Pittsburgh, PA, the Association of Presbyterian Mission Pastors and the recently formed Presbyterian Global Fellowship. All of these developments, along with increasing local church mission endeavors point to an increase in commitment to global witness. One church leader even told me recently that PC(USA) congregational spending for global witness has actually increased significantly (I would be interested to know the numbers). Apparently, the structures of mission giving and sending have changed.

None of this is to say that our national mission structure has not evolved as well. More than ever before, I perceive openness among the national level staff to accompany these changes and serve the diverse groups in our denomination involved in global witness. For example, in a valiant move, World Mission will promote a three pronged effort in 2007 to involve as much of the church as possible in global witness:

• World Mission Networks ’07: Gathered by Grace, that will gather together World Mission network leaders
• World Mission ’07: A Celebration of Grace, a larger gathering for network participants and all in the PC(USA) with a heart for mission
• Mission Challenge ’07, which is the month-long itineration of over 30 mission personnel in 120 presbyteries for a week at a time

My point is that the structures for expressing and sustaining global witness of the church are continually emerging and we need to be able to better assist and affirm one another in this global task…my next observation.

Second, how do we understand these trends and how can these various structures work together to further the role of the PC(USA) in God’s mission? I think one principle that may contribute significantly to this concern is the long developing principle of partnership. Much has been written and gained on the concept of partnership (see some resources below) and it seems that there is widespread consensus within the denomination on the lasting importance of this principle. I may be wrong, but I suspect, however, that the principle of partnership has been explored more in terms of inter-church relations than intra-church relations. Presbyterians rightly insist on the connectional nature of the church. Perhaps we might consider further applying the same principles of partnership we apply to inter-church relations to intra-church relations as well. Take just one example: the idea of mutuality in partnership. The question arises: how might the different expressions of the church, thinking specifically of those movements within the denomination that have emerged to promote the global witness of the church, demonstrate greater mutuality as partners in global witness while at the same time, maintaining their distinctions? The World Mission Program Unit, I think, fosters good relations through the promotional and distribution of material on partnership, participation and active dialogue with both various judicatories of the church and some of the interest groups mentioned above. All of that is positive and necessary. How else can mutuality be promoted? That brings me to a third observation.

Third, how might we explore mid-range possibilities to model the partnership among us that we affirm to our overseas partners? At the moment, I have just one suggestion, based on my previous experience at the General Assembly level of the Presbyterian Church of Brazil about 10 years ago, and the Independent Presbyterian Church of Brazil more recently. Perhaps WM, our current moderator or even one of the groups mentioned above committed to global witness could promote a consultation long enough to bring together the widest range of representatives of presbyteries, synods, validated ministries, mission conferences, Presbyterian global networks, etc., along with some of our overseas partners who have though and acted creatively on this subject. I remember that something similar occurred in Montreat around 1978. The event could focus on a limited number of concerns, such as: 1) what kind of national structure might best serve the denomination in it’s global witness; 2) how would the funding system work (the Achilles heal concern); 3) what are some of the parameters of responsible partnership in global witness—with overseas partners and with national and local Presbyterian groups; and 4) how might the PC(USA) on various levels best affirm the emerging global witness of her overseas partners? Perhaps a central concern would be: how might we embrace and empower inter- and intra-church partners to further the cause of Jesus Christ?

What do you think?

Some PCUSA websites on partnership:

http://www.pcusa.org/partnerships/protocols.htm
http://www.pcusa.org/worldwide/
http://www.pcusa.org/101/101-whoare.htm
http://www.pcusa.org/partnerships/resources.htm

Some PCUSA resources on partnership:

• Presbyterians Do Mission In Partnership. Document adopted by the 215th General Assembly 2003, that replaces the earlier policy adopted by the 212th General Assembly 2000.
• Partnership, Solidarity, and Friendship: Transforming Structures in Mission. by Philip L. Wickeri
• Called as Partners in Christ’s Service: The Practice of God’s Mission. by Sherron K. George

More Room for Provocative Thought and Action:

• Presbyterian Mission in a Flat World, by Dr. Scott Sunquist, Professor at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary
• Missional Polity: Will it really help the church? by Michael Walker, Executive Director of Presbyterians for Renewal

Technorati: Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), partnership, mission, denominational structure, Christianity, mission support

Recently Marta and I participated in the Third (annual) Consultation of the Brazilian Diaspora near Frankfurt, Germany, and the Third Iberian American Missionary Conference (COMIBAM) in Granada Spain (the first was held in São Paulo in 1987 and the second in Acapulco in 1997). Both were moving events and encouraging especially to the two of us as we continued to encounter Brazilians from all over the world who, at one time or another, had studied with us or read some of the material we’ve produced. My overall sense was that the Brazilian missionary movement is moving into a new phase, beyond the initial enthusiasm of the 70’s and 80’s and the discoveries of the challenges of ministries in other cultures and often lack of adequate infrastructure and support of the 90’s, to some real contributions that can happen after 20-30 years in cross-cultural ministry, as some of these missionaries now have. Of course, the “former” two phases also continue to accompany the movement and will do so simultaneous to this newest phase. I believe that will require the following responses pertinent to us:

For North American or European based mission organizations, it will require some discernment and selectivity as they seek to partner with increasing numbers of Latin American missionaries. They come to the U.S. and Europe in all stripes and sizes and I think the North Atlantic operations can benefit from careful screening and recommendations from their overseas partners and mission personnel. For some mission personnel involved in this movement, we may contribute to this movement in a number of ways. We basically need to: first, encourage the movement; second, allow room for talented Latin Americans to assume leadership positions; and third facilitate the networks of relationships that the movement needs to further their outreach.

First, we need to encourage the movement itself. When we were at COMIBAM last week, I met a Presbyterian couple with OC International who had worked in Brazil for some 20 years in the area of mission research. They have now moved to Malaga, Spain to be available to train and pastor the 300+ Brazilian missionaries ministering in Northern Africa and the Muslim world! Another couple, also Presbyterian and working with OC International, have left Brazil after 20 years and relocated to England, basically for the same purpose.

The consultation in Frankfurt of the Brazilian Diaspora was illustrative of the great need for continuing education and encouragement that this group of several hundred in Europe need and are inviting. There I connected with two fascinating brothers in this endeavor: Tomé and Fabiano. Their parents are both from India and immigrants to Mozambique where the brothers were raised. Tomé went to Brazil as a young man some 20 years ago for theological education and today is one the Baptist denomination’s top leaders in missiological education. He also coordinates the missionary work of the Brazilian Baptist Convention in Europe and parts of Africa. His brother, Fabiano, just finished his PhD in Sociology at Cambridge University and is currently the director of a Theological School in Portugal which will host the Brazilian Diaspora next year. Together we have a desire to continue a project of continuing theological education for Diaspora Brazilians. We’ll see what develops.

Second, we need to allow room for talented Latin Americans to assume leadership positions. Mission personnel need to move beyond occupying full-time positions in national institutions to one of support in the areas of greater needs.

Third, we need to facilitate the networks of relationships that the Brazilian missionary movement needs in order to further their outreach. Those are some initial thoughts that this experience provoked.

Concerning the events themselves, there were 50-60 Brazilians at the consultation in Frankfurt and over 2,000 persons attending COMIBAM (300 of them were Latin American missionaries).

Yours in Him….Tim

Technorati: Latin American missionary, missionary, missions, mission conference