One of the things I’ve learned since being in the mission field is that the word “missionary” carries a significant amount of baggage for both Christians and non-Christians alike. Some of it is well-intentioned and respectful, other reactions are more telling about people’s perception of missionaries. But it was this post on another blog that suggested working a secular job internationally with a missional intent (and the subsequent comments) that made me ponder if it is possible to have an authentic relationship with both Christians and non-Christians in your mission field as an identified missionary. Does the perception by others of our assigned “agenda” to convert (or at least proclaim) discourage people from accepting our interest as an authentic relationship?
In the referenced post, I asked the author, Grady Bauer, to clarify his statements about a “truly authentic set of relationships in a different culture”:
“I think one of things those of us in full-time ministry, regardless of location, struggle with is relationships. If I’m a full-time missionary in a country…who do I connect with along natural lines? Very few people. Work can lead to relationships that are created authentically, not me targeting them with the gospel. Hobbies and mutual interests also serve this purpose as do volunteering with a public organization. It helps us to connect with people in ways that make sense and seem more authentic.”
I’ve let these thoughts sit in the back of my mind for a while, but what prompted me to explore further was this recent search term here at my blog:
“Do the missionaries really like me?”
While I realise this could just be the question of an insecure person in a very specific circumstance, it immediately brought all these thoughts back.
In no way am I implying that missionaries themselves cannot be authentic, nor do I feel that we’re all just “agenda” driven. On the contrary, I’ve met quite a number that have genuine love and concern for the nation and people of their calling. But for some reason there seems to be a perception amongst the people I’m sent to minister that, because my main job here is a missionary, witnessing and conversion is my only reason for getting to know anyone. My interest, in their minds, cannot be genuine.
Do I want to share the Gospel with every new person I meet? Definitely, with discernment and timeliness as God provides. But the way I see it, I had this exact same motivation when I was working a secular job in the States. I’m just in a different country with a different funding source; nothing else has really changed.
When you’re working full-time in ministry regardless of title or location, more often than not you’re surrounded during your day by only Christians. If a concerted effort is not made to “branch out” of the comfort zone to interact with the general population, it’s easy to see why the outsider perception is that we Christians only emerge from the “Holy Huddle” to proselytise a few new people into our camp. And it’s even easier to understand why people in your mission field might be more dismissive of someone’s motives who is not appearing to live like they do (i.e., clocking into a “regular” job as opposed to the missionary being paid from afar via fundraising).
This video from Tim Keller is actually addressing the definition of the “missional” church (and I feel it’s the clearest, best definition yet), but what he says around 1:25 is crucial to even us missionaries: “When non-Christians come in [to a missional church], they see that we inhabit the same world. We read the same magazines. We’re struggling with the same issues in the neighbourhood. They see that we’re really being Christians in the same world that they live.”
I’m certainly not calling for compromise of the Gospel, nor for adapting too far culturally by breaking God’s laws and commands. I’m not even advocating being “trendy”, “hip”, or “attractional”. And as Christians, I realise we are still set apart for God. We will always in certain ways be very, very different. However, I do wonder if our starting point with new acquaintances were on a more even level (as in co-worker), would it help us to bridge faster that reluctance and suspicion gap?
No related posts.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Desiring God Int'l, David Evans and Alissa Graham, C. Holland. C. Holland said: New Post: Are Genuine Relationships Possible When You’re a Missionary? http://bit.ly/dn50wj #missional #missions [...]
Seems like at least in Asia missionaries are seen as short term rather than long term, because no one will try to make friends with missionaries.
.-= tai fu´s last blog ..The meaning of prophecy =-.
@Tai Fu: I can only answer for my neck of the woods, but everyone’s immediate assumption of us is that there is a definite deadline as to when we permanently return to the States, that we are not interested in much here past a year or so. It’s not true, and it’s taken most of our time here to convince people of our focus on longevity.
People in my field tend to react to foreign missionaries as you describe, and it seems to further push away those who are considering a longer stay as it appears they are not accepted at even a superficial level.
This seems to be an important issue in the missions community. I think two things need to be addressed.
First, the soteriology (theology of salvation) of the missionary (simply – “sent one”) impacts their approach. If they are hard-line Arminian in their approach, they might be more concerned about making the Gospel message more attractive in a sense, so as to help or draw non-believers to make a volitional choice to trust Christ. Hard-line Calvinist (or whatever you want to call it), might focus more on the actual preaching or communication of the Gospel message, with less or no concern for attraction. Most tend to fall somewhere in between. The correlation of this to the post’s topic is complex, but I think it is important to consider.
Second, the missionary’s theology of being “sent” is important to consider. Take the old revival evangelist who were a product of the 2nd Great Awakening in N. America. Their theology of being “sent” basically comes down to going and verbally explaining the Gospel to non-believers. Their assumption is that everyone already knows they are sinners and our role is to be sent to them to tell them they need Jesus. Relationships are unnecessary.
We see this public proclamation in Acts, but we also see phrases from Paul like, “I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.” Paul was explaining that he was willing to live like a Jew, Roman or whatever if it meant he could be used by God to save some.
You asked, “Does the perception by others of our assigned “agenda” to convert…discourage people from…an authentic relationship?” My answer to that is that we need to step back and figure out what we believe in regards to the two points I brought up. Our Soteriology and theology of being sent must be established before we determine how or what relationships with non-believers are important.
If we believe we are sent to tell a people group about their need of Jesus, but we withhold telling someone this until we have a relationship with them, how authentic are we really being? At the same time, if we are so tunneled visioned about simply seeing them converted, that we are unwilling to “become all things to all men”, we run the risk of subliminally communicating that trusting Christ is only about accepting our Gospel intellectually and converting to our western-biased way of life.
@Eric: You bring up an excellent point, one that I’m still letting marinate. With all the “missional” discussion going on currently, this is very relevant.