One of the things we ran into time and again during our fundraising in the States was some Christians’ odd definition of missions/missionary. Because we’re serving in Western Europe, there were a handful that objected to us calling any of what we do “missions” or ourselves “missionaries.” After questioning people, it became clear that most people define Missions/Missionaries by the following three criteria:
- The people you work with do not speak your native language. In other words, you have to learn a new language to be a missionary.
- The mission field is considered Third World. If you aren’t living in a tent and drinking from a stream, then your First World conditions disqualify you.
- The people in the mission field are not white. Yes, I’ve actually been told that I can’t be considered a missionary because the people I minister to are caucasian.
I could go on and on about the flaws in this kind of thinking, but What is a Real Missionary? and Definition of a Missionary say it much better than I am able.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Related posts:
This is a perplexing question. I have found myself somewhat battling with my “home” church in precisely this area. I have been in a time of transition moving from what is considered full-time missions into study. My church no longer considers me a missionary because I do not fit their concept of one – in essence I am not out there “doing” missions, therefore I no longer am a missionary. This seems rather limited and short-sighted. I consider myself to be a missionary because that is precisely God’s call on my life – to be a missionary Bible Teacher. I’m current’y pursuing studies so I am better equipped etc… does this mean I am no longer a missionary? I personally don’t think so, but the church considers me not worthy of support any longer. It is a hurtful and isolating experience.
http://otiumsanctum.com
@otiusanc: I have to agree with you. Consider a famous singer (or writer or actor or whatever); do we refrain from calling them a singer just because they haven’t released an album in years or aren’t currently touring? At what point would their definition as a singer be revoked?
A good friend of mine knew he was called to be a preaching pastor at an early age. He served diligently in other ministry roles while he was preparing, so he wasn’t called “pastor”. However, when he started actually pastoring in a non-paying role, he was called the “fake pastor”; I suppose pay=real? Even when he was between church pastor positions, he still considered himself a pastor. But many, unfortunately, did not.