The Cutting Edge of Missions in a Flat WorldPart I: Amateurization vs. Professionalization of Missions
David Wesley, Nazarene Theological Seminary
April, 2006
My first reaction when I read Thomas Friedman’s book, “The World is Flat” was that he was looking at the world through the lenses of someone who was in love with technology, and that the world he described was the world of the wealthy Americans who stayed in nice hotels and had technological gadgets which most people could not afford. On a second glance at Friedman’s thesis, however, I realize that although the majority of the world may not own the same technology, the interconnected nature of our world is a phenomenon of globalization which is rapidly bringing people and cultures of every economic echelon into an increasingly interdependent relationship.
Several of the most recent missiological books which have been published within the last year deal with this same dynamic of globalization and what that means to minister in a “flat world”. This short paper is the first in a series in which I would like to dialog about the implications of these global trends on the miseo dei to the Church of the Nazarene.
A growing area of study in missions today is the issue of short term missions. This can be seen in the increasing number of people who are involved in Work and Witness, Mission Corps, and other aspects of short term missions which are organized by World Mission. Without doubt, this trend has made a great impact on the Church of the Nazarene as well as many other denominations. The results of this shift can be seen in the emphases which are made on college campuses and at denominational gatherings. In the past, the emphasis was on young people called to a career as a missionary. A growing emphasis is on young people going on a short term mission trip of two weeks to six months. The fact that the world is now “flat” has made this phenomena even more prevalent, and some have labeled this movement “the amateurization of missions”. Amateurization in this sense does not so much refer to an inferior or less professional manner to approach missions, but to those who participate in mission activity on a short term basis, instead of approaching missions out of a call to a lifetime vocation.
Ralph Winter, founder of the US Center for World Mission, Pasadena CA speaks of the “re amateurization of missions”. He calls it re-amateurization as he recounts the history of the great number of students who volunteered for “foreign missions” toward the end of the nineteenth century.
The Student Volunteer Movement came out of a time of great enthusiasm and commitment. This was a time in the U.S. when there was a great spiritual awakening and desire to expand the gospel to all people. The difficulty, according to Winter, is that they ignored the insights of earlier missions workers. They made serious mistakes that resulted in many unnecessary deaths among missionaries and a demoralization and spiritual decline among national pastors. This amateurization set missions back instead of propelling the work forward. David Hesselgrave, author and leading spokesman for evangelical missions says that it took forty years to relearn the lessons that had been so quickly forgotton. (Paradigms in Conflict p.204).
As we look at the current trends in missions today and we can see similar enthusiasm and popularity of missions as there was during the time of the Student Volunteer Movement. The difference in the current movement and the movement of the SVM is in the definition of missions. Missions, according to Winter has become “any Christian volunteering to be sent anywhere in the world at any expense to do anything for any time period.” - Although this is a fairly recent phenomenon, Winters asks if this is a wave of “re-amateurization” of missions.
In a later, 1996 article, Winter states that people who are currently involved in missions tend to be steered in one of two directions. Winters says that they go either over prepared, or they go with little or no preparation at all. Either places the missionary as well as their ministry at a “decided disadvantage.”
Over preparation comes from an over reaction to amateurization which assumes that more education will make a person a better missionary. As a result, people build up enormous debts which they must pay off after graduating, and by the time they arrive on the field their minds are too old to master either the language or the culture.
In the second situation, to avoid educational expenses and time, many missionary candidates forego any theological or missiological education. They arrive on the field young enough to learn the language and culture but without the theological, hermeneutical and missiological tools, they have difficulty interpreting culture or understanding the theological and missiological application of their role in ministry. Undereducated missionaries lack the broader knowledge and experience needed to work effectively and so their work is usually short lived.
Both scenarios tend toward the same result, the re-amateurization of the missionary enterprise. Work too often is carried on by missionaries who lack what they need to be effective, either because they have invested too much of their lives in education or too little. Winter’s solution, which is echoed by many leading missiologists, is to encourage earlier candidacy and earlier training in language and other needed tools. The result of this would imply a more integrated system in which mission students become involved in the actual practice of missions simultaneous to their educational process.
The cutting edge of missions is not a return to the “re-amateurization” of missions. It is, however, in the internationalization of missions which integrates practice with solid foundational knowledge. This movement toward the internationalization of missions is fueled by the “flattening” of the globe in which missions is “the Gospel from everywhere to everyone” . The phenomena of people from every part of the globe desiring to participate in the “Miseo Dei” has a long history that didn’t just happen in a vacuum. It is the fulfillment of the goals and prayers of long-term missionaries who have consciously fostered the formation of national church leadership with a passion for missions in the non-western world. Since the earliest days of cross-cultural ministry, missionaries have given their whole lives to planting churches that are equipped to fulfill Christ’s commission.
God has used the efforts of “traditional” missions in such an outstanding way that today the numbers (and perhaps the spiritual vitality) of the non-western church outstrip that of the West. Possibly the main reason “traditional missionaries” have been so effective is because they have taken the time to learn the culture, cultivate trust with nationals and learn the language well. The patient endurance of long-term missionaries is a critical factor in their success. I would like to suggest that the cutting edge of missionary strategy is still long-term missionaries working together with national churches to win the rest of the world. As we work in interdependent collaboration, we model the unity that God intended for His church and we become more effective in the task of world-wide evangelism.
God’s call to “go” must continue to be answered in every culture and era. If we ever dilute that call to simply “send money,” or merely travel during our vacation time, we will lose our sense of God’s heart for “incarnational ministry” to the world. Our missionary vision will be reduced to fund raising and mission tours. Of course we must help national churches to fund their ministries. But we need to help responsibly without creating an unhealthy dependence that robs churches of initiative and ownership in their missionary outreach.
In a changing, flat world, we are forced to ask ourselve vital questions about the “miseo dei” and how we carry it out. Without doubt, God is raising an army of Nazarenes who are giving their finances, their vacations and are willing to go for weeks or months at a time. This dymanic is making a great impact on many people, and we must continue to find ways to equip these people for more productive ministry. The vital cutting edge of missions however, is in those who are sent from every culture working together in an interdependent relationship who form the most powerful strategy in missions. Globalization will continue to change many aspects of our world. These changes will be social, economical, anthropological, and technological. The cutting edge of world evangelism, however, hasn’t changed in the last 2000 years. God still calls, and sends people to live incarnationaly in order to carry out His commision in an ever flattening world.
