Where Everybody's Crazy

Here is a parable.

A church pastor declares to his friend, a mission society leader, that the idea of "mission societies" is obstructive and non-Biblical. Always poaching our best people! Churches should be sending missionaries out directly!

"A great idea", his friend replies. "But... before you send Joe out to Elbonia, have you thought about preparing him for the Elbonian culture?" "Well, we have, but we don't really know anyone who knows all that much about it. So he'll just have to discover it himself when he gets there." "Well, I know a few people he can meet who can tell him a bit about it." "That's great! But, of course, we're still sending him out as a church."

"Of course, and I respect that," says the mission leader warmly. "Now, what will you do about visas, about residency requirements, about getting a local bank account?" "I hadn't really thought about that." "We can help with these things, you know." "That's very kind of you. But, of course, we're still sending him out as a church."

"Of course. Now, tell me, what will Joe be doing in Elbonia? How is he going to find things to be involved in? Where will he find encouragement and fellowship?" "Oh now, Joe is a very motivated guy. He'll find his feet just fine." "That's excellent. But you know, I know a few people out there he can hook up with, meet from time to time, discuss the need, swap ideas, that sort of thing." "Well, I'm sure he may well take you up on that. That would be great for him. But, of course, we're still sending him out as a church."

"Of course. And while we're at it, you know, we can help him find a good language school. Oh, and I know some people who've had similar experiences who can debrief him when he comes back." "That would be really helpful." says the pastor. "But, of course, we're still sending him out as a church."

"Of course", says the mission leader, with a smile.

The relationship between the church and mission agency is basically one of attitude. The attitude really ought to be that the mission agency is helping the church get its members involved in world mission. For some reason, it's become, in many cases, the church seeing the mission agencies as poaching their would-be missionaries and redirecting their loyalty away from the church. Agencies, now viewed with suspicion, find themselves having to go into churches with a more apologetic attitude.

The gap between the real aims of the agency and the churches' perception has increased over the past ten or twenty years. I don't really know why this is. I guess Bosch's observations about the similarly between denominations and mission agencies is perhaps part of the reason:

Without denying the merit there is in such a discussion I would like to suggest that, within the framework of the paradigm spawned by the Enlightenment, there was not much to choose between the organized church as bearer of mission and the mission societies.

The point is that, in Western Protestantism, the church was increasingly fractured into a great variety of denominations which, phenomenologically speaking, were not decisively different from missionary and other religious societies. Denominations, too, were organized on the voluntary principle of like-minded individual banding together. They were, in a sense, para-church organizations.

Not only that but when agencies take on the role of church planting, they plant churches in their own image, essentially - and often explictly - creating a new denomination. Perhaps part of the scepticism denominations have about mission agencies is due to the scepticism they have about other denominations, and the practice of "stealing sheep" in which they have indulged.

A short aside: In all my ponderings about the church, I keep coming back to the doctrine of adoption. It is not one we focus on. But I believe it should form the basis of a proper understanding of the Church. The fact that other Christians are our brothers and sisters, and nothing we can do can change that, forces us to put aside denominational and other barriers. "All one in Christ Jesus" is the basis of the Church, and everything else is just working that out in practice.

But coming back to our problem, mission agencies have not helped themselves by requiring high standards of commitment from "their" workers. The process I have had to go through in joining WEC is far, far more involved than the process of joining a church; it is probably more involved than the process of getting married, and, let's be blunt, claims similar levels of commitment. This is wrong. We are not "their" workers. We are primarily God's workers. We are not even on loan from the church to the mission agency. Our primary focus must remain the church. The agency has to relegate itself to a support role only.

And so, especially in new churches, there has been a complete rejection of the role of mission agencies, in favour of direct church-to-church mission. While they do, on the whole, tend to do mission - and their own workers - a grave misservice by turning them out ill-equipped, ill-educated and ill-prepared, encumbered by accountability and pastoral burdens, I do share some of their concerns. Mission agencies are not biblical. But, and this is a point completely missed by the churches, neither are denominations. (I know many of the new churches claim to be non-denominational. Sorry, but they are, whether they use the word or not, while they still maintain their "independence" and their denominational trappings. It's just a matter of semantics.)

I do believe, then, that in the world of church-to-church mission, the agency has the right to exist and function in a support role. And agencies will claim that it is precisely this support role that they have been playing all along! The agency has no right to be the legitimate bearer of mission. But again, neither has the denomination. That right belongs to God alone; we just follow along, trying to keep up.

As my parable was meant to illustrate, the difference between church-to-church mission, assisted by the mission agency, and agency-based mission is entirely one of perception. It's important for the mission agencies to reclaim this perception, to remind churches that their purpose is to provide them with much-needed support in launching their members into world mision. Perhaps the way to reclaim this is the "insidious" manner of the mission leader in our example. But it also requires a spirit of true humility on both sides and this understanding of brotherhood I mentioned earlier.

I'm actually very happy with the way WEC sees its responsibilities towards the church as an enabler and encourager of mission; the way it sees deputation as as way of giving to the church in terms of encouraging it to achieve its missionary calling, rather than expecting to receive from the church. But in many cases the fundamental problem of perception and attitude is still there, and to fix that will require not just humility, but also prayer.