Is the U.S. missionary still necessary?
In the past several years, as global missions has been undergoing significant shifts, even the need for missionaries from the United States has been called into question. Maybe you’ve heard. Some mission authorities have been asking, “Shouldn’t the U.S. Church spend its money on supporting the ministries of indigenous Christian workers? After all, they already speak the language; they have fewer living expenses and have a better understanding of the local culture.”
Bob Finley, author of Reformation in Foreign Missions, and K.P. Yohannan, author of Revolution in World Missions, are among those who contend that U.S. mission organizations make a mistake by continuing to deploy missionaries from the United States. And these authors make some excellent points. It is true that indigenous workers already have some language advantages. It is true that they have certain inroads into understanding the local culture. However, the thinking that suggests that the U.S. missionary is no longer needed fails to take into account several important points:
1. Jesus called the entire Church to go and the entire Church to give. To assign one part of the body the role of going would be like assigning one part of the body the responsibility of praying.
2. God has not stopped calling women and men from the United States to serve as cross-cultural missionaries. Should we tell these believers to ignore the call, get a “regular job” instead, and send more money overseas?
3. The sight of believers from different nations and backgrounds working together in the Lord’s harvest provides a tangible image of God’s love.
4. Americans still have valid contributions to make. What is critical is that they submit to indigenous leadership.
5. Indigenous workers are not immune from ethnocentrism, denominationalism, or poor contextualization. They, too, can make errors in communicating the gospel.
6. Due to prejudices and ethnic conflict, some indigenous workers will not be accepted in certain places within their own country. Americans can be helpful in such situations.
7. Even indigenous workers must learn new languages, especially if they are going to unreached people groups. India, for example has several hundred languages spoken within its borders. Even with English and Hindi being official languages, an Indian missionary would need to learn new languages.
8. Being in a constant position of receiving funds from the West is likely to create unhealthy dependency. This dependency can do much to cripple and hinder the indigenous believers.
My hunch is that leaders such as Finley and Yohannan are reacting to missions done poorly. Unfortunately, there have been untrained or insensitive missionaries who have created more damage than good. The intentions were noble, but the results left much to be desired.
The solution to missions done poorly is not to ground the entire American missions force. The solution is to provide training and to redefine the roles that American missionaries play.
Here at The Mission Society, we do both. We spend a considerable amount of our energies training and supporting indigenous workers. At the same time, we ingrain within our missionaries the importance of doing missions well. We require our missionaries to go through eight weeks of training, read more than 10 books, attend a 15-week Perspectives on the World Missions Movement class, spend their first year of service with an emphasis on learning the local language and culture.
Rest assured; your gifts to The Mission Society and its 200+ missionaries is money well spent.
Richard Coleman is the director of mobilization and candidacy for The Mission Society.
