Friday, July 31, 2009

Books for people considering missions service



Missiology edited by John Mark Terry is a very packed book full of articles about missions. Not a first book for those wanting to serve, but a very good book for internediate research into missions.





Philip Jenkins' The Next Christendom gives a good overview of the current situation of Christianity in the world today. The faith is becoming less Western, for one thing and the majority of those that call themselves Christian in the world now are from Africa and Asia.



Thomas Hale's "On Being a Missionary" is a very good book for any wanting to go into missions.




John Piper's Let the Nations be Glad is a must read for all people considering missions.





More books will be added later.

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

MISSIO DEI - Whose mission is it anyway?







Now hear this!

Missions is not merely something that God’s people do. The Bible’s grand narrative is of a sending God, who has sent His Son into the world and who, with the Son, now sends us the Spirit, by which we ourselves are sent forth into the world. It is not “all about us,” missions is something God does.

God is, after all, the one constant. Read any missions history book. Man passes from the earth like grass, like vapor. The old hymn writer depicts the human condition this way, “We blossom and flourish as leaves on a tree, then wither and perish – but naught changeth Thee.” We are but supporting actors. We are but extras summoned for a brief moment in order to better display the character of the lead starring role.

God, who is the author of the production, stars Himself as the main character. It is our purpose to magnify Him and His work so that when the final credits roll only one name appears, the Name above all others who deserves all the glory, Revelation 7:10, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb.”

I desire to briefly sketch two truths in this brief article:

• First, God is not following our lead, but is leading us. Let us not think we are doing grand things for God by going forth into the fields or by “holding the ropes” of those who do. God is doing grand things by leading us and allowing us to even take a small part.

• Second, God is not a God who merely engages in missions. God is, on the contrary, a missionary God. Missions is not merely one activity among many that our God engages in, missions flows from His very Being.

Now, let’s dig deeper into these truths.




First, God is not following our lead. He is out front.


If missions depended upon us, what a pitiful state! What a pitiful God! What a pitiful future! If God waited for our initiative or relied upon our strength, the situation would be hopeless.

I once heard a Baptist missionary proclaim that God needed us to save the heathen. He stated that the salvation of those who had never heard rested upon us. The missionary call had been given to all of us; the question was whether or not we were going to obey it.

Hear this! God is not frail, He marches on. And He marches only to His own drum, whose beat is neither late nor rushed. The pace may appear slow to us, but God is covering the whole earth with His glory like the waters that cover the seas.

God reaches outward with the spreading fingers of His bright glory like the sun reaching through clefts of mountain at daybreak, the dawning light changing from sharp slivers of isolated light to a general enveloping brightness, slowly engulfing everything in its wake. His wonderful name is lighting the last jungle tribes of Irian Jaya, and will yet penetrate the dark deserts of Arabia.





Isaac Watts paints this glory in a paraphrase of Psalm 72, my favorite hymn:

Jesus shall reign wher’er the Sun,
doth its successive journeys run.
His kingdom stretch from shore to shore,
till moons shall wax and wane no more.





God is the one spreading His glory. When a church sends a missionary, God is not in their debt. God is pleased when someone steps out in service to Him, but this pleasure is not the relieved pleasure of a General in wartime, thankful for a few more recruits to throw at the frontline. This is the pleasure of a Father who delights to include his children in His own work. The church that sends a missionary merely gains the privilege of fellowship and participation in the work of this sending God.

Jesus describes the situation thusly, “Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.” (John 20:21). Worshipping this sending God, we become a sending people.




Second, God does not merely “do” missions; He is Himself missionary


God takes the supreme place as the first and greatest missionary. God is the one who does mission and this “doing” springs from His “being,” and we are not so much “doers” of missions at all but “witnesses” (Acts 1:8) to what God is doing. God does not merely have a mission for His church. On the contrary, God has a church for His mission. Likewise, the Bible does not merely contain information about missions. It is, itself, a missionary document. Forget about the question about whether there is a “Biblical basis for missions” or not. There is, instead, a missionary basis for the Bible, that record of God’s self-revealing mission.

Let’s be clear, God does not merely “do missions,” God is a God who is missionary in His being. The very being of God throbs with a missional pulse, a constant willful self-revealing of His glory. God delights in blessing the nations and in spreading His glory. Why else did God create the world? Out of loneliness? God forbid! His love bubbled over and could not be contained. He is the All-Glorious who created the universe as a stage to display that glory.

It is comforting to know that missionary work has a Trinitarian basis! God is a Trinitarian being, who sends and is sent and God’s people, being filled with the Spirit of God, likewise reflect this nature. God the Father sends the Son and the Father and Son jointly send the Spirit which is poured into the church, who is then sent out into the world. God is a missionary who loves His people, whose Son veiled His glory in human flesh to become first an example and then an adequate sacrifice for His People. And now God has sent His Spirit to indwell this same People to empower us to go out into the world as witnesses, sent out to be blessings to still yet others.



Let me sketch another analogy of missions as Trinitarian involvement:

Imagine a father killing a snake loitering on the front door. This father then gives the stick to his young child so that the child, too, can take a few whacks at the dying snake. “Good job!” encourages the father. If the child’s hands waver, the father is there to steady them. Though the parent is the one who has accomplished the final victory, the father delights to include his children whom he loves, for the pleasure of the parent and the furtherance of the teaching of the child.

Praise God! We can participate! Though it is God’s mission, He gives us a part. He has won the victory and has crushed the Serpent’s head but still allows us to tread Satan under our feet.

God has conquered through the sending of his Son and now sends us to gather the spoil. God gives us the Spirit to steady weak arms and through God’s inclusion of us into His own mission, we learn more about our Sending God and His Son Jesus Christ, the Sent-Out one who includes us in His work by the Spirit.

God, by the death of His Son, reconciles the world to Himself and sends us forth, giving us the message of reconciliation (II Corinthians 5:19).






A FINAL PRAYER:

Dear Father,

Ultimately, you send us to reap wherein we have bestowed no labor. Another has done the work, and yet we take part in His labors. We look at the fields white for harvest and we pray for the privilege of participation in gathering in this precious wheat. Oh Lord, thank you that we together, You who plant and we who are allowed to harvest, are able to share in this joy together.

Thank you Lord for allowing us to reap the fruit of your labors.

FIVE CURRENT TRENDS IN MISSIONS




As we move into the Third Millennium since Jesus first gave us our marching orders, what are some current trends and concerns in missions? We still rejoice in the biographies of Adoniram Judson, David Brainerd and John G Paton, even while we recognize our need to keep abreast of the dizzying flood of worldwide changes just within the last 4 decades. While our Lord is the same in every generation, the world is much-changed.

I summarize a list of current missiological trends below. Please use this list as a starting point for further research.




Current missiological trends:


Trend 1. - The changing context of mission - the shifting center of Christianity:

A Shift Towards the non-Western world:

Missions is no longer “From the West to the Rest.” Those that profess a broadly evangelical faith now have their majority in the non-Western world. Latin America, Africa and Asia are blooming even while North America and Europe are withering and decaying. In 1945 over 80% of the non-Western world was dominated by the West. By 1974 this became less than 5%. During this same period church attendance in the Anglican Church in Britain decreased by 14% in Britain even while the membership rolls in Sudan increased by 633%! African bishops from the “Global South” are now sending missionaries to bolster the apostatizing Anglican Church in the West against increasing defection from the faith. Christianity is no longer a Western religion; the center has shifted.

Missions – increasingly urban, Asian, and in partnership with national Christian bodies:

While rural, tribal missions may excite the fascinations of many, the future of missions may not be the Auca Story in Through Gates of Splendor or even the Sawi story in Don Richardson’s Peacechild. The future of missions is largely to be urban and Asian, and among highly refined cultures holding to Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism, rather than scattered “primitive” animistic tribes. The need for missionaries to Asian cities is great. For example, think on this: while the US has about 9 cities with a population over 1 million, China has close to 150 cities of a million or more.

I freely admit that my own missions scenario in Papua, focusing on a remote tribe, is not the wave of the future. But it affords me close strategic involvement with the national church denomination, Gereja Injili di Indonesia (GIDI), the Evangelical Church in Indonesia, which consists of over 400,000 members and is led by 40,000 evangelists and pastors. My local team of highland evangelists, laboring among my tribal group, consists of 20 evangelists and I am able to influence GIDI as a whole through my involvement in this effort.

This brings us to another shift in missions within the last 50-100 years. Missions now must be done, and should be done, in increasing partnering with national Christians. Why bypass those that the Lord has providentially raised up? Enabling indigenous believers and mobilizing local bodies of believers to reach others in their own region of the world is a strategic and God-honoring priority. Partnership is the watchword for missions today in many regions of the world.

The West is no longer the center of mission-sending. Vital hubs of missionary sending are springing up across the world, islands of vital Christianity in a sea of darkness. No longer content to receive missionaries only, these “new sending countries” are striving to send out their own missionaries. For instance, South Korea is on the verge of overtaking the U.S. as the top missions sending nation. I work with one man from the country of Papua New Guinea, the other side of the island here, who felt the Lord calling him to cross the border and labor among his less fortunate brothers in Indonesia.

Our task today as Western missionaries is not merely in going alone to the dark places of the world ourselves, but our task lays also in enabling vital pockets of Non-Western Christians to also reach those dark areas closest to them. We multiply ourselves, becoming catalysts, when we help mobilize national Christians. Right now, there are highland Papuan tribal believers, like the Dani and the Yali, that are being trained to take the Gospel to lowland tribes. Not only that, but there are also Papuan evangelists being trained to be sent to the other islands in Indonesia, and even out of their own country into PNG and also among the Australian aborigines. Missions now has become a global enterprise, the Gospel from everywhere to everywhere.

For further research:
• Philip Jenkins, The Next Christendom (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).
• Martin I. Klauber and Scott M. Manetsch, editors, The Great Commission: Evangelicals and the History of World Missions (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2008).
• Bryant L. Myers, The New Context of World Missions (Monrovia, California: MARC, 1996).




Trend 2. The changing focus of mission: The modern People-group focus:

If you have read John Piper’s Let the Nations be Glad (second edition, pages 155-200) you will be familiar with the concept of people-groups. Whereas by the 1950’s the Gospel had penetrated every country (nation state) on earth, there were still billions without the Gospel. Thousands of ethnic groups were not only not being reached, but were not even being targeted.

One high-level missions strategy coordinator revealed to me how his missions board for years colored the entire country of India red, meaning that his particular mission agency had a “missionary presence” in that nation. In reality, there was one lone single female missionary for a country possessing around 2,500 ethno-linguistically distinct people-groups and almost a billion people! He laughed when he told me this and stated how thankful he was that missions had caught onto the concept of people-group thinking.

How did the concept of “unreached people-groups” come about? Ralph Winter, the founder of the William Carey Library and the U.S. Center of World Missions, working through the Lausanne Committee on World Evangelization, championed the concept of “unreached people-groups” in the late 70’s and 80’s. He asserted that the ethne of Scripture that we are supposed to reach are not political nation-states at all. They are, instead, cultures within those countries, possessing ethnic and linguistic identities distinct from others.

John Piper points out the firm theological basis for the people-group focus of Scripture. The Apostle Paul in Romans 15:18-21 speaks of having “fully preached” the Gospel from Jerusalem as far as Illyricum. Paul claims to have “fulfilled” (peplerokenai) the Gospel in that whole region. This does not mean that he preached to every single soul in that region, nor does it mean that Paul did not believe that further workers were needed in this mission field; Paul, after all, placed Timothy in Ephesus (I Tim. 1:3) and Titus in Crete (Titus 1:5) to mature the work. Paul’s phrase “fulfilled the Gospel” means this; Paul had a people-group focus. Paul desired to focus on pioneer areas to win many peoples rather than merely as many people as possible, so that God would be praised by all peoples (Romans 15:11), Abraham would be the father of many nations (Romans 4:17), and the name of Christ would be understood in every people group where He is not known (Romans 15:21).

Our goal in discipling the nations is not merely to win people, but to win peoples. Our task is not merely to gain the maximum quantity of people, winning more and more people to Christ, but in winning more and more peoples, ethno-linguistic groups, some from every tongue, tribe and nation. Our goal goes beyond winning as many souls or planting as many churches as possible, our goal is to win souls and plant churches in as many unreached peoples as possible and to cross every existing barrier with the Gospel.

Psalm 22:27:

All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations shall worship before him.

Churches and sending agencies now make tremendous efforts to find and research the various people-groups of the world and intentionally target them. This has led to a broadly evangelical ecumenism in cooperative efforts such as the Joshua Project and Caleb Project, whereby unreached people-groups have been listed, quantified, and, as much as able, prioritized so that new workers need not replicate services but can allocate resources most effectively to speed the Great Commission. The people-group concept, therefore, has encouraged cooperativeness across denominational lines and has also promoted an openness to the social sciences as research and statistics on various demographics across the globe are gathered and sent out to churches in order to promote missions, mobilize workers and to fill identified needs.

Many will pooh-pooh this use of anthropology, statistics and the social sciences in dividing up the earth and trying to prioritize the lost. This is both a matter of theological priority, however, and also simple stewardship. A lost soul in Atlanta, Georgia is just as lost as a lost soul in the remote jungle, after all, but why should the lost in Atlanta, Georgia be able to squander thousands upon thousands of opportunities while I must walk two days through muddy swamp in order to tell some about Jesus? This research helps our stewardship. We honor God by finding the darkest hole in which to plant ourselves.

Keep in mind, also, that this research is nothing more than what William Carey himself did in his famous Enquiry into the Obligations of Christians to use Means for the Conversion of the Heathen, whereby he gathered the most current data of his day about every group of people under the sun in an effort to aid research about where to send missionaries and how best to pray for world evangelization. Narrow, local thinking is insufficient for the global task before us.


My own use of the people-group concept to inform my decision-making: Why did I choose to go to SE Asia? How did I pick the tribe that I would go to? My decisions were informed by my people-group thinking.

My country of service possesses 127 unreached-people groups, not even including the 274 listed languages in Papua (I know several more languages not yet listed). Of these 274-plus Papuan language-groups, i.e. ethne, about 70 have at least Scripture portions, leaving about 200 without the Scripture. Of these, the most unreached are scattered into 14 Daerah Terpencil, the “14 most isolated areas,” of which my area makes up one of the largest of these areas, and possessing the most unreached tribes. I chose my ministry place based on which groups suffered the highest geographic and linguistic barriers to the Gospel. I prioritized the lost in a sort of missiological triage.

For further research:

• John Piper, Let the Nations be Glad (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003).
• John Piper, “The Supremacy of God among ‘All the Nations,’ ” International Journal of Frontier Missions, 13:1, January-March 1996, 16.
• R. Showalter, “All the Clans, All the Peoples,” International Journal of Frontier Missions, 13:1 (January-March 1996):12.
• Frank Severn, “Some Thoughts on the Meaning of ‘All the Nations,’ ” Evangelical Missions Quarterly, October 1997, 415.
• Harley Schreck and David Barrett , eds., Unreached Peoples: Clarifying the Task (Monrovia, California: MARC, 1987), 44-56.
• Patrick Johnstone, The Church is Bigger Than You Think (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1998), 89-93.




Trend 3. The current trend of Short-term missions:


Short-term mission trips have emerged as one of the most significant current trends in missions. Missiologists are divided as to whether this trend is a healthy one or one fraught with dangers.

Some point out statistics demonstrating that short-term trips generate long-term missionaries, most long-term missionaries having been on at least 2 short-term trips prior to committing to long-term “career” missions. Others doubt these statistics and show that as the number of short-term trips has risen, there has failed to be a concurrent rise in long-term missionaries. Instead, the number of long-term missionaries is on the decline and long-term missionaries increasingly fall short in finding enough missionary support to maintain them, even while American churches spend millions on short-term trips. The Masters Mission, for example writes that, on average, a single two-week short-term missions trip costs more than generously funding one long-term family on the field for one whole year.

In addition, as God raises up maturing Third World churches and leaders, imagine the reaction of these African and Asian men of God as they are met by minimally-trained American high-schoolers, presuming to be able to teach these national Christians about the things of God. Imagine such a group, wearing their clothes from the Gap and toting I-pods, taking two weeks off to teach persecuted Sundanese believers about the Biblical doctrine of suffering and persecution? Preposterous!

In this day of modern air travel and quick access to most places on the globe, I would hate to discourage anyone from seeing places in the world that may still be legitimately called “the mission field.” I long to see visitors here who are open to missions, who want to see the beauty of Indonesia, and who are open to the possibility of coming back to serve full-time. With proper preparation, short-term missions can be a wonderful recruiting tool to give home churches a taste of overseas ministry. Through short-term missions, Western churches can make strategic partnerships with solid Third-World believers so that these American churches may aid missions through already-established local bodies. Also, in highly technical fields of expertise, short term missionaries are a major blessing in areas such as well-digging, water purification, mobile cataract surgery clinics, first-aid courses, farming aid, computer care and even seminars on select doctrinal and leadership topics.

I would like to stress, however, that years of language learning and a living long-term presence among a people is often necessary for the Gospel to enter deeply enough into a culture to transform it. Short-term missions are fine, but please do not make them an end unto themselves. They are a means to an end; the recruitment of long-term workers and the initiation of long-term partnerships. One colleague here in Papua, serving in a remote tribe, labored for 10 years before the Lord gave him the spiritual fruit of one believer. Another missionary, after 20 years, had only one person believe in their village - and he died this year! The tribe that I am laboring among are very ignorant of the Gospel and the work may take just as long or longer.

There is, now more than ever, a need for long-term workers.

For further research:

• Dan McDonough and Roger Peterson, Can Short-Term Mission Really Create Long-term Missionaries? (Stem Press, 1999).
• The Master’s Mission, “Avoiding the Pitfalls of Short-term Missions,” Pastor’s Journal 5, accessed at www.mastersmission.org.




Trend 4. Healthier attempts towards broad, cooperative evangelical efforts are now replacing unhealthy ecumenism


Ecumenism has almost become a bad word among the faithful due to the poor showing of past efforts at broad cooperation, such as heresies promoted by some in the World Council of Churches. New efforts at ecumenicity, however, are on the rise and are now more strongly undergirded by basic evangelical doctrinal safeguards.

At the end of the last century, a rising tide of missions zeal contributed to the formation of the Student Volunteer Movement. With its watchword as, “The evangelization of the world in this generation” the SVM helped to mobilize thousands into missions across denominational lines. This zeal peaked in a world missionary conference in 1910 at Edinburgh. This worldwide conference was not a new idea at all, but originated in the forward-thinking mind of William Carey, who hoped himself to see a “general association of all denominations of Christians” meet about every 10 years, beginning in 1810. His dream was realized 100 years late.

Despite great beginnings, these efforts at broad cooperation steered more and more off-course, sacrificing doctrinal purity to gain greater organizational unity. As the World Council of Churches grew into the main voice for ecumenism during the mid-20th Century, doctrines such as the uniqueness of Christ and justification by faith were minimized. In response, many of the faithful fled from ecumenical missions efforts altogether and grew suspicious of all cooperative efforts, growing isolative and critical of any who desired to seek broader partnership.

Recently, however, missions has experienced a resurgence in efforts towards shared resources, broad cooperation, the avoidance of duplication of services, and a decrease in interdenominational infighting among evangelical Protestants. In July of 1974, the International Congress on World Evangelization was held in Lausanne, Switzerland, and this led to the ongoing Lausanne Committee on World Evangelization, with worldwide meetings about every decade. The majority of the delegates were non-Western and over 150 countries attended. A basic evangelical doctrinal statement was adopted.

Also, within the past two decades, collaborative evangelical efforts such as the Joshua Project, the Caleb Project, Operation World and Operation Mobilization have all emerged to better research and allocate resources for missions. These groups are broadly evangelical and serve to compile data and better our stewardship of limited missions resources. I myself have submitted data to the Joshua Project to help enlarge their database on Papuan tribes.

Despite the dangers involved, this cooperativeness must be seen as a positive development. While each individual effort must be weighed accordingly and accepted or rejected on its own merits, broad cooperation being only possible with those sharing solid doctrinal foundations, these current efforts at research and information-sharing are laudable and I myself have utilized much of this research in investigating and surveying needs in Indonesia.

For further research:

• Roth Rowse, “William Carey’s ‘Pleasing Dream,’” International Review of Missions, volume 38 (1949), 181.





Trend 5. Persecution, the demise of colonialism, and the return to Pre-Constantinianism



Pre-Constantinianism? What do I mean by this term?


This term attempts to characterize how the church operated prior to the contaminating influences of the era of Constantine on the early church. Pre-Constantinianism includes two main thoughts, (1) that missions is now being done in the face of the disappearance of Western colonial power and in a manner more reflective of New Testament practice, and (2) Pre-Constantinianism is an attempt to show that missions is now increasingly being done in places where there is a rise in persecution, without the protection of Western governments.

The early church, an oppressed minority, spread like wildfire. From the fringes of power rather than the center, poor and persecuted Christians multiplied despite having no civil backing and little wealth, spreading not only despite persecution but often because of persecution. With Constantinian preference, the church and the civil state married into an unholy matrimony that not even the Protestant Reformation remedied. Christianity spread only with the spread of the civil state. The fiction of “Christendom” crept in. The Protestant Reformation did not expunge these faults and the new Protestant States continued these errors with the policy of, “cuius regio eius religio,” stating that whoever’s region it was, that also was the religion, the political powers fixing religion.
The Moravians were the first to send out missionaries not associated with the colonizing powers; and what a great example of missionary devotion they continue to be, even selling themselves as slaves to evangelize poor plantation workers. The Moravian Church sent out missionaries at a rate of 1 in every 12, a virtual tithe of church members into missions, and inspired William Carey, who proposed that voluntary associations of private Christians, i.e., missionary societies, be formed to reach the world for Christ, an idea that launched the Modern Missions Movement.
Missions is almost entirely done now by groups not wedded to the State and missionaries are increasingly finding ways into hostile regions where persecution is not merely a possibility, but an expectation. There has never been a time when more Muslims are turning to Christ. In North Africa, the small embers of churches that have long been almost stamped into extinction are now beginning to blaze anew, despite renewed persecution.
In Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim country, there is periodic violence against Christians and hundreds have been killed, and hundreds of churches have been burned or closed. Despite all of this, the official statistics regarding Christians are constantly in need of revision as perhaps over 20 million Christians now exist in this beleaguered country.
A case study: Indonesia is a wonderful illustration of the blessings of this current trend. During the Dutch Colonization, evangelism was slow going and national Christians succeeded where many Western mission efforts failed. Many Dutch mission efforts failed altogether, most Javanese thinking that to become Christian was to model the overly rigid Dutch Reformed patterns of ecclesiology and even adopt Dutch dress. National identity and religion merged into one amorphous mass. Islam and Christianity actually entered the interior of Java at about the same general time period and yet, due to hatred of the Dutch colonizers, more and more Javanese turned to Islam until it became the clear majority all throughout the region, despite “Christian” powers being in control and despite vigorous efforts by Dutch missionaries, who rode the colonial ships over to land on the mission field and lived besides tea plantation masters. Since Merdeka (Independence), and especially since Islamic fundamentalism has begun to gain power, Christianity has spread like wildfire.





Other trends briefly explained:



Space does not allow a full treatment of all the current trends in missions, but below are a few more current missiological trends to consider as we end this article:

• -Missions giving is steadily decreasing.

• -Also those activities supported under the title of “missions” continues to increasingly involve things other than frontier church-planting among the least-reached peoples of the world.

• -Smaller missions are ceasing to exist, mission societies are merging together and more local churches are trying to directly send out missionaries. While this is positive in regards to local church involvement, many of these churches, ignorant of global concerns and well-tried methods, fall into the same or greater errors than the missionary societies that they are trying to replace.

• -Missions is increasingly becoming full of “niche” ministries. Specialization in small technical areas such as aviation, computers, and health work is increasingly becoming more common. Missionary “generalists,” those not possessing some unique trade besides theological preparation, are increasingly becoming rarer.

• -Finally, one last healthy trend is this: churches and agencies are increasingly becoming more “missions focused” rather than “missionary focused.” This means that churches are catching a vision to strategically reach peoples rather than merely supporting their own missionaries.



Whole books could be written, and are being written about the ramifications of such trends. In this short article, such deep analysis is impossible. If you would like to discuss any of these points further, please feel free to email me at oct31st1517@hotmail.com.

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Further Reading on The Missionary Call




David Sills just published a new book on the missionary call, which I highly recommend.




In addition to Sills' book, check out this list below:



Allen, Frank. “Why do they leave? Reflections on Attrition.” Evangelical Missions Quarterly, April, 1986.

Goff, William E. “Missionary Call and Service.” in Terry, Mark, Smith, Ebbie and Anderson, Justice. Missiology: An Introduction to the Foundations, History, and Strategies of World Missions. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998.

Griffiths, Michael C. Give up Your Small Ambitions. Chicago: Moody Press, 1971.

Hale, Thomas. On Being a Missionary. Pasadena: William Carey Library, 1995.

Jones, Marge. Psychology of Missionary Adjustment. Springfield, Missouri: Gospel Publishing House, 1995.

Kane, J. Herbert. Life and Work on the Mission Field. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980.

Hesselgrave, David L. Paradigms in Conflict: 10 Key Questions in Christian Missions Today. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 2005.

Howard, Kevin L. “A Call to Missions: Is there Such a Thing.” Evangelical Missions Quarterly, October, 2003.

Moreau, Scott, Netland, Harold, van Engen, Charles Edward, and Burnett, David. Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000.

Nayak, Abhijit. “Christian Ministry: Call or Career.” Evangelical Missions Quarterly, October, 2008.

O’Donnell, Kelly. Missionary Care: Counting the Cost for World Evangelization. Pasadena, California: William Carey Library, 1999.

Pirolo, Neal. Serving as Senders. San Diego: Emmaus Road, International, 1990.

Steffen, Tom and Douglas, Lois McKinney. Encountering Missionary Life and Work. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008.

Swick, Nanette. “Survival of the Fittest.” Evangelical Missions Quarterly, January, 2001.

Terry, John Mark. Church Evangelism. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1984.

William B. Taylor, ed. Too Valuable To Lose. Pasadena, California: William Carey Library, 1997.

Verkuyl, J. Contemporary Missiology: An Introduction. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978.

Waddell, Gregory S. “Missionary Burnout: Who is adequate for these things?” Evangelical Missions Quarterly, July, 2008.

Wingfield, Mark. “Disagreements discounted as source of missionary attrition.” Baptist Standard, April 24, 2000.

The Missionary Call - from a Member Care Perspective PART VIII - FINAL PART, Suggestions for Best Practice



Suggestions for Best Practice


Sending agencies should utilize the missionary call as a close ally and friend. From the very beginning of the screening process the missionary call has immense member care implications.


Here are a few suggestions for best practice.

First, the missionary call is powerful. Most definitions of the missionary call use the adjectives “intense” or “passionate” in their attempts to show the power that this call has upon a person’s life. This intensity should not be discouraged. It is a wind to fill the sails of the missionary embarking towards the Nations.

Second, remember that the missionary call is not merely a solitary call. It involves the larger body of Christ. The best verification of the missionary call is not a mystical feeling, but is a desire that follows the Word of God and is seconded by the larger body of Christ. Gung-ho missionary candidates, lest they “run without being sent” should be patient and heed this advice, “Be open to take time to let others be convinced of [your] call.”

Third, there is no real conflict regarding the missionary call and aggressive recruiting. Agencies and mission boards should continue to aggressively recruit candidates, even while being willing to exercise due caution so that those sent by the agency are those sent by God. Churches who have an infectious passion for missions and pastors who closely mentor and disciple their people may be the means by which the Lord implants a growing call into their people. Churches that give opportunities to exercise spiritual gifts and confirm those gifts empower their people to further explore what God may be calling them into.

Fourth, note that the missionary call plays a vital role not only in recruiting missionaries, but in screening candidates as well. If a candidate lacks a clear sense of call, or if this call is not seconded and confirmed by the larger body of Christ, agencies should take note and exercise caution. One of the largest reasons for negative missionary attrition is a “lack of call.” The solution is to screen more carefully to determine the presence of this sustaining ingredient from the very beginning.

Fifth, organizations should “test the call” through various internship programs, training programs, camps, and candidate schools. A missionary call will not only last through stress and hardship; it will make the candidate last through stress and hardship. Though hard to define and far from objective and measurable, one way in which organizations can screen candidates for this missionary call is to allow a testing period and to provide a testing program. Such testing is a very positive thing and should be encouraged and not merely seen as a trap to “weed people out.” It is, instead, a tool of stewardship used by the larger body of Christ to bless a candidate by helping them discern God’s will.

Sixth, the missionary call is one of the most powerful forces in retaining missionaries on the field. When times get tough, having a clear call is sometimes all that retains missionaries in some settings. When positive results and ministry fruits do not occur, the call is a powerful motivator for perseverance. When money fails, health fails and relationships fail, a missionary driven by a strong sense of call can endure until better days come.

Many missionaries have reported over a decade of wearisome labor before God finally converts the first soul in their people-group, and some labor even longer. A sense of strong and clear calling provides the missionary with persevering strength. It communicates, “God is the one that has called me here. I will stay and persevere because I am exactly where He would have me.”

Also, when a missionary possesses a clear call this is usually seconded by a multitude of other voices, such as friends, home church, and agency. All of these parties affirm the missionary’s call and can act as invaluable sources of social support from which the hurting missionary can draw strength. Agencies and churches should utilize the missionary call as a tool in counseling. Counselors can affirm the call and encourage perseverance by reminding the missionary, “Even though things are rough right now, we are confident that God has brought you here and will sustain you in your God-ordained work; we are behind you!”

The missionary call gives tenacity and perseverance in the midst of trials. There is an inverse relationship between a clear missionary call and attrition and those missionaries who have a clear call have lower rates of attrition.

The analogy comparing the missionary call to a wind that fills the sails of the missionary has already been given. This divine wind fills the sails and propels the missionary across cultures. Also, in times of trouble, consider this analogy. The power of the missionary call as an anchor that fixes the missionary’s vessel in place when adverse winds blow. The call not only moves the missionary into service, but it fixes the missionary in place once they arrive at their God-ordained destination.






CONCLUSION

Despite many differences regarding its exact nature, the missionary call is real and does, in fact, exist. This call is of vital importance related to issues of member care. Finally, this missionary call can be a vital ally that can be utilized in gaining quality missionaries and retaining them. Those focusing on the care of missionaries would do well to adapt their procedures to take full advantage of this ally. Let us give the missionary call its due place of honor. 

The Missionary Call - from a Member Care Perspective PART VII - Some negatives about the missionary call




The negative aspects of the missionary call

A strong sense of missionary call is largely a positive factor. There are, however, two aspects in which a strong sense of call is negative. First, a false call can be used to manipulate other people. Second, a “totalitarian call” can consume all of a missionary’s life and lead to missionary burnout.



False Calls:

First, false “missionary calls” can be used as a manipulative tool. A person may claim to be “sure” that the Holy Spirit is leading them in a particular direction and yet wreak havoc on their lives and the lives of others. Pronouncements of “God’s calling” may, in fact, be used as a manipulative tool so that a person may further their own agenda. After all, who can argue with the call of God?

Frank Allen muses that, “Ralph Winter once remarked that the words, "The Lord is leading me," are probably one of the greatest obstacles to effective missionary work.”

Such people often are not the best team players. Agencies and churches, therefore, should screen wisely for past and present relationship patterns of dysfunction. These people may be quite persuasive and may even convince others of this call. Self-confidence and assertion opens many doors. Egocentric personalities that utilize spiritual matters for personal gain, for enhancement of reputation and status, or as a means of social control over others must be screened out.

Marge Jones writes about “the pedestal” of missionary service and how this serves to humble us and yet, at the same time, set us apart into a unique category of people based upon our call. Even for truly called missionaries this may prove to be snare.

Jones warns us:

Individuals placed on a pedestal because of their call to the mission field need to understand how much this treatment has influenced their thoughts and actions and how detrimental the results can be when they arrive overseas.


The All-Consuming Call:

Second, another danger is that the missionary call may become a tyrant instead of a friend and ally.

It may consume the missionary’s whole life.

While a strong sense of missionary call and urgency is often what drives candidates to the field and sustains them, it can also eat them alive.

Gregory Waddell calls this the “totalitarian call” and describes it this way:

Any job can become your entire life if you let it. Missionaries and pastors are especially prone to this scenario because their job is their life. It could be argued that the two should not be separated; ministry, after all, is a divine calling. This temptation to allow the mission to absorb everything we are and everything we do is harmful both to the missionary and to his or her family.

Thus, while the missionary call is a strong motivator and sustainer in missions, it can also drive the missionary to exhaustion. If left unchecked all other aspects of the missionary’s life can become pushed to the side leading to attrition. Thus, an intense and urgent sense of calling can become a case of “too much of a good thing.”

The Missionary Call - from a Member Care Perspective PART VI - a call may change over time




The call of God may change over time

Discussing the call of God in relation to missionary attrition may lead one to the mistaken notion that the call of God never changes and that all cases of missionaries leaving a field of service are unfortunate events.

Here is a disclaimer: the call of God may change over time.

God may call us to a field for a limited time and even call us away from a field. Tom Steffen writes about older missionary assumptions, that these often possessed a “no turning back mindset.” A return home before one was rendered too old or too ill for service meant “turning your back on God’s will.”

Steffen then contrasts this older view with present realities:

Today much has changed...Missionaries who spend their lives in a single place have become far and few between. Even if they serve with the same mission agency for their entire career, they are likely to have a variety of assignments and serve in more than one culture.

Perhaps this disclaimer makes an already ambiguous topic even more ambiguous, but it is a needed addition to any discussion about the call of God. Transitions are common in ministry and we cannot count all of these transitions as examples of failures or “negative attrition.”

God may call us to perform certain time-limited tasks and then that call may end and another may begin. Most would not propose that a missionary can never retire. Sensing the call of God on one’s life is not a one-time event at the beginning of one’s missionary career, but a continual process of checking one’s life not only against the Scripture, but also one’s desires and situations in life. God’s call is what helps get missionaries to the mission field, sustain them on the mission field, but can also draw them from that field into another work.




Some would disagree, however, with this assertion. As recently as October of 2008 the Evangelical Missions Quarterly published these words by Abhijit Nayak:

The ministry has become more career-oriented than call-oriented. As far as scripture is concerned, in ministry there is no retirement. God’s servant has no relief from the ministry; he or she is committed until his or her last breath.



A full scale theological treatment of every facet of the missionary call is not possible in this short paper. Suffice it to say, however, that the above statement by Mr. Nayak may either prove to exhibit the true grit that exemplifies a called missionary, or it may inflict needless guilt on those missionaries transitioning to different roles or retiring due to health or old age.

The Missionary Call - from a Member Care Perspective PART V - The Call as a factor in sustaining missionaries





The Missionary Call as a Factor in Sustaining Missionaries

The missionary call is vital in recruiting and screening missionaries. The missionary call is also invaluable in sustaining missionaries. The missionary call is an ally which may be utilized to strengthen and preserve the troubled missionary, as Kelly O’ Donnell advises:

If a missionary becomes dysfunctional or struggles excessively with ministry issues, it may be wise to review his/her present walk with God and the original call from God concerning missionary work.

The original call, being what compelled the believer to enter missionary service originally, can also be a member care tool to keep them there. Since a clear call will have clear confirmations by the larger body of Christ, the troubled missionary should never lack a wide array of affirmation and support. If the missionary’s initial call was confirmed by the larger body of Christ and the sending agency, even if that missionary has his own momentary doubts about his calling, a large number of supportive believers can strengthen that weary missionary from many sides.

The following illustrates this dynamic well:

Paul and Barnabas were confirmed in their missionary call by the church in Antioch (Acts 13:1-4). Many ministers, including missionaries, have had churches confirm their call to ministry because they had watched how they developed a lifestyle of obedience. It is a further confirmation when they support the missionaries in prayer as they go to the mission field. There is also the confirmation that comes through a sending body which affirms that they are gifted for this kind of ministry...When missionaries go to the field, they become aware of the value of having such a “call” from the Lord. When they are asked what difference the call has made to them, the characteristic response is that it has functioned as a stabilizer in their lives during times of crisis. It has a stabilizing effect when the missionaries sense that God has equipped them spiritually with the gifts necessary to carry out a task, and in crisis times the Lord is guiding them. Missionaries sense a stability just knowing that others believe in them.

A steady supplement of, “We believe in you, we affirmed your calling, we attest that God’s gifts are upon you, and we support you,” can do wonders for the missionary in times of stress. It is an invigorating tonic.

Neal Pirolo illustrates the immense moral support that comes from the larger body of Christ:

The church, the home fellowship, the missions fellowship, the prayer group, the college and career class – some group besides the ones wanting to go need to hear the Holy Spirit say, “Separate unto Me [the Barnabas and Saul from your fellowship] for the task to which I have called them.” This confirmation provides tremendous moral support! It is one thing for your missionary to think the Lord has directed him. It is incredibly more reassuring to know He has confirmed it in the hearts of others as well.


The support of the body of Christ towards a missionary rarely ends with mere affirmation. When a missionary call is confirmed by the larger body of Christ, moral support is far from the only thing provided. Multiplied prayers ascend to heaven on behalf of the beleaguered. Material support is more easily attained when the larger body of Christ stamps a missionary with their own seal of approval. Special aid, material assistance and added resources can all serve to buttress the struggling missionary in times of need. Like a frontline soldier amply supplied with the “beans and bullets” needed to sustain the war effort, the missionary is sent forth by the multiplied efforts of many.

The REMAP II study writes the following:

The committed endorsement of the pastor and local church may have an added contribution for retention beyond confirming the call of the candidate. If the church and pastor confirm the call to the mission agency it seems likely that the church would feel greater obligation or responsibility to support in prayer and finances.

A true missionary call results in a missionary being sent, and the one who is sent is sent by a community. The blessings provided by this sending community do not end once the missionary is sent, but can be tapped in times of need as a source of strength, affirmation and comfort.



A Clear Missionary Call and Missionary Attrition: an Inverse Relationship

Two things are striking regarding the correlation between the missionary call and missionary attrition. First, a clear call is one of the most important factors in missionary longevity. Second, the perception by the missionary that he lacks a call or has lost his call are major factors impacting missionary attrition.



The missionary call - one of the top factors in missionary retention.


In the ReMAP II study on missionary attrition, a strong sense of calling possessed, “a strong correlation with retention.” In fact, a clear calling rated as a higher factor in retention than even prior ministry experience. The verdict is clear; a strong sense of calling prevents negative missionary attrition.

The Association of Foreign Missions, meeting in 1998, focused on the topic of missionary “survival” and found that “a definite call to cross-cultural service” was a key ingredient in all of the successful case studies examined.

A “determination to dig in your heels no matter how tough it gets, based on the conviction that you are in the exact place God wants you, ministerially as well as geographically” is vital to missionary longevity.




Doubts about one’s call, or a sense of loss or lack of call is devastating

The World Evangelical Fellowship conducted a study of missionary attrition in the 1990’s consisting of findings from 14 nations, broken down into OSC’s (Old Sending Countries) and NSC’s (New Sending Countries). This landmark ReMAP I study (Reducing Missionary Attrition Project I) interviewed personnel from 453 sending agencies, the total number of these missionary interviews was approximately 31,000, or 1/5th of the known global evangelism force.

The results of ReMAP I were analyzed and published in the book Too Valuable to Lose, edited by Dr. Bill Taylor. ReMAP I’s results encouraged further research. ReMAP II, focusing on obtaining best practices for retention, was completed at the end of 2003 and its results were published in the book Worth Keeping.

The WEF study found that the category “lack of call” influenced an average of 4.1% of missionaries who attritted. Of the NSC’s (new sending countries) fully 8% of attritting missionary personnel listed “lack of call” as the main reason for their attrition.

Finally, the WEF found that “the most important factor in preventing attrition was reported to be the missionary having a clear call.” Asked to list all the top reasons for leaving the field, fully 23% of missionaries from the New Sending Nations marked “Yes” for the reason “Lack of a clear call.” This 23% response is shared with the response “Lack of Home support” as the top reason for negative missionary attrition.

The Southern Baptist International Mission Board (IMB) has one of the lowest attrition rates on record. However, of that very low rate of attrition issues centering on “the call” figured prominently:

The most common reason cited for leaving missionary appointment last year was a change in understanding of God's call. That explanation accounted for 25 percent of all departures. "Fifty-eight individuals resigned because of a change of call; six resigned because they felt they were never really called; and four resigned because their families in the U.S. did not affirm their call," noted an executive summary of the study presented to trustees.


It is evident, therefore, that a clear missionary call, seconded by the larger body of Christ who affirms and supports that call is key to improving member care.

The Missionary Call - from a Member Care Perspective PART IV - Recruiting and Screening Missionaries





The missionary call as a factor in recruiting and screening potential missionaries

The missionary call is one of the most important considerations in the screening of missionaries.

A strong missionary call correlates to longer missionary careers and lower rates of preventable missionary attrition. A clear calling has been consistently reported as more important than regular financial support, family support, relationships with other missionaries and even the maintenance of one’s own personal, spiritual life. Even if the definitions of the missionary call vary by candidate, what is of prime importance is that they feel that they have been called.

In fact, “It appears to matter little (as far as retention is concerned) what the call is to and what it consists of,” the important thing is that a candidate has intensely thought-out what they feel God’s call is for them so that they may develop a tenacity in their resolve to serve even in hard times due to this personal ownership of what they believe that God has called them to.



Testing the call


Due to the unsoundness of many churches and even entire denominations, sadly, mission agencies must not take a candidate’s word or even his home church’s confirmation at face value. A self-report of a call, and even a confirmation by a local church must be reviewed by the missionary organization. It is the responsibility of any sending agency, therefore, to “test the call.” If a missionary call is present, it will manifest itself as a persistent and tenacious trait that will not disappear during a short, trial period, camp, or training program. Virtually every missionary agency has instituted some sort of candidating program, training camp, internship or training program as a matter of good stewardship for all parties involved. Missionary candidates and sending churches should not balk at such requirements. Valuable lessons are learned, practice in endurance is given and the candidate’s call and the church’s confirmation of that call are usually verified by successful completion of these programs.



The missionary call and aggressive recruitment – is there a conflict?

Missions mobilizers use such slogans as, “The need is the call,” and “You don’t have a call? The call came 2,000 years ago in the form of the Great Commission – what are you waiting for?” Another slogan claims that “everyone should head towards the mission field unless God stops them.” These missions mottoes may highlight the need for personnel, but just how biblical are they?

If the missionary call is a special and exclusive divine calling, should we recruit for missions? If we recruit for missions, how should it be done? As David Hesselgrave phrases it, is this a matter of “a call for missionaries or a Divine calling?” Is there a conflict between aggressive missionary recruiting and in “waiting on the Divine Call?”

Hesselgrave reflects:

In the first place, there is no general call for missionary volunteers in the New Testament. All New Testament missionaries were personally conscripted by Christ, his apostles and their representatives, or by the Holy Spirited-directed churches.


It is my conviction that appealing for workers and waiting on the call are not mutually exclusive. We need not fall into a false dilemma on this topic. Let us seek to aggressively recruit those whom the Lord is calling.

There are dangers, however, in aggressive missionary recruiting. A longing to see more workers cannot excuse a lowering of standards. Mission agencies and churches run the risk of allowing people to “run” who are not “sent” if proper screening and training are not corporate values. Some may be attracted to the “sales appeal” of missionary promotionals and push through the missionary selection process due to magnetic personalities, and yet possess bad motives and troubling theologies that are only discovered in their first term on the field, after significant damage has already been done. Abhijit Nayak bemoans the fact that often, “Present-day ministers decide by themselves whether or not to go into ministry.”

We must always remember that the missionary call normally occurs in the context of a believer in close relation with the larger corporate body of Christ. This larger corporate body can confirm the call based upon observed confirmation of requisite gifting and character. Missions is a body of Christ effort. Recruiting for missions should be the same. Displaying needs and aggressively making known those needs might be the God-ordained means by which the Lord moves individuals and churches to send some of their own, and if the Lord is moving then He is not going to speak to one party exclusively. As Neal Pirolo stresses, “The local fellowship of believers must take the initiative in the missionary process by identifying the cross-cultural parts of the Body and allowing them to exercise their gifts.” The missionary call involves a lot of people.

The Missionary Call - from a Member Care Perspective PART III - The Missionary Call is not a loner



The missionary call is not a loner – it involves the larger body of Christ.

Regarding this missionary call, it is not a hidden call. It does not happen in isolation from the larger body of Christ and confirmation by one’s home church and agency is vital.

How can one be sure that they are called by God if other Christians do not recognize this calling?

J. Herbert Kane laments that this aspect of the call (confirmation by the larger body of Christ) was, “prominent in the New Testament but is almost completely missing in church life today.”

The Apostle Paul, (Romans 10:15), asks rhetorically, “How shall they [go] preach unless they are sent.”



Michael Griffiths reflects further:


When certain men of Cyprus and Cyrene started evangelizing Greeks in Syrian Antioch, news of it came to the church in Jerusalem and the account states baldly “they sent Barnabas” (Ac 11:22, NASB). We are told nothing of calls for volunteers, nothing of Barnabas’ own personal sense of call (we need not infer from this that he did not have one). We simply learn that the church “sent” him.


The larger body of Christ bore an active role in selecting or choosing others for service. The example of Barnabas above illustrates this. The Apostle Paul confirms this as well, being brought by Barnabas to Antioch (Acts 11:26). The Antioch church (Acts 13) owned their responsibility by fasting and praying before confirming and releasing Paul and Barnabas on their first missionary journey. The emphasis in the New Testament regarding the selection of “sent out ones” is not mainly on the individual, but on those that sent the individual. Griffiths points out:


In all the four instances, then, of sending out Barnabas, Saul, Silas and Timothy, what the New Testament emphasizes is not the initiative of the individual, nor his own subjective sense of call, but always the initiative of others, either of a congregation or of other Christians already active in such a work.


Michael C. Griffiths gives us three well-formed phrases to better understand this aspect of the missionary call. First he reminds us that “availability bears little relation to suitability.” Also, he speaks of the “subjective call, objectively confirmed.” Finally, he speaks of the “individual call, corporately confirmed.”

The interplay between the voluntarism of the individual and the voice of the larger church is summed up by Griffiths this way, “the most that an individual can do is express his willingness. Others must determine his worthiness.”


The chief aspect of being a missionary is “sent-ness.” The meaning of the word “missionary” comes from the Latin Mitto which means “to send” which is drawn from the Greek “apostello.” Being sent by another on their authority to convey a message is at the heart of defining what it is to be a missionary. Hesselgrave reminds us again, “A missionary is not just someone who goes, but someone who is sent.” This matter is not mere theological trivia, but is immensely practical.

Of course, requesting confirmation from the larger corporate body is not a magic bullet. It minimizes, but does not always guarantee, a proper assessment of the “called-ness” of a missionary candidate. Smaller churches may be so happy to send a candidate that the candidate’s lack of fitness is glossed over. In New Sending Countries (NSC), where relationship is valued more highly as a cultural trait, this might pose special problems. Whereas character references and the endorsement of one’s local church is highly correlated with retention in the Old Sending Countries (OSC), “Some colleagues from NSC have suggested that references hold little value for them as people often write what the candidate would want written rather than an accurate assessment of their character.”

Thus, the role of an outside agency to assess the local church’s assessment of their candidates is of vital importance; missions works best when it involves the desires of the individual, coupled with the confirmation of a local church, which is further confirmed by the sending agency.

Even local church approval and sending agency confirmation means little unless strict standards are maintained since the temptation is to let pressing needs influence objective assessment. Often, “once a candidate ‘feels called,’ some organizations tend to assume suitability unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.”

The Missionary Call - from a Member Care Perspective PART II - generational differences in defining "The Call"





The missionary call as perceived by three generations

Most Christians affirm the existence of a missionary call even if they differ concerning its exact nature.

Theological differences are not the only differences, however, which emerge when defining the missionary call. Demographic differences appear as well.

William Taylor, drawing on the statistics gained from the monumental Reducing Missionary Attrition Project I, charts how the last 3 generations of missionaries have each viewed their “calling” differently.

In his chart entitled, “A Generational Perspective on Missionary Issues,” Taylor demographically displays how three different age-groups (Boosters are over 50, the Boomers are 30-50, and the Busters are under 30) view missiological issues differently.

Taylor states that Boosters describe the missionary call as “mystical.” These Boosters, born between 1927 and 1945, “responded to a clear, definite, firmly held call by God to a specific country or people group. They went for life.”

Boomers, in contrast, would describe the missionary call as “the best job fit.” These Boomers, born between 1946 and 1964, are described as follows:

[They] emphasize their God-given abilities and special training and expect fulfillment in their work and continuing professional development. If these expectations are not met, they will leave the field, being deeply discouraged, frustrated and angry first-termers. They are prone to first try out missionary service as short-termers before becoming committed to it. They keep the option to return home open, should things not work out for them according to their tastes and expectations.

The Buster generation, born 1964 to the present, sees the missionary call as being influenced by relational realities. Busters assess the “best mission” as the one that is “most caring,” a place to feel valued. It is no surprise, therefore, that concepts of team ministry are growing in popularity today.



Below is a summary of inter-generational differences regarding the missionary call:

For boosters the specific, clear call by God is their chief motivation for going cross-cultural/overseas and for staying there for life, come what may. Boomers and busters don’t talk about a specific “call,” but rather making their own decisions after enquiring about the job description fitting their gifts and training best.

Another fascinating change in the perception of one’s calling is that “Calling to a geographic location, region or country is relatively rare today. Instead, calling is more often to a people group.” This change in paradigm from a country focus to-wards a people-group focus has also affected how people perceive the call of God upon their lives. Also, “Calling increasingly refers to the use of a skill or vocation, gifting or experience in God’s service, not unlike the parable of the entrusted talents (Mt. 25:14ff).” Whereas in the past, missionaries were often ordained generalists, today’s missionaries are often un-ordained pilots, mechanics, nurses, linguists, who feel called to a narrow and specific task.

In short, it is vitally important from a member care standpoint that the missionary perceives that they possess a strong missionary call, even if their definition of that missionary call varies. Missionary retention is married to missionary call.

The later REMAP II study sums it up this way:

It appears to matter little (as far as retention is concerned) what the call is to and what is consists of. What is important for retention is to have spent time (individually and with others) being certain of God’s desire for you to do something and/or go somewhere, to the extent that you can look back to that experience and hold on to it during hard times.

Kelly O’Donnell further sums up the importance of the missionary call in this way:

Missionaries, likewise, must have an unwavering trust in God and obedience to His call. Understanding and obeying one’s calling is a central issue in the missionary’s life. The experiences of veteran missionaries testify to the importance of maintaining one’s sense of call given by the Holy Spirit (Johnston, 1983).

The Missionary Call - from a Member Care Perspective PART I






INTRODUCTION

In this paper, we will focus on the missionary call. This topic will require some theological treatment. The main focus of this paper, however, is to address the missionary call within a member care focus. This paper focuses on the question of how the missionary call affects recruitment, screening and sustainment of missionaries on the field. What is the relationship between the missionary call and missionary attrition? Finally, what best practices can sending agencies implement based on what we know about the missionary call from a member care focus?





The Missionary Call: Its Existence

I have never personally met a missionary or a church that denied the existence of the missionary call. It seems largely agreed upon that the missionary call exists. The exact nature of this missionary call, however, is often disputed. J. Herbert Kane goes so far as to muse, “No aspect of the Christian mission is more puzzling than this problem of a call.”

Writers differ in regards to this call. Even among those writers who largely agree, particular emphases emerge. Knowing that definitions of the missionary call vary, my attempt is as follows: a missionary call is a strong desire upon a believer, based on God’s Word and confirmed by the larger body of Christ, to serve full-time as one who crosses cultures and gives the Gospel to peoples, tongues and tribes that do not yet have it.

In more detail, a missionary call is the desire to serve God among peoples that do not yet have the Gospel. This usually entails cross-cultural service. While some are called as pastors to existing churches within one’s own cultural con-text, the missionary call is a special call to cross cultures with the Gospel and help establish the church where it is absent or weak. The Great Commission was given to the church to fulfill and the church fulfills this commission through her designated representatives, whose gifts are confirmed by the larger corporate body of Christ. These “sent out ones” expand the kingdom of God where the light of the Gospel has not yet been introduced or has not yet taken hold. Many other writers similarly define the missionary call. William E. Goff gives this definition:

It is feasible to conclude that the missionary call is a specific role given to some to share Christ with the unreached peoples of the world. The call to be a pastor, for example, is to shepherd a particular flock of those who have been reached; in contrast, the missionary call relates to adding to the flock those who would also be saved.


The Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions defines the missionary call in the following manner:

All Christians are called to the service of the church with every part of their lives. But the missionary call is more than this. It is a special and unique call to full-time ministry. Simply put, the missionary call is the command of God and the setting apart by the Holy Spirit of an individual Christian to serve God in a culture, a geographical location, and, very likely, in a language very different from the missionary’s own. The personal recognition of this call comes from a growing conviction that God has set the recipient apart for this service. The result of this conviction is an intense desire to obey and go wherever God leads.

Differences of opinion will become apparent in many definition of a missio-nary call. This is due to differences of opinion when answering more basic questions. For instance, “Is the call necessarily to a different culture?” some will ask. What of “home missions?” Does one need to be called to “plant new churches” or can a mis-sionary call compel one to work in church-equipping roles or advisory roles where the church is already established but still young and weak? What about linguists, pilots, mechanics, dentists and the many specialists who serve overseas? Should they be called “missionaries?” Can one be called to clean teeth as a “ministry?” Or should we maintain a distinction between “missionaries” and those that perform “missionary support” roles? What is the difference between a missionary call and the Christian doctrine of vocation? Below are several more of these points of conflicting tensions.




Do you choose to be a missionary or are you chosen?

Thomas Hale in his book On Being a Missionary begins his chapter entitled “The call” with this paragraph:

Being a missionary begins with being called. You don’t choose to be a missionary; you’re called to be one. The only choice is whether to obey.


Is this statement true, can one who is truly called into missions actually dis-obey this call? If Hale’s statement was entirely true then we would witness missionaries being accepted into agencies who did not want to be accepted as well as thousands of “missionaries” sitting in their home churches, not obedient to the call. While Hale’s intention is to show the divine initiative in the call, he errs.

A person’s desires and drives should measure largely in any definition of a missionary call. Paul, in giving the qualifications of bishops and deacons (offices that presumably require a “call”), begins with the phrase, “If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good thing” (I Timothy 3:1b). Desire, therefore, appears to be an integral part of being “called” by God. Divine initiative is perfectly met with the hu-man response of desire. God’s sovereign choice of a missionary is in perfect harmony with the desires and sometimes intense longings of a missionary who is newly aware of his calling.

Motives play a vital part. Missionary candidates are often wracked with in-tense emotions and desires. J. Verkuyl in his volume Contemporary Missiology: An Introduction lists good and bad motives for missions. He lists such good motivations as obedience, love, mercy, pity, and others. Then he lists bad motivations such as im-perialist, colonial or commercial desires. Motives that cause one to serve as a missionary can be good or bad. A comprehensive list of “good” and “bad” motives is not desired here, but what is desired is to stress that motivations play a central role in the missionary call. One is never a mere passive and disinterested recipient of this missionary call and missionaries are highly driven and goal-oriented people. Getting to the field and staying on the field, after all, requires much deliberate effort towards specific goals.

What Thomas Hale is trying to emphasize by his quote, “You don’t choose to be a missionary; you’re called to be one. The only choice is whether to obey.” is that one does not merely choose to be a missionary alone. A missionary candidate’s desire is only part of the bigger picture. He desires and chooses missions because he is chosen and because God desires that he serve. We need not create any false dilemmas here. If a person is truly “called” into missions then this person’s desires and motivations match up with God’s desires. These desires are confirmed by His Word and seconded by the larger body of Christ. If a person “runs without being sent,” and embarks on a journey into missions in his own strength without the Divine Wind of calling he will quickly faint or be stopped in his journey.



A missionary call must be full-time?

J. Herbert Kane asserts that there exists a definite call to full-time Christian service and Christ’s disciples are our examples. They left their old lives and devoted all their time to fulltime service. When Kane stresses that this calling is a calling into “full-time service,” he seems to eliminate the possibility of continuing to work at old secular employments. Since the pattern of the early church was that those called were not to leave the ministry of the Word to wait tables, J. Herbert Kane stresses this “full-time” aspect as a necessary part to this missionary call.

The question that arises with this emphasis on “full-time” service as being a necessary component of the missionary call is this; why did Paul himself make tents? How do we affirm and encourage the many “tent-makers” who endure secular em-ployments in hard countries designated as “Restricted access” in order to spread the Gospel? These “tentmakers” have not left their secular professions and yet most would report feeling a call to missions that sustains them in their work.


Scriptural examples of God calling individuals into service - normative for us?

When speaking of the “callings” of God, distinctions must be made. First, there is the “general call” of the Gospel. Wherever the Gospel goes forth men are called to repent and believe. Only those possessing the “effectual call” of God, how-ever, come to faith. In this manner, all who are new creatures in Christ are “called to be saints,” as Romans 1:7 and many other Scriptures attest. Yet not all who are called to be saints are called to exercise church office or called for individual tasks.

In Scripture we have God calling individuals to specific tasks. In the Old Tes-tament, Isaiah and other prophets heard this call. In the New Testament, Jesus Himself called the disciples. Paul also was called by the audible voice of Jesus Himself.

The audible voice of God called some. Some were called by means of visions. Most missionary candidates, however, thankfully do not claim to receive their “call” by these extraordinary means. If a missionary candidate did claim to receive a call through the audible voice of God or in a vision, this would alarm most mission agen-cies. Most Protestant mission agencies agree that the normal means by which missionaries ascertain the call of God in their lives does not involve the hearing of the audible voice of God, visions, dream or trances. A large number of books on missions, however, when explaining the missionary call, focus on these very examples of the extraordinary call of God being received through dreams, visions and God’s audible voice, reinforcing the myth that a missionary needs to have some dramatic and even supernatural encounter to show that they are called. This lack of an “extraordinary call” may reinforce missionary candidates’ fears that what they are feeling and what their home church is affirming is somehow not enough.

J. Herbert Kane echoes this suspicion of “mystical” calls when he states, “The term missionary call should never have been coined. It is not Scriptural and therefore can be harmful. Thousands of youth desiring to serve the Lord have waited for some mysterious “missionary call” that never came.”

There is no need to wait for a vision or a trance. Our desires, in accord with the Word of God and the approval of the larg-er Body of Christ confirming that the missionary candidate is, in fact, appropriate and suitable for the desired task, are the main means by which God equips the harvest force. No missionary should have his confidence eaten away because they lack some spectacular call to missions. Solid member care requires doing away with false mys-tical notions of the call which may erode a missionary’s confidence. Agencies and churches need to communicate to candidates that an “ordinary call” is good enough.





An effort at formulating a definition


The scope of this paper is limited, and so the working definition of the missio-nary call will be as simple as possible and contain two basic elements, a desire to serve and a confirmation by others that one is suitable to serve. First, a strong desire to serve God cross-culturally where there is a lack of Gospel truth is needed. Second, a confirmation by Scripture and the larger body of Christ in the form of the missionary’s home church and sending agency is also essential.

More on the missionary call - LET US DEMYSTIFY IT!



I believe that false notions of the missionary call are a major hindrance to world missions. We need not be zapped, nor do we need to hear the audible voice of God, nor do we need to be struck by some over-powering subjective emotional perception.

WHAT THE MISSIONARY CALL IS NOT:

I have heard descriptions of the missionary call likened to the call of Isaiah or other Old Testament Prophets. This is unhelpful. If you are having visions of God, you do not need to become a missionary, you need a psychiatric evaluation.

Instead, we need (1) a desire for world missions, (2) in agreement with God's Word, and (3) confirmed by the larger Body of Christ. These factors appear essential in any definition of the "Missionary Call."

And PRAISE GOD, these factors are totally non-mystical.


YOU NEED A DESIRE TO GO:

The Apostle Paul himself tells us that if a man desires the office of a bishop, he desires a good thing. The same applies to missionary work. If a man or woman desires to be a missionary, then this is the first evidence of a possible missionary call. If it persists and it is nurtured and the person perseveres despite difficulties, these are all further evidences.

If you are worried that God will call you into missions even though you don't want to go - DON'T. This isn't going to happen. The road to the field is long and hard, and living on the field is often harder. God is only taking the willing. So, I will pray that he does not work against your will, but, rather, gives you a will that desires to serve in the neediest areas.


YOUR DESIRE MUST BE BIBLICAL:


This desire to take the Gospel to all nations is certainly biblical (Matthew 28).


YOUR DESIRE NEEDS TO BE CONFIRMED BY THE LARGER BODY OF CHRIST:

Now, if the larger body of Christ seconds and confirms your desire, then you have good evidence that what you feel is the missionary call.

This larger body of Christ should be as large as possible. Start with your own home church. They know you best and they know if you have the gifts and the personality attributes that would allow you to go and be effective on the field.

Also, don't disdain the input of the larger body of Christ. Mission organizations are almost always much more knowledgeable than local churches regarding what it takes to thrive cross-culturally, learn a new language, and adapt to foreign environments. This confirmation from the larger Body of Christ best comes first from one's local church and then can be further confirmed by a solid missionary organization. This larger organization will be very familiar with missionary struggles, and procedures (how to obtain visas, etc) and will be an invaluable aid as your local church struggles to send one of its own to the field.

Among Sovereign Grace folks we righfully hold dear the place of the local church, and I also hold dear to the same principle. However, sometimes Sovereign Grace churches get entirely too down on missionary organizations, missionary societies, and the like. We can talk about this in later posts, but for now let this be said: a local church in no way loses its authority if it seeks outside help to accomplish a task.



SUMMARY:

So there you have it. The Missionary Call is not a Divine Zapping, nor is it a psychotic hallucination. God works through means. And the means of calling a missionary is by the giving of information, which stirs up Godly ambitions and desires in the heart of the hearer, who then ponders whether he or she wants to serve as a missionary. The Bible confirms these desires as good. And, if the larger Body of Christ, starting with one's local church and then preferably including the larger body of Christ as a whole (i.e. missionary agency), confirms that the candidate has traits and skills fitting to the task, then that one should march forward towards service without any more hindering introspection.



Do YOU have a desire to serve?

The missionary call – what is it and to whom does it belong?




A confession

I confess, this is a partial retraction. A clarification. I have not so much been wrong, but I have been incomplete – and incompleteness regarding Scripture is often error. To give half the story is not to give the story at all.

What have I done? Virtually every month I have sent appeals such as this: “Have you ever wondered if you could be a missionary.” I have sent emails entitled, “An appeal for workers.” Very frequently I have urged individuals to look into God’s will for themselves and see if God is calling them into missions. I have been incessant.

What’s wrong with that?


Here is what is wrong: world missions is not the private and personal calling of a chosen few; it is a body of Christ decision. Missions is not the work of a separated few, but the work of the whole church.

My former appeals to individuals urging, “Pray about what God would have you to do” were well-motivated. These appeals, however, were incomplete as far as Scripture is concerned.

Incomplete? How?

In the New Testament, the calling of missionaries was much more than an individual or a married couple feeling some amorphous “call of God” and then pursuing it – informing their local church later, often as an afterthought. In contrast, the call of God was a “whole body” decision. The church called, the church separated, the church sent!

Today, here is a normal scenario: A young man desires to serve. He often waits to feel some sort of “call” to proceed. Once he feels this strange call (that presumably is more than just a firm conviction as seconded by Scripture and his home church) he applies to agencies. Sometimes during this process and oftentimes afterwards, he then informs his church – not for permission – but as part of his notification that he is now a missionary appointee. Now, in the loop, the local church begins to help and advise the appointee.

I personally knew one appointee family that were accepted and were a year and a half as appointees before their home church, presumably their sending-church-to-be, voted to support them.

What does it say about mission boards, home churches and the candidates if (1) sometimes mission organizations accept candidates who are largely unknown and untested in their local contexts, (2) potential candidates sometimes get halfway or more through the process even before informing their local church, and (3) local churches often are the last to know that God is calling someone up from among their very midst.



How does this contrast with the New Testament practice of sending?

Acts 13:2 “While they [the assembled church] were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them."

The assembled saints fasted, a deliberate act of preparation. The assembled saints set apart Paul and Barnabas. Later the assembled saints sent (literally, “released”) them to the Gentiles.

Paul speaks of himself as being set apart for the Gospel. He heard as much from the risen Christ in a trance (Acts 22:21) “I will send you far away to the Gentiles...” And yet, this Apostle still waited for his “home church” to send or release him. Immediately upon returning home, he also reported back to his “home church” concerning all he had seen and heard. Paul was no lone ranger. He was a servant of his church, who fulfilled the Great Commission through him.

Western Christianity has not only privatized their religion, but has also privatized the missionary call. Only now, as I have entered into another culture more communal in its worldview than my own, have I come to see this incompleteness. Wanna know about water...don’t ask a fish! He’s too close.

Missions and, indeed, all of church life is life in community. We are saved personally but are saved into the church. The Trinity, one God in three persons is our model; unity in the midst of diversity. As I labor in mission it is not I who am laboring, but it is the whole church who is laboring through me. Even more so, all this is not even accurately referred to as the mission of the church but is ultimately the mission of God Himself, the Missio Dei.

Every Christian is not a missionary, but missions is the focus of every Christian. In World War II, the whole nation worked as part of the war effort. Though the actual members of the Armed Forces were but a minority of the population as a whole, yet America was at war. The whole nation fought, through the efforts of those they sent. The nation called, the nation set apart, and the nation sent.

Many will object to what I am writing, “But Paul speaks of his own personal call; the Prophets did too.” Yes, in regards to salvation we are saved because we are called by God. Yes, in the Old Testament many prophets literally heard the audible voice of God recruiting them into service.

The same textual evidence is absent, however, regarding New Testament cross-cultural evangelism. When a “sending” occurs in the New Testament the focus is never on the person volunteering to be sent, but on those who send that person. Look at the evidence:


• Upon Judas’ betrayal and death the gathered assembly chose Matthias.

• Philip might have briefly worked alone at first, but "When the apostles that were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the Word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John..." (Acts 8:14-15).

• When the conflict with the Judaizers arose, the churches sent an official delegation and these were not only "brought on their way by the church" but were also "received of the church" when they arrived (Acts 15).

• In Acts 13:1-3, as quoted above, the assembled church chose and set apart those who would serve.

• After the Jerusalem council, Paul chooses Silas and they depart, being commended by the brethren (Act 15:40).

• The very next chapter mentions that Timothy, whom Paul chooses to work with, was also well-spoken of by the brethren.




In the New Testament we do not have a volunteer system based on individual appeals at all; if forced between one extreme or another I would have to call the method of New Testament sending more like a draft!



Now what?



Okay, so I have hereby printed a clarification to my incessant appeals for more missionaries to join me. What now? Do I cease my appeals?

Not on your life!

Instead, now my appeals have more force and Biblical backing. These appeals are not merely given to lone individuals to navel gaze and try to discern some intangible missionary call. Now these appeals can be backed up by the authority of local churches!

In no way have I ceased my recruitment efforts, but I now seek a stronger ally, the key agent in the evangelization of the world – the local church!

Churches, pastors, and elders, please consider these steps. They require boldness and much prayer, yet they mirror New Testament practice. In Matthew 28 the Great Commission was given to the representatives of the church. In Acts 1, the command to go to the ends of the earth was given to the assembled representatives of the church. Churches - this command now belongs to you!




A bold plan: Churches, set apart your people!

I challenge you pastors, elders and churches, set apart those whom God is calling among you! If the early church deliberately fasted and prayed and sought God’s will in reference to this, shouldn’t we? If they were so bold as to seek, identify and set apart gifted individuals, shouldn’t we? If they owned their role in world missions aside from mere financial support, shouldn’t we?

Send me your own!





NOTE: I do not want to belittle “the missionary call,” only investigate it more and free it from being shackled to the myth that a powerful subjective certainty is its key feature. I rejoice for those who are “set in their minds” that they are called into missions; I merely want this to be backed up by the larger body of Christ. In the ReMAP study of missionary attrition it was recommended that agencies screen for “a clear missionary call” (however defined by the missionary) and those agencies that did not screen for such a call suffered twice the level of attrition (published in, Too Valuable to Lose).