FAULTY AND DESTRUCTIVE MISSIONARY PRACTICES
A MISSIONARY DILEMMA
--this article was written by Fred Nimmo, former Baptist missionary to Alaska: "This paper is written at the request of many pastors, friends, and missionaries. It is not meant to be a complete work covering all mission fields. It is, however, my observations from several years in Alaska, and it does not necessarily reflect other mission fields.I am not criticizing because I have made most of these mistakes myself and have learned by experience. However, after talking with other missionaries and pastors, and consulting many books, I find that some of the same problems are true in other areas as well."
Jesus Christ was a church builder. So was Paul and all his team. Christ died for the churches as we read in Acts 20:28. If this be so, then all of his present-day missionaries should be doing the same. How did Christ build his first ekklesia? We must find this out and duplicate His methods.
As we look at present-day missionary methods, we can see that so little is happening around the world; and especially in North America. There are hundreds of missionaries, but it seems that indigenous churches can be counted on one hand after 250 to 300 years of Gospel ministry. I began to ask myself, "Why?" I wondered why my ministry was not any more productive than the ministry of those of the past. After much careful research and a restudy of the Bible, I have come to the conclusion that there are so many things that have become a hindrance to building indigenous churches. It is no wonder that there are virtually none among the native inhabitants in this part of the world. Below, I hope to enumerate some of them.
There is a basic change that takes place from the classroom to the foreign field. It is subtle. I suppose all the Bible schools teach the missionary methods of Paul; but they are not practiced on the field. I believe I know why this happens.
1. There is a definite lack of trust of the native people and native Christians on the part of the missionary, and the missionary society. (It is not a lack of love, concern, or zeal for his soul.) This causes them to keep the native people, Christian and non-Christian alike, at a distance.
2. There is usually a lack of understanding of the people to be reached.
3. There is a failure to treat them as an equal, or to properly respect them. There is a failure to recognize the good qualities of their culture. We can learn so much from them.
4. A missionary almost without fail, goes in among the people independent of them rather than being dependent on them. The missionary and the people are almost invariably worlds apart financially. By this I mean that he goes in fully supported, buys his goods, food, clothes, etc., from the outside world and brings in loads of items which makes him look super-rich in the eyes of the people. This results in building a "little America" in a foreign land. It may be a necessity to protect the family, but it is a hindrance in the long run. When crisis comes, he leaves. Always his strong permanent ties are with home and family elsewhere. This makes the native people feel uncomfortable. It says to the native man, "You don't like my food. You don't like my clothes. You don't like my way of life. You don't like my country; therefore you don't like me." "Therefore, I don't like you, I hope you get out of my land!"
5. There is a lack on the part of the missionary of understanding that he is in a foreign land, even though he might be in Alaska, Navajo land, Canada or Greenland, etc. The missionary should learn to play down his own culture.
6. Feeling sorry for them, because of their background, culture, or economics.
7. Becoming an over-indulging parent to the people. This results in oversupplying their needs, and actually perpetuating a covert type of rejection. The people can feel this but are not able to explain it. They know that it is there. This is paternalism.
8. Never permitting them to stand on their own two feet. This cheats them out of exercising the faith God has given to them, even as you and me. This creates a dependency factor in the people and causes them to look to the missionary, society, and the U.S. in an improper fashion. This keeps them babes in Christ and denies them many basic tenets of the Bible. This causes the missionary to be the Christ, instead of Christ being the Provider as He said He would do. All the missionary has to do is supposedly say a prayer to God, write home in his monthly letters, state numerous needs, get the churches and pastors to provide them, and the people don't have to do a thing. The new reading of Philippians 4:19 is "But my missionary shall supply all my needs according to his riches in the headquarters by the mission board." Then we wonder why they say it is the "white man's religion."
In this instance, it is. It surely is not his own. He has made no investment into it. The missionary handles the offerings, signs all the checks, handles all the legal papers, so he becomes the boss, pays all the bills, pays men to preach for him, doles out the food, clothes, medicine, and other services. He becomes the religious welfare agent. What is almost universally practiced in Alaska and the north, is a Christianized, Socialistic, Religious Welfare System. I can see no basic difference in this and what the government is doing. Overgiving and destroying their initiative is the end result. The people should handle their own finances, and the missionary should put his tithes and offerings in his home church that sent him out. This would eliminate loads of problems and financial difficulties on the foreign field if this method were practiced.
9. As you can see, all the foregoing sets up a foreign element in the city or village, and also a foreign religion. Naturally the people resent this. I can understand and sympathize with their feelings. Of course, this requires a foreign agent to handle all of its affairs.
10. Another problem is that the church that is started in this manner is never their own. It is always controlled by a source outside the city or village; whether it be controlled by a bishop, another country, or a religious organization. They are never independent and on their own. This sets up an episcopal type of church government instead of the Theocratic and congregational type. This is something Baptists have always rejected, but somehow they enthusiastically support it on the foreign field. How many times have you heard someone say, "I have so many churches that I oversee." "They are in my care," says the modern missionary. Is this what the Bible teaches? Is there a double standard?- one for independent churches in the U.S. and another for the foreign field?
11. Calling in another missionary when he leaves, or goes on furlough, thus telling the people that they are not capable of handling their own affairs or making decisions for their future. The native people reject this.
12. Never commending them to the Lord on whom they believe. See: Acts 14:21-23. Commend means to take them out of the care or bank account of the starting church and missionary, and depositing the new baby church into the account of God who alone is able to take care of them. Then the missionary's job becomes one of encouraging, praying for, writing letters to, visiting them occasionally and building them up in the faith.
This makes a church indigenous, or self-supporting, self-governing, and self-propagating. Because Christ is now its head, it has a pastor from the native people and they can pray directly to God. He is all they need. Just as we feel here in the states and sing the song "He's
All I Need;" so can they. We never permit churches on the foreign field to become Bible Believing Baptist churches making their own decisions. There is one native church in Alaska that has made their own decision concerning buying and selling land by the natives themselves and a purchase of a $600.00 printing set. Not a dime was asked, expected, or received from the missionary. They are also considering a Bible school and sending out missionaries themselves.
13. Not leaving at God's appointed time. A missionary should go into a place with the people expecting him to leave shortly. They are immediately geared to the idea that they must take over, and that the missionary won't be there to do it for him. Many missionaries stay on and on, and thus become the added element (or cancer) that hinders or possibly destroys the church he started by never turning it over to native leadership.
14. This point is closely related to point 13. Many missionaries consider never leaving their field, or going with the philosophy that I will die there. God never intended this; for if we follow the plan of the apostle Paul; he went on to other cities preaching the Word. So the missionary of God must move on to other places.
15. Owning the property of the church on the foreign field is a great hindrance to them. They have a built-in resentment of this. We have disdain for the financial institutions who hold the mortgages of properties in our country. It is multiplied in the minds of the native baby Christians in other lands of someone in the U.S. owns and has legal title to their property.
It means that if that new church doesn't go along with the owners at home they can be evicted from their churches. That is why we have the independent Baptist movement. This actually happens all the time among the Indians and Eskimos of North America. Some headquarters, somewhere, thousands of miles from the native people own what the native people should own. The churches on the field should pay for, build, and operate their own buildings. But the hangup comes when the property is owned by a foreign missionary society; then the outside element has to pay for the building. The native people will not and do not see the need of paying for or taking care of someone else's building. Another great hindrance is overbuilding.
The money is raised in the states and pays for "their" building; which is usually too large, too elaborate, too much of a western style and not fitting into their own background and the type they could and would care for.
16. Therefore, I believe one of the best things we can do for a new native church in a foreign culture, is to operate on the "don't give them a dime" theory. This way, they expect no handouts and immediately become dependent on Christ and not on the missionary. This builds a self respect which is so badly needed among the native of North America.
17. Building a church on a denomination, idea, philosophy and/or on the missionary instead of on Christ and the Bible. I Corinthians 3:11.
18. Pushing a system on the people that they do not want. They usually get more than the gospel. They get provincialisms from all parts of the states and Europe: holidays, christmas trees, traditions, dogs, cats, bugs, hangups, diseases and ideas they don't need; all in the name of Christianity.
2. There is usually a lack of understanding of the people to be reached.
3. There is a failure to treat them as an equal, or to properly respect them. There is a failure to recognize the good qualities of their culture. We can learn so much from them.
4. A missionary almost without fail, goes in among the people independent of them rather than being dependent on them. The missionary and the people are almost invariably worlds apart financially. By this I mean that he goes in fully supported, buys his goods, food, clothes, etc., from the outside world and brings in loads of items which makes him look super-rich in the eyes of the people. This results in building a "little America" in a foreign land. It may be a necessity to protect the family, but it is a hindrance in the long run. When crisis comes, he leaves. Always his strong permanent ties are with home and family elsewhere. This makes the native people feel uncomfortable. It says to the native man, "You don't like my food. You don't like my clothes. You don't like my way of life. You don't like my country; therefore you don't like me." "Therefore, I don't like you, I hope you get out of my land!"
5. There is a lack on the part of the missionary of understanding that he is in a foreign land, even though he might be in Alaska, Navajo land, Canada or Greenland, etc. The missionary should learn to play down his own culture.
6. Feeling sorry for them, because of their background, culture, or economics.
7. Becoming an over-indulging parent to the people. This results in oversupplying their needs, and actually perpetuating a covert type of rejection. The people can feel this but are not able to explain it. They know that it is there. This is paternalism.
8. Never permitting them to stand on their own two feet. This cheats them out of exercising the faith God has given to them, even as you and me. This creates a dependency factor in the people and causes them to look to the missionary, society, and the U.S. in an improper fashion. This keeps them babes in Christ and denies them many basic tenets of the Bible. This causes the missionary to be the Christ, instead of Christ being the Provider as He said He would do. All the missionary has to do is supposedly say a prayer to God, write home in his monthly letters, state numerous needs, get the churches and pastors to provide them, and the people don't have to do a thing. The new reading of Philippians 4:19 is "But my missionary shall supply all my needs according to his riches in the headquarters by the mission board." Then we wonder why they say it is the "white man's religion."
In this instance, it is. It surely is not his own. He has made no investment into it. The missionary handles the offerings, signs all the checks, handles all the legal papers, so he becomes the boss, pays all the bills, pays men to preach for him, doles out the food, clothes, medicine, and other services. He becomes the religious welfare agent. What is almost universally practiced in Alaska and the north, is a Christianized, Socialistic, Religious Welfare System. I can see no basic difference in this and what the government is doing. Overgiving and destroying their initiative is the end result. The people should handle their own finances, and the missionary should put his tithes and offerings in his home church that sent him out. This would eliminate loads of problems and financial difficulties on the foreign field if this method were practiced.
9. As you can see, all the foregoing sets up a foreign element in the city or village, and also a foreign religion. Naturally the people resent this. I can understand and sympathize with their feelings. Of course, this requires a foreign agent to handle all of its affairs.
10. Another problem is that the church that is started in this manner is never their own. It is always controlled by a source outside the city or village; whether it be controlled by a bishop, another country, or a religious organization. They are never independent and on their own. This sets up an episcopal type of church government instead of the Theocratic and congregational type. This is something Baptists have always rejected, but somehow they enthusiastically support it on the foreign field. How many times have you heard someone say, "I have so many churches that I oversee." "They are in my care," says the modern missionary. Is this what the Bible teaches? Is there a double standard?- one for independent churches in the U.S. and another for the foreign field?
11. Calling in another missionary when he leaves, or goes on furlough, thus telling the people that they are not capable of handling their own affairs or making decisions for their future. The native people reject this.
12. Never commending them to the Lord on whom they believe. See: Acts 14:21-23. Commend means to take them out of the care or bank account of the starting church and missionary, and depositing the new baby church into the account of God who alone is able to take care of them. Then the missionary's job becomes one of encouraging, praying for, writing letters to, visiting them occasionally and building them up in the faith.
This makes a church indigenous, or self-supporting, self-governing, and self-propagating. Because Christ is now its head, it has a pastor from the native people and they can pray directly to God. He is all they need. Just as we feel here in the states and sing the song "He's
All I Need;" so can they. We never permit churches on the foreign field to become Bible Believing Baptist churches making their own decisions. There is one native church in Alaska that has made their own decision concerning buying and selling land by the natives themselves and a purchase of a $600.00 printing set. Not a dime was asked, expected, or received from the missionary. They are also considering a Bible school and sending out missionaries themselves.
13. Not leaving at God's appointed time. A missionary should go into a place with the people expecting him to leave shortly. They are immediately geared to the idea that they must take over, and that the missionary won't be there to do it for him. Many missionaries stay on and on, and thus become the added element (or cancer) that hinders or possibly destroys the church he started by never turning it over to native leadership.
14. This point is closely related to point 13. Many missionaries consider never leaving their field, or going with the philosophy that I will die there. God never intended this; for if we follow the plan of the apostle Paul; he went on to other cities preaching the Word. So the missionary of God must move on to other places.
15. Owning the property of the church on the foreign field is a great hindrance to them. They have a built-in resentment of this. We have disdain for the financial institutions who hold the mortgages of properties in our country. It is multiplied in the minds of the native baby Christians in other lands of someone in the U.S. owns and has legal title to their property.
It means that if that new church doesn't go along with the owners at home they can be evicted from their churches. That is why we have the independent Baptist movement. This actually happens all the time among the Indians and Eskimos of North America. Some headquarters, somewhere, thousands of miles from the native people own what the native people should own. The churches on the field should pay for, build, and operate their own buildings. But the hangup comes when the property is owned by a foreign missionary society; then the outside element has to pay for the building. The native people will not and do not see the need of paying for or taking care of someone else's building. Another great hindrance is overbuilding.
The money is raised in the states and pays for "their" building; which is usually too large, too elaborate, too much of a western style and not fitting into their own background and the type they could and would care for.
16. Therefore, I believe one of the best things we can do for a new native church in a foreign culture, is to operate on the "don't give them a dime" theory. This way, they expect no handouts and immediately become dependent on Christ and not on the missionary. This builds a self respect which is so badly needed among the native of North America.
17. Building a church on a denomination, idea, philosophy and/or on the missionary instead of on Christ and the Bible. I Corinthians 3:11.
18. Pushing a system on the people that they do not want. They usually get more than the gospel. They get provincialisms from all parts of the states and Europe: holidays, christmas trees, traditions, dogs, cats, bugs, hangups, diseases and ideas they don't need; all in the name of Christianity.
Good article with many points to ponder. One thing stood out right away. Could you comment on treating the people more equally and avoiding creating a superiority complex?
Reply to this
Dear Brother,
Thank you so much for taking the time to enter my personal blog and consider some of the issues that are important to me. I hope that I will always be able to manifest the priority of God's glory, Christ's preeminence, and a Spirit-wrought disposition of total commitment and surrender to the will of God. Furthermore, I appreciate you taking the time to write, and by so doing, give me an opportunity to share some things that are dear to my heart. As you know, I do not have many answers for the missionary problems that we face. However, I have been in full time missionary service since I left worldly employment and sold a side business back in July of 1991. In God's providence, I have been involved in mission work in at least 12 different countries. I have studied the Scriptures and read after many men. I have been instructed by several mentors. I have seen the successes and failures of dozens of men. Besides that, I have committed many errors, and by God's grace, enjoyed some success all to the glory of God. Having said that, yes, I do have some perspective on this issue.
The superiority complex exists because there is by nature in men a superiority and/or inferiority complex. This is a part of man's internal corruption that occurred as a consequence of the fall of Adam in the Garden of Eden. Though foolish according to the Scriptures, most men judge themselves among themselves, and the inevitable result of such a practice is a superiority and/or inferiority complex (2Corinthians 10:12). Natural men and human races tend to view themselves either as superior or inferior to other men and races, and this for many reasons. We will leave those reasons for another discussion.
The scope of this answer is to show forth how we can avoid giving the idea of personal or racial superiority when being involved in cross-cultural missions. In other words, how can we avoid coming off as superior when entering a culture that is not natively our own? I would like to offer a few suggestions to enhance and improve cross-cultural, incarnational ministry:
About fifty years ago, there was a book published entitled, "The Ugly American." It was an attempt to bring to light the disdain of the world for the perceived pride, arrogance, and superiority of the average American, particularly those who labored internationally and interacted regularly with foreign languages, peoples, and cultures. The title, "The Ugly American," was not arbitarily placed upon the Yankee with undue cause, but was justly earned through his attitudes and actions toward foreigners. Today, the perception of Americans by other countries is mainly through the movies and programs of Holywood. Much of the world believes that EVERYONE in America lives just like those in the Holywood movies: rich, egotistical, pampered, spoiled, arrogant, self-indulgent, etc. Therefore the cross-cultural worker never starts off working with an unbiased people, but with a people who have already come to the conclusion that Americans are culturally superior even as has been communicated through their movies, magazines, and other propaganda. As a missionary, I must admit, it is never easy to overcome all of this "prejudice." The God-called, church-sent missionary must be very careful to present a Biblical image of Christ in His humble servanthood, and not a self-indulgent, arrogant, condescending image of mainstream Hollywood, so that we can finally through God's enablement, bring the message of salvation to other ethnic groups that reside in cultures that are so geographically close, but yet so foreign to us. May God grant us grace to humble ourselves, to make ourselves of no reputation, and to incarnationally enter into cross-cultural ministry with greater effectivity without causing so many human offenses. Lord, please do it for the glory of your holy name and for the salvation of your elect!
Reply to this