Recently there has been a lot of talk around the internet and blog-osphere about MISSIONS. Mostly I’ve seen people hashing out the million ways it’s being done wrong: wrecking culture, producing dependency, maligning the name of Christ, etc. Really bad stuff- and really going on in some places.
Naturally, I find the whole discussion fascinating.
There is certainly and undeniably a reason why the Church at large is having a second look at missions. And this is possibly one of the most positive aspects of the whole discussion- people are looking at missions. I’m hoping this has the same effect that a movie production does for book sales. Let’s face it, few of us read the classics until the movie comes out. Maybe this spotlight on missions will propel a new wave of missionaries into the world. As people have the opportunity to consider and critique world missions, maybe they’ll feel compelled to head out here themselves.
The thoughts expressed by interested bloggers have been really interesting. MORE interesting have been the comments these posts have generated. Everyone has an opinion about how Missions should be done- and this is (usually) a great thing. HOWEVER, one observation I’d like to throw out into cyberspace (let’s go ahead and call it my “two cents”):
It’s no more possible to generalize Missions than it is to delineate parenting and project the definite outcome. Or the future. Or war. Or the working out of our faith in Christ. Because those things make up missions. And adding the aspect of cross-cultural to Missions means increasing the variables and uncertainty.
Let’s absolutely dialogue about Missions and how to do it better. But let’s bear in mind that Missions is about people and people don’t fit well into absolute formulas.
I challenge you to look- really look at world missions. Look at what is being done poorly. Look at what is being done well. Then ask the hard question:
“God, how should I be involved?”
Good Old Fashioned Hand Written Code by Eric J. Schwarz