Overseas and foreign missions?
That’s sexy.
It seems risqué. Muscular. Athletic.
Like a cologne commercial with the Marlboro man (without the smoke, of course!).
Anyone doing it instantly seems a few degrees more attractive.
Much like those who pop their collars with confidence. (Call the paparazzi ’cause this must be cataloged!)
It unearths thoughts of early pioneers–of people who stood fast and got things done.
Leather chests. Weathered hands. A courageous spirit. You know, people that look like Ralph Lauren models, but with beards.
There are big send-offs. Whole churches praying with lots of hands on the missionary family. Teary-eyed goodbyes. Lots of good food at the potlucks.
It awakens admiration from boys and girls. “Daddy, I wanna be just like them when I grow up,” the little ones say.
And then the family comes home on furlough for a few months or a year.
Mission stories. Scars. Death defying obstacles that were overcome. Languages learned.
That’s really hot.
Inspiration.
People give money to that stuff. Movies are made about those people.
Local mission work that doesn’t require a plane ticket?
Meh.
It needs a new publicist. Oh, and a new agent as well.
No big send-offs and teary-eyed goodbyes.
Instead, there’s life.
There’s 9 to 5’s.
There are neighbors.
Birthday parties.
Coffee Shops.
Local diners.
Libraries.
Barbecues.
Nothing to write home about.
It’s over-looked. Not romantic.
Definitely not sexy.
Nobody dreams of doing this.
It’s life in the valley.
I admire those who go overseas, for sure. But sometimes I think Jesus has been sitting across the street for a longer time waiting to meet us.
Sorry, Rodlie, the two types of mission cannot and should not be opposed. This is a skewed perspective.
Hi Chris. What kind of perspective do you feel I’m presenting?
While I mostly agree with the points you bring up here, there is another side to this.
When people participate in missions overseas, they are indeed sacrificing in a way that those remain stateside may not be. Missionaries must leave (or at the very least put on hold) their jobs, education, and spend considerable time away from their family and friends. (Trust me, this is not an easy thing to do). They immerse themselves in a culture very different from their own in order to make a difference. And many times, the territories they are sent to have very little Adventist and/or Christian presence. As groups like AFM have pointed out, our tendency is to continually pour out the vast majority of our resources (time, money, and manpower) to work local territories that have already been saturated with the gospel, while there are entire fields that have not even so much as heard of the gospel.
Instead of working a comfortable 9 to 5 job making decent money, or advancing personal pursuits (degrees, promotions, buying houses/cars, etc.), overseas missionaries volunteer themselves to minister full-time. Often, with very little, if any, compensation. And yes, many times, with very little, if any, recognition.
So while I agree with you in seeking to commend those that sacrifice their time, money, and personal pursuits in order to serve as full-time missionaries locally, we don’t need to minimize the sacrifice of overseas missionaries in order to do so. Blessings!
I agree with you 100%, Steve.
I would just say a few things that perhaps warrant some clarification:
This was a tongue-in-cheek piece for me. Slightly poetic and satirical and should not be taken too seriously.
That being said, what I was trying to critique was the mentality that “missions” = overseas, which is a very common assumption in the Christian church in the West. We view missions primarily through the filter of going to some third world place. I didn’t get into all this of course, but many don’t realize that North America, for example, has become the largest English-speaking mission field in the world. And the 4th or 5th largest overall in the world.
My issue is when we do not acknowledge that the same missionary stance that is warranted to send someone overseas is a the same that is needed locally.
Here’s a great quote from EGW (Ms 75, 1896) that gets into this issue:
“But at the present time there is more work than can possibly be done, fruit to gather, right at our own door. Here was one point given me in Switzerland where our brethren wanted to go way off to commence work in Germany when they had not worked right around in Basel and in places all around there. Well, they had written to Brother Butler, and he [had] said, Go along. Well, Brother Butler should have kept his voice to himself, because we were right on the ground where we knew all about the matter. But they could not be held; they were going to go. That night a dream came to me, and the dream was: We were berrying, and here were different companies that were to gather these berries. And right around where the wagon was stationed, the supplies were in the wagon, and those that would wander way off to get the berries got nothing, but they were very eager to be sure to get their supplies, and so they would come back to get their supplies. But close by the wagon were bushes loaded with the most beautiful berries, and they had been falling off and off. And they wandered. Why did not they come here before, why did not they come before, why did they leave these fields unworked? Why did they leave these cities unworked? It seemed to me I felt such a solemnity, such a distress, and I kept gathering the berries, and I had some to bring into the wagon, but the rest seemed to be wandering off and leaving the work right at hand.”
I love foreign missionaries and the sacrifice that they do. I truly honor them. Let’s just expand our definition of what constitutes missions and work accordingly.
Thanks for the dialogue!
Fun read. 🙂 I would not put it in such “black&white” terms though…Not all overseas missions are ‘hollywoodish’ and heroic for the missionary’s sake/resume – (see the thousands of baptisms reported within some remote (African?) tribes…or the 1-year “all-inclusive mission trips” on some nice tropical islands drinking coconut juice and studying the book of Jonah with the indigenous peeps)… On the other hand, not all local missions find their identity and purpose in the Great Commission…many lack common-sensical reasoning and approach…many 8 to 5s are not interested in more than the juicy barbecues and football games that entertain. We should attempt to work tirelessly for bringing people here AND those overseas to a place where they can meet, greet and follow Jesus.
Amen! Thanks, Eddie.
It was fun to write and stir the pot a little as well.
Have to get some dialogue going 😉
By the way check out some of the other comments I made for further clarification.
My comment wasn’t meant as a critique, but as mere feedback…my two cents…:) .I agree with you that we shouldn’t think globally without first thinking locally about missions ! I always enjoy what you write, my friend! 🙂
I understood you correctly Rodlie, it seems that you were addressing appearances of local vs overseas missions, and not the true value of each. I think you make a valid point, the liturgical affirmation of churches, and church structures, seems to champion those who engage in over seas missions over local. In my experience, churches tend to lionise overseas missionaries, and quietly dismiss urban missionaries (if they are even recognised.)
In the post European colonial missions era of the 20th century, most would agree that multi-directional missions is needed. We need Christians engaging in missions from Accra to Seattle, and New York to Timbuktu. With 75% of Christians based in Latin America, Asia and Africa I think it’s time we encouraged more international local missions. I believe it would be more effective, more cost-effective, and reduce the imperialism associated with over-seas mission programs.
You got it exactly!! Whew! 🙂
And I like the line you mention about urban vs overseas missionaries. What is an urban or local missionary? That word hasn’t even entered the lexicon of what most churches understand. We have to change that, Andreas!
Andreas you hit the nail on the head. I think most people beleive they do overseas missions out of the goodness of their hearts. Many times not realizing that their notions of the “uneducated” savage may be a bit misplaced and paternal. Your comment probably flew over many heads not because of any negative motive, but a sociological lack of understanding the dynamics of the politics of superiority in a mission context. The question remains why not let natives witness to their own people. If there is no presence there then sure send missionaries to get things started but then leave it to them to reach out to their own people whom they know better, understand better, and don’t have to spend 10 years just learning the language and the culture just to have a conversation.
Rodlie,
The issue is not overseas/home mission, or even city/country. As other above have already mentioned, this is a B/W picture while reality is very colorful. However, those are surface differences while the issue is deeper: we DO mission, we PLAN mission, we SCHEDULE mission, but it is not who we ARE. Because when mission is part of who you ARE, then all those surface aspects become irrelevant. As long as we consider mission as something separate from/within Christianity we are on the wrong track. My concern is that I see too many new converts for whom mission is something that comes later. Or never. But I also see some for whom mission is their reason d’etre from the inception, long before baptism. These are the true missionaries, the long runners. It doesn’t matter if they are at home, in the mission field overseas, or on the way. They ARE missionaries.
Hi Chris. Not sure if you read all the comments or not, which help to clarify what I’m saying, but my post and your concern are addressing two different things.
You’re saying that it’s a heart issue and central to what Christianity is about. It’s not something we should do, it’s what we are. I believe that. Not sure if you’re a regular subscriber to this blog, but I’ve written quite a bit about missional theology, which describes this view point.
What I’m addressing is one of the other tenants of missional ideology–that the western world has become one of the primary mission fields of the world. Whether or not a church believes that will affect their methodology. For example, if I believe that I’m just speaking to other Christians, I will use certain kind of language. If, however, I believe that I’m speaking with a completely secular person, that will affect my communication. My theology and worldview affects my methodology.
So what is often heard in churches is that we must “do” mission, and by mission that means going overseas. So a church might have a missionary posture towards overseas work, but they might not have a missionary posture towards the place where they live, because they don’t acknowledge that the west has become a mission field.
I agree with what you’re saying. My critique is against the reality of how many churches and Christians believe. I’ve seen this in churches that I’ve pastored.
Rodlie,
I read your posts about missional church. But you follow the trend of missional church literature, nothing new. I am surprised that you don’t see the connection between the lack of true Christianity (call it missional if you want) and the view that “true” mission is overseas. And let me slightly disagree with you: a truly missional church will not see “real” mission only overseas. So we are talking about the same issue. One more thing: this “overseas” view is found mostly in the Western part of the world (which by the way represents a tiny fraction of Christianity globally). Here in the East where I serve as missionary people think of mission both in “own backyard” terms and cross-culturally. It is mainly during Sabbath School’s Mission feature that people get an imbalanced view of mission (because of a Western worldview that separates local from global). Let me add one more insight from the East: locals know better how to do mission here, than Westerners who thought they invented the wheel. Tongue in cheek, you said, here it is 🙂
And one more thing, Rodlie: check the church’s budget. That’s a reality check. You will see how much is spent on local expenses, compared with how much is sent to overseas mission.
I also remember when Benton Harbor ministries started, you should have seen the enthusiasm of PMC members. On the other hand, it is only normal for people to be impressed by stories and people coming from cross-cultural mission, we react to sensationalism.
Rodlie! This is fantastic. This is the stuff of life. I think we comfort ourselves to think the “sexy” is the only way because we’re afraid of being rejected or being pigeonholed by secular people. But that fear is a veneer, and underneath, I have found at least in my own life, the real issue is the lack of utter abandon of the heart, mind, emotions, and decision-making power, to Christ. His will. His purposes. We have a toe or a limb on the altar, but have not yet placed our whole selves upon it.
I serve as a local elder, and I had another member tell me that she *knows* that witnessing is not her gift. That her gift is to give money so that others can go witness. That perception that witnessing is a gift, or something people do “over there”, that they are paid to do, and not a fundamental and defining characteristic of a genuinely Christ-filled layperson – something that must begin “here”, in my heart, my life, in my community – is a huge problem.
Thanks for that comment. And that’s the point I’m trying to make. That the West is a mission field as well. Some do have to board a plane to do mission, but sometime we just need to cross the street. 🙂