Revisiting the Term "Missionary"
An Article I Wrote a Few Years Ago for Common Grounds (slightly edited as my theology has somewhat evolved since then)
Many of us who will read this have been known as “missionaries.” I currently live in Nepal. Indeed, I have spent most of my adult life in various countries teaching the Gospel. According to the Oxford dictionary, a missionary is “a person who is sent to a foreign country to teach people about religion, especially Christianity.” There is nothing wrong with that, especially if the people do not know Jesus, as long as the teaching is done respectfully. Many have gone and risked their lives and indeed taught people about Jesus and the Gospel.
While Matthew 28:19-20 is an important verse, we should still be cautious about how we talk about “missions.” Once the seed has been planted, the goal should be to raise up local Christians who can take up the mantle of leadership. As well-intentioned as we Westerners are, we will never be as connected as the locals are to their own people. The locals will know how to best reach their communities. The most effective missionaries adapt to the local culture, adopt their mores, learn the language, and blend in as best they can. Sadly, these tend to be the minority, and even with the most committed missionaries, no one can replace a local.
As Westerners, we need to be wary of the pride and sense of superiority that comes with the term “missionary.” Sharing our stories back home may bring us kudos, but in many cases, missionaries have done more harm than good, replicating a misguided colonial leadership style that is reminiscent of white supremacy or “the white man’s burden.”
Those of us from former colonial powers tend to sin the most in this way (and I include myself in that number). Due to our financial advantage, we exert an undue amount of power. The local people we are trying to reach hesitate to speak up out of fear of losing the financial support of the wealthier missionaries. This dynamic can be very toxic and can stunt church growth in the long term.
As we reach out to communities around the world, our goal should be one of mutual respect, mutual learning, and mutual edification. The apostle Peter reminds us to "revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" (1 Pet 3:15 NIV). We have so much to learn from the people we sometimes erroneously view as being in need of our knowledge!
When leaders from generous Western churches visit congregations they are supporting, the teaching and learning should be a two-way street. We in the West have much to learn from less affluent ministers who have successfully reached their own local community. We should not assume that our giving automatically makes us the teacher. We are simply partners. Let us be bridge-builders, connectors, and influencers, but let us also be eager to learn and listen in return. We can show respect to our brothers and sisters around the world, not just in word but also in the way we act towards them.
Addendum (written today): I have now come to believe that financial support of churches in less affluent nations is harmful long-term. If the money were sent to support the materially poor, then it would be a case of simply sharing our wealth, and that is biblically good. However, most of the money sent by Western churches goes to salaries of church staff and other infrastructure, such as church buildings, conferences, etc.
All too often, the money becomes a source of blackmail. I have heard it said many times, “If you do not do what we say, we will stop sending money.” That is manipulative and controlling, also very disrespectful.
Sending money in the early days of a church planting, or to support those who need financial help, is a good thing. It is right to share, but creating an unhealthy dependence long-term (20, 30, or more years after the initial planting) is detrimental to the growth of the local church. Indeed, it stunts it. I have seen this pattern repeated many times. Money can also muddle the motives of the local staff.
The local church needs to be given the tools and the training to become self-supported. It is possible to do so. I have seen great examples of that, and those churches are thriving.
Once again, thank you Nadine for talking about such issues. The funny thing is, many have always been able to see this, but felt helpless to do anything about it, so I'm glad it's being brought out into the open. Not to shame anyone but to give clear vision to those in power. The blackmail bit you mentioned really is so so bad, it is really a form of control, where emotional abuse is used to manipulate a vulnerable and less wealthy congregation, in the name of Christianity.
Appreciate this. I can say I sensed and experienced a variety impacts - intended or inadvertent - including transference of cultural practice, language and values of the missionary culture into the local church. Sometimes locals saw these as superior.
There was - and I still think is - a sense that Western missionaries only learn by what they observe - like how happy and grateful the poor can be in their third world lives - but a non-white person has nothing teach them. They can’t possibly be wiser than they.
Indeed a sad statistic is that non-white congregations will accept white leaders - but white congregations will not easily accept non-white leaders if at all.
This has long been the status quo in the Western world and in its mission grounds.
Ironically, the Western form of Christianity is on the wane - the global south is seeing great growth in the faith - and much of it home grown. There seems to be a shift underway both theologically and politically. But time will tell.