Why I’m Still an Old-School Missionary

I’m a missionary, though I can’t but feel I’m of the old school. I have this notion that it is my duty to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with those who have never heard. It’s the view I’ve always held. It’s a general, though not all-encompassing, definition of what a missionary does. It was also at one time generally accepted by the evangelical church. I’ve been in the mission field full-time for over a decade, serving both in Central America and West Africa. I’ve learned a great deal from my experiences, but readily concede that there is still much to learn. I’ve had the opportunity to dialogue with fellow missionaries, some who’ve come and gone, and others who’ve served and struggled faithfully on the foreign field for years on end. I make no claim of expertise in the field of missiology. However, I do believe the Bible is sufficient to give the necessary instruction needed to fulfill the calling. Up until today I still believe, at the most fundamental level, in the simplicity of my original understanding of the definition of a missionary.

What has increasingly disturbed me over the last several years, and the reason I’m even compelled here to briefly contend for the past, is the growing trend away from this in the modern missionary movement. Even more concerning, and what is at the root of the first problem, is a general move further and further away from the basic doctrines that have traditionally undergirded the evangelical missionary effort. This being the case, perhaps it will be best for me to divide the following observations into two sections: practical and doctrinal. These two areas are often related, for it is a fact that one believes affects what one practices.

If it Ain’t Broke, Don’t Fix It (Practical)

I frequently read missionary biographies. Those faithful men and women of by-gone years challenge me, encourage me, teach me, and rebuke me. They weren’t perfect and they often learned, as we all do, from their mistakes. They were the forerunners of the modern missionary and I’m convinced they have a lot to teach us if we have ears to hear. The charge has been leveled that their methods are now outdated and their focus leaned too heavily upon the “civilizing of the savage” to the demise of the native culture. There are current viewpoints that assume the missionary methods of old irrelevant for ministering to the twenty-first century, though the individual missionaries themselves may be considered to have been sincere. Yet, for all of their perceived faults and individual idiosyncrasies, the fact that the Gospel of Jesus Christ has been successfully introduced and embraced by countless across the globe demonstrates that the Holy Spirit blessed the efforts of these early missionaries. Acknowledged or not, we who follow in their stead owe them an immeasurable debt of gratitude. What marked these missionaries of old? What drove many of them to labor themselves often into early graves? Here are a few things I’ve noted and try to personally cling to.

I still believe that evangelism, followed by discipleship, should be the primary focus of a missionary.

The shift away from this has gained momentum over the last half a century and taken firm root along the way. The litmus test for any missionary is for him to ask himself: How much time and effort do I spend on simply sharing the Gospel and focusing on teaching a few individuals how to walk as Jesus walked? The establishing of a church, or local fellowship, will Biblically and naturally follow such activities. But missionary work has in many cases become extremely compartmentalized. True, missionaries have always had their individual vocations or specialties, i.e., medical, educational, engineering. These occupations are highly beneficial if they are used as platforms from which to minster the Gospel. But the vocation should always be secondary for the missionary. If one finds that their particular “job” does not allow an atmosphere in which to evangelize and make disciples, or that vocation hardly allows time outside of itself to pursue these, then I believe there needs to be a serious re-evaluation of why and where this primary goal got relegated to a lower priority.

It also appears to me that humanitarianism is quickly replacing evangelism. Don’t get me wrong, any missionary that is seeking to serve the Lord will perform good works. They are the outflow of his faith in Christ. But while the Christian life should be a life lived in genuine active love and concern for others, humanitarianism divorced from the Gospel will ultimately only lead to temporal fixes which should never be confused with eternal fruit. The oft-repeated argument is that humanitarian efforts will eventually result in spiritual conversions. But this is biblically backwards. The pattern that Scripture gives us is always evangelism and disciple-making first. Good works complement and follow these efforts. Even when Jesus performed a physical healing, it was predicated upon the individual’s faith. In other words, Jesus’ ministry was not a series of merely humanitarian efforts without spiritual implication. Everything Jesus said and did was for the purpose of pointing people to the Father. The more compartmentalized missions becomes, either vocationally or with a view towards humanitarian efforts, the less emphasis is inevitably placed upon evangelism. Perhaps this is an oversimplification, but I feel it does at least touch upon a real problem in our age of missions.

I still believe that long-term mission work is the most effective mission work.

Short-term mission trips are big business in the twenty-first century, generating revenue in the billions. The idea is simple: gather a group of Christians, pick a spot on the globe, and spend anywhere from a week to several months doing “missionary work” there. It gives people who are interested, but don’t feel led to take the step into full-time missions, an opportunity to be directly involved with the global missionary effort. But is it effective? I won’t say that nothing of spiritual value comes of it. I will venture to state, however, that in many instances more harm is done than good.

First of all, the examples we’re given by missionaries of the past is that for the church of Jesus Christ to firmly be planted in the midst of a people or culture, much time, effort, and prayer are involved—to the tune of five years at the very least, and decades in many cases. The gospel cannot be effectively communicated until the language of the people is mastered. This in and of itself often takes years of living among the target group. Alongside of language acquisition also come unraveling cultural complexities, understanding mindsets, observing besetting sins, and fostering genuine relationships. Perseverance and patience are indispensable ingredients. There are no shortcuts.

Short-term teams come into an area with little to no knowledge of the culture or language. They all too often expect, as Westerners have been trained to, short-term results. The short-termer’s mantra is “I know that this trip is really more about what God is going to do in me rather than what I’m going to do for God.” While there is some precious truth contained in this statement, no sincere committed missionary should give his life to the field for his own personal spiritual growth. He lays it all on the line for the glory of God and for the lost and dying souls of others, though personal growth will inevitably occur as well. The result of short-term missions, as many full-time missionaries have testified to, is all too often a cloud of confusion left in the wake of the revolving door mentality of short-term teams.

Is there a place at all for short-term mission work? Perhaps, but I feel to a very limited degree. Short-term work needs to be carefully-coordinated through full-time missionaries. The short-termer needs to be thoroughly briefed as to how not to transgress cultural taboos and undo in a week what the full-time missionary has been doing for years. The short-term team needs to understand they are coming to work under the full-time missionary and his experienced direction. I also think we do a disservice to full-time missionaries and the sacrifices they have made when we refer to a person who takes a two-week mission trip as a missionary. Just because you may minister the Gospel in a different country does not mean you are a missionary, at least not in the traditional sense of the word. A team also needs to only undertake to do something that either the national believers cannot do for themselves or the full-time missionary does not have the time to do by himself. For example, a short-term team should not come and construct a church building for the national believers. The latter should build their own church if they so desire a building. If the nationals demand a structure, but have no intention of investing all of their own time and resources, their motives for even confessing Christianity are questionable. On the other hand, perhaps the missionary himself is in need of assistance for a house or ministry facility he intends to erect. He himself doesn’t have the time or resources to undertake it. So a team might legitimately come out to assist him in this endeavor. This, however, in no way implies that the inexperienced team is coming to minister in place of the missionary, but only to assist in lightening the missionary’s heavy work load for a short season so that he might continue to put more time and focus into his ministry work.

Then, there is the financial factor. An average round-trip plane ticket to, let’s say Africa, can cost anywhere between US $1500 to $2500, depending on the destination. This amount alone could support some missionaries on the field for two or three months. But if a team of only ten short-termers comes to Africa for two weeks, that is a conservative US $15000—only for air transportation. This doesn’t even figure in housing, food, and inland transportation costs. A short-term team can easily spend on one trip what a missionary on the field full-time could live off for a year…or more. Is this really the best way to spend the Lord’s money when the time-tested methods of long-term missions have proven to bear lasting spiritual fruit while there really hasn’t even been enough time pass to appraise the full impact (positive or negative) of short-term missions?

I still believe that an individual who decides to follow Christ will have to relinquish those elements of his culture that are in contrast to Scriptural guidelines.

I mentioned above that in some circles old-school missionaries have become target for criticism by the spokesmen of the modern missionary movement. Painted broadly as Victorian-era elite who forced themselves upon uncivilized cultures, these missionaries of yester-year weren’t supposedly content until the savage was not only converted, but was living in a western-style house, wearing western clothes and imitating western mannerisms. There have no doubt been missionaries who did confuse spreading the Gospel with spreading western culture, and this is to be lamented. But the majority of biographies I’ve read tell stories of missionaries who realized there was in fact a difference between clear-cut Scriptural guidelines and culturally-neutral practices. This doesn’t mean, however, that there weren’t varying opinions as to where to draw these lines. But upon close examination of any culture it will invariably be seen that a considerable number of that culture’s practices are tied directly into its spiritual outlook. If the worldview of an individual shifts to a biblical perspective, there are definitely aspects of his culture that the new Christian will have to turn his back upon if he is to be faithful to the word of God.

Who would complain that after cannibalistic tribes were exposed to the Gospel, they quit eating each other? Who would take issue with the fact that inner-tribal warfare began to taper off as a people group was given access to God’s Word? No one could make a logical objection, though the thoroughly secular anthropologist might feign to bemoan theses changes on the basis of them having “corrupted the unadulterated” culture. However, these two examples of change alone that coincide with missionaries arriving in an area are legion.

Contextualization is the current buzzword. Taken in one light it simply means that a missionary attempts to adapt himself as closely as possible to a culture in order to reach that culture. Taken in another, some missiologists now go so far as to say it is possible for a Muslim to receive Christ and still remain a Muslim. This “follower of Christ” can still go to mosque, pray to the false god Allah five times a day, celebrate the Muslim festivals, and somehow also be on his way to heaven. A similar case is made for Buddhists and Hindus, and even animists and pagans. And though I haven’t read about it yet, perhaps a person involved in witchcraft or the new-age movement can also receive Jesus and not renounce their magic rites or ancient heresies. Somehow, the fallacious reasoning concludes that all of the practices of other religions might really only be cultural and have nothing to do with following Christ and the Scriptures. They can all comfortably be retained. I have a big problem with this because the Bible has a big problem with it. But more on that to come…

Can I Get an Amen? (Doctrinal)

I still believe that Jesus is the only way to Heaven.

This is an area of doctrine that has gotten incredibly hazy over the last several decades. Of course people on the liberal fringes of Christianity have always rejected this “narrow minded” (albeit biblical) idea—but never to the extent that it’s now being questioned in the very ranks of evangelicalism. Leading evangelical leaders have alluded to the possibility that people of other faiths who have never placed their trust in Christ alone for salvation might still be in heaven one day. The very questioning of this cardinal doctrine of biblical Christianity sucks the wind right out of the sails of the missionary effort. Over and over the primary impetus that drove missionaries to labor in foreign, hostile environments for years on end without a furlough and little or no appreciation from man was the fact that they really believed that if someone did not go and share the good news of Jesus Christ with those who’d never heard, those people would have no opportunity to go to heaven. The Scripture passages backing this are numerous and cannot be simply brushed aside with a crafty stroke of abstract exegesis.

The drive to do good for goodness sake alone will usually only take a person so far. When it fails to produce results, so does the motivation of the doer. But when God has saved an individual and the Holy Spirit has burned a burden into his soul for the lost, the very real feeling of horror at the thought of people dying and going to hell because no one told them about Jesus propels him on and on and on. It is a supernatural strength because it is born in the love of God and out of His desire for all to be saved and none to perish.

Therefore, if there be a literal place called heaven, there must also be a literal place called hell, or we are all just playing with words. So…

I still believe in a literal and everlasting hell.

It’s not popular—never has been. But the acceptance or rejection of a doctrine by the masses can by no means be a factor in determining its validity. The Bible has the final say. Jesus Himself spoke of hell more than any other New Testament writer. It’s easy to admire the Lord’s words when they are pleasant; it’s not so easy when they concern the reality of the coming judgment for the unrepentant.

This belief is simply the other side of the coin mentioned above. If a person believes there is only one way to heaven, and that through Jesus Christ, then he also believes rejecting Him is to be heading the other way—to hell. At the risk of repeating myself, this was the primary conviction that propelled missionary after missionary to lands that lied in the darkness of unexposed sin and gospel blindness. Without hell as a real consequence—not just as a metaphor to describe non-existence—where is the motivation to rush headlong into the shipwrecked, perishing lives of those drowning in sin with a lifeline of forgiveness offered in Christ? There is none, and we once again will be forced to fall back on seeking to only better mankind in the here and now. If simply helping someone physically or mentally with no concern for their spiritual state is all we as a church have left, then those who’ve given of their very lives for the spiritual well-being of their fellow man are most to be pitied.

I still believe that there is no salvation in the Roman Catholic gospel.

If I’ve stepped on any toes yet, this might be perceived as the foot-stomper. But I can make no apologies for it. Off the top of my head I would say that eight out of ten of the missionary biographies I read speak directly against the Roman Catholic gospel, especially if the evangelical missionary is ministering in an area where he has to counter its propagation. There is no disputing historically that the Reformers accused Rome of preaching a false gospel and that an eventual out-growth of that same Reformation was the modern missionary movement that gained momentum around the turn of the nineteenth century. If the Roman Catholic Church is not so vocal today about where she stands, it’s not because she’s changed her position but because she doesn’t currently enjoy the privileged position from which to proclaim it that she once possessed.

I can hear it now: “But I have a friend who’s Catholic and I know he’s a Christian.” Whether or not your friend is a Christian, I won’t presume to say. But I will declare that if he has believed the biblical Gospel, then he’s not a Catholic by the Catholic definition, whatever he may call himself. One cannot add to what Jesus has done without demeaning the Gospel. If a person is trusting in Jesus plus good works plus the church plus the Mass plus baptism plus Mary, or any combination thereof, he is not yet clear on the Gospel and therefore has not yet truly believed and, therefore, cannot yet be saved.

Wherever Catholic missionaries are present, the idolatry of the people they are teaching among rarely ceases, it usually only alters its form. Wherever Catholic missionaries exercise authority, very rarely does the debauchery of the people decline—it is only sanctioned or glossed over by the church. These are both shown to be the case over and over again. Rome’s gospel has traditionally been opposed by evangelical missionaries just as strongly as the doctrine of Islam. Why? Because it is just as spiritually detrimental.

I still believe that one must be born again to see the kingdom of God.

Recently a new missionary to the field ask me, “Do you believe a person has to be born again to be saved?” As I answered in the affirmative, I could see the relief sweep across his face. He’d been having conversations with other “missionaries” who didn’t think the new birth was necessary and fortunately, this concerned him. I believe it because Jesus said that if you’re not born again by the Spirit, you won’t see the kingdom of God. That means simply that you won’t go to heaven. I sat and wondered as this man shared his experiences with me what in the world these other “missionaries” were even teaching if they’d been absent for Christianity 101. They must’ve come to the field for other reasons besides a real spiritual concern for the people among whom they worked. This, of course, ties back into much of what we’ve already said.

In fact, it relates directly to that initial concept I had of what a missionary does. He tells people that Jesus is the Savior of the world and helps them to understand the implications of that fact upon their lives. I still feel that way—if not more strongly, by no means less. But if you had told me years ago that there were actually people who called themselves missionaries who didn’t adhere to this notion, I would have had a very difficult time grasping what you could possibly mean. I would have said then, as I say now, that they aren’t then missionaries, at least not in a biblical sense of the word.

I don’t feel like I hold some sort of unrealistic expectation for what a missionary should do and believe. If so, then I still proudly hold that position among the many other old-school missionaries who did (and still do) as well.

Suggested Missionary Book List

I have added a “suggested” reading list for those who are pursuing the life of being a missionary. Again, not only have I found that many who serve on the field today are ignorant in their Bible reading, but even fewer are familiar with those who came before them; “The History of Missions.” Today just a simple sickness, broken leg, discouragement, loss of a child or spouse will quickly send one running from the field back to their home country but it was not so in the past! I personally feel that long before one steps out to pursue such a life style they should be made aware the people whose footsteps they follow in. Reading of the lives of such past saints can truly be informative and challenging, and often better than any missiology course which one might take these days. Don’t just stick with missionaries who worked in the area which you feel called, for a rich education can be found as you read through a broad range of different experiences.

Many of the books which I have listed (and will add in time) are out of print; however, thanks to the internet most can be found for a reasonable price. If you are interested in a particular region, please do not hesitate to ask, my library is quite extensive and I am familiar with a number of past missionaries and their work.

Your Bible Should Be Your First School

Several years ago while on a year and a half furlough, the door opened for me to audit a series of classes in a local seminary. I had all the benefits of any other student with two exceptions: I only paid $25 dollars per class, and would receive no diploma. This sounded good to me, for I have never found my security in papers or the praise of men. My time there was also a great eye-opener to the background and desires of those who were at the time studying to be America’s new up and coming pastors, church educators, and missionaries.

One morning in my New Testament class the professor asked how many of us had read the entire Bible. The response came as a great surprise to my then naïve heart. Less than a third of the students raised their hands. Here was a room full of people studying for their Masters of Divinity. Over half were already either serving as pastors or working on church staffs somewhere…yet the majority had never read their Bible. How did they even know that seminary was where they needed to be? This also meant that when a professor gave his interpretation of a passage of Scripture, they at first would have to just take his word for it till they could later study it out for themselves. But even then the professor’s word (teaching) might shape how the student read the Word and interpreted it rather than being the other way around.

From that morning on I began to understand better the struggle which is now taking place in the churches in America and on the mission field. People who know the Bible (and the Gospels there in) well can more easily conceive of following a flesh-and-blood, risen Jesus than can those who concentrate on the more abstract and theologically conceived Christ. Unfortunately, the average student with only a Sunday-school background enters college at best, with a sixth grader’s knowledge of the life of Jesus – a sprinkling of isolated miracle stories. But a systematic understanding of Jesus’ earthly life makes New Testament theology more practical, and having read the Old Testament will aid one with a deeper understanding of the context of what unfolds in the New.

This is why I have greatly encouraged those in each group I have discipled to read through the Bible (beginning to end) for themselves. Taking up just three chapters a day will carry one through the whole Bible in just a little over a year. And don’t just stop with one read through. Every time I reread a book out of the Scriptures, I find that I understand it a little better and store more of it away into my heart and mind. Another recommendation to a new disciple is to master one of the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, or Luke). Some may choose Mark because of it being a shorter book; however, I often encourage people towards Luke so their flow into the book of Acts (both being written by the same author) might have a smooth transition.

When you have grasped the main outline of one of the Gospels and know the highlights of Jesus’ life, you will begin to see the eternal significance of particular events in His life because you see them in their proper historical context and progression to a climax. Combining this with your knowledge of the Old Testament and other Gospels (for instance, the one of John), you will have a far richer understanding of who Jesus is. Not only is such an understanding of Jesus’ person and His mission essential to your discipleship, it is indispensable to your future ministry!

On the Field Mission Training

About two years past between the time Jesus chose the apostles and when he finally sent them into the world. Jesus exposed them to all kinds of life situations and taught them on the basis of their reactions to those situations. He always used concrete illustrations, whether it was the immediate event or vivid familiar imagery. He urged questions, provoked harder thinking and often left discussions open-ended. He never gave up, no matter how obtuse His students were. How I wish I could teach and train as skillfully and personally as He!

We need that kind of training from someone whose life and ministry we respect. Internships have become more common in the last few years (in fact we have trained over eight interns in recent years). But, larger numbers seem the be flocking to just the two week to three month summer short-term trip, or serve as a junior worker (such as the two year Journeyman program, International Mission Board). However, it is a matter of junior job assignments (to relieve the senior worker) and a written report afterward rather than some joint assignments with personal interaction and evaluation. Look, if possible, for a live-in situation with a godly discipler.

A Mystical Plane Flight

Christians often seem to have the impression that “becoming a missionary” is some form of metamorphosis by which a radical change of nature is achieved. Someone, possibly deeply stirred at a missionary meeting and challenged by the need of some less-privileged people, feels constrained to offer overseas service. Almost inevitably, this “offering” comes to be regarded as a “holy call” to a sacrificial vocation. The idea becomes wrapped in a veil of romantic splendor, so that even the candidate may fail to observe the unreality of it. The tendency of congregation and friends well-nigh to hero-worship the missionary only increases the dilemma. Looking at the situation honestly and critically, many may know that, mentally, physically or spiritually, the candidate is unsuitable for missionary service. Some would-be candidates do not even have a burden of prayer for the peoples they hope to serve, nor have they ever sought to bring their immediate friends and neighbors in their own country to a knowledge of their Friend and Savior, Jesus Christ. Yet they vaguely hope that as soon as they board the plane to take them to a foreign land. Something mystical will occur and transform them into their image of a “missionary”.

Nothing can be further from the truth! I believe that, at its simplest, a missionary is one sent by God to live a Christian life, usually amongst people other than his own. It is living which counts. This may include formal preaching, but it will certainly include personal relationships, and these often have to be worked out under most trying conditions. For example, many missionaries discover that it is far from easy to adapt themselves to a completely different climate. The new foods may be hard, not only on the digestive system, but also on the aesthetic tastes. The language barrier may constitute a difficult problem, especially in the early years. One cannot choose one’s friends. Two missionaries of vastly differing backgrounds, likes and dislikes, may be thrown together for several years with no choice of other companionship. One is often expected to do jobs for which one is not trained, and which may be actually distasteful. Yet in all this, one is called upon to reveal Christ, to live a Christ-like life, to be a “missionary”.