Unsolved Mysteries in Missions

Stereotypes

2009-09-02T09:54:00.001-04:00

Communication. Cultural context. Gender differences. How do we take what research is telling us and use it to be effective ministers of the gospel?

As one author writes, “Complexity is hard, simplicity is easy. To deal with complexity we often revert to simplicity—we tend to categorize and make judgments based on that categorization.” And as a result, stereotypes are born.

So what should our response be as Christians? Should gender take a front seat in directing outreach efforts, or have we tried to oversimplify a complex issue and created stereotypes along the way? Is the gospel easily presented in a male-female format, or have we tried to categorize and methodize what God intended to be mysterious?

This week, we’ll try to wrap up this debate and discover just how important gender is to missions.

Week #4: “If the primary purpose of the church is to spread the gospel and the responsibility of each believer is to share a witness, then Christians must learn to effectively communicate His word with men and women. […] Therefore, effort should be made to adapt to gender communication differences so the gospel will be clearly understood. It would be tragic for the Word of God to be muffled by the words of men.”

This writer clearly believes that while gender differences do exist and that clear communication between the sexes needs to be taken into account, both men and women are held accountable to be witnesses to all people. Therefore, men evangelizing only men, and women reaching out only to women completely misses the point of God’s diverse Church.

But just maybe…attempts to better communication to enhance ministry should not stop at gender. As one theorist writes, “Men are different from women. That would seem to be self-evident. They are different in aptitude, skill and behavior, but then, so is every individual person. So why do we make such a fuss about it? It seems not unreasonable to suggest that the sexes are different because their brains are different, but then no two human brains are the same.”

So although gender differences may exist, maybe we should approach each person as an individual—no matter what his or her sex might be. Isn’t this what Jesus did? Just think of the many different ways Jesus reached out to both men and women: the disciples, the Samaritan woman, Mary Magdalene, the rich young ruler, and the list goes on.

So how important, really, is gender when it comes to sharing the gospel? Do you see one’s sex as a valid indicator of how to reach out, or should you evangelize everyone in the same manner? Have we missed an important element in this gender and missions conversation?

If so, share your perspective! Join us in solving this missions mystery (and many more!).

http://www.gender.org.uk/about/00_diffs.htm

Communication Between Men and Women

2009-09-02T09:51:00.003-04:00

For years, people have debated the differences between genders, but this month, we have decided to take these questions into the missions realm. Together, we have been asking whether gender plays a key role in how we approach world outreach—and if it doesn’t, should it?

We looked at what researchers are saying about gender differences as well as how these theories carry over from culture to culture. And here are a few questions that have popped up along the way:

•Is gender-based evangelism an effective format for outreach?
•If gender differences do exist, can we really apply research findings to cross-cultural ministry?
•What role should gender play in how we approach others with the gospel?

But what we have not yet asked is how our evangelism efforts might change if we allowed gender to take the front seat. This week, we’ll do just that as we dive into communication, evangelization, and the sexes.

Week #3: “Communication between men and women can be considered cross-cultural communication.” So how might we prepare for this type of “cross-cultural” evangelism experience, even if it’s to a neighbor across the street?

Many people note that one of the key differences between men and woman is how they communicate. One report summarizes these variances, noting that:
•“Men and women express themselves in different ways and for different reasons. Men use communication to maintain independence, while women talk to maintain intimacy.”
•“Men talk more in public while women talk more in private.”
•“While women typically use nonverbal communication directly, men use it indirectly. Women stand in close proximity to each other, maintain eye contact, and gesture more frequently. Men hold their distance, rarely establish eye contact, and gestures less dramatically.”
•“Men and women also handle conflict differently. While women avoid conflict in order to insure closeness, men use conflict to gain status.”

The author of this report goes on to say that “differences in the way men and women communicate affect all relationships: husband-wife, father-daughter, mother-son, employer-employee, and pastor-member. In fact, gender communication differences are also obvious in the church.”

So should we integrate these communication differences into evangelism efforts? If so, how? Do we begin to have men reaching out to men only and vice versa? Or can God’s message still be communicated with cross-gender outreach?

Please share your thoughts and unique insights.

How can we apply what researchers say about gender differences to cross-cultural ministry?

2009-09-02T09:48:00.003-04:00

Last week, we dove right into a battle of the sexes…sort of. We wondered, does gender impact evangelism? Should we take gender differences into account when reaching out? While we took a look at both sides of the argument, the verdict is still out…the battle still on.

So let’s keep the questions coming! While we barely scratched the surface of the gender differences debate, another important element remains: If key gender differences do exist, do these variances carry over from culture to culture?

Because we’re talking about gender and missions, we cannot get away without investigating this question. So, let’s collect what some of the “experts” have to say and together take it to the lab for a little in-depth analysis.

Week #2: Societies around the world vary greatly in how they view and treat the sexes. For example, TheMuslimWoman.org writes, “In Islam, there is no such concept of free will, especially with respect to women folk. They are treated as mere commodities in the hands of men. They are battered, molested, killed when they ask for freedom.” But such is not the case in modern America, where women independently climb the corporate ladder and take positions of leadership over both men and women.

In one study about men, women, communication, and context, Dr. Rhonda Kelley writes that “[you must] alter your conversational style to fit the context. Effective communication is adapted appropriately to fit the setting.” Therefore, while gender differences may exist from culture to culture, we as missionaries must be willing to adapt outreach efforts based on the cultural context and the individual…including, but not limited to, gender.

But then again, maybe we aren’t as adaptable as we’d like to be when it comes to gender. A study about women in positions of leadership noted that “…women were more effective leaders in female-dominated or female-oriented settings, and that men were more effective leaders in male-dominated or male-oriented settings. Thus working in a leadership role congruent with one's gender appears to make one more effective—or at least perceived as being more effective.”

So as Christians, how can we apply what researchers say about gender differences to cross-cultural ministry? Should views on gender—no matter the cultural context—impact our methodology, our communication styles, or maybe even who we choose as missionaries in an effort to be more effective?

Our investigation continues, and your opinion matters. Weigh in.

http://www.themuslimwoman.org/
http://www.modlinguistics.com/Sociolinguistics/gender/Communication%20between%20Men%20and%20Women%20in%20the%20Context%20of%20the%20Christian%20Community.htm
http://www.psychologymatters.org/womanboss.html

Does Gender Impact Evangelism?

2009-09-02T09:31:00.004-04:00

Whether you’re doing outreach at home or abroad, you most likely run into a wide variety of people. But this month, we’re curious about how one key difference impacts evangelism efforts: gender.

Many people have debated whether gender differences actually exist. And while we don’t want to get into a deep biological or psychological debate, we think it will be worth our time to investigate whether gender impacts global outreach efforts.

What do you think? Does gender play a role in how we reach others with the gospel? Do our methods vary based on the sex of the individual? Should they?

Keep asking those questions, and let’s start digging in and see what answers we can find…

Week #1: “We see someone’s sex as an important predictor of their abilities and interests and assume that if we know someone is a girl or a boy, we know a lot about them. That assumption is wrong! Knowing someone’s sex may tell us a lot about them biologically but it tells us very little about them in other ways.”

Some may argue vehemently that while one’s gender does come with key biological differences, gender alone is not a good predictor of personality, thought processes, abilities, and so on. So, they might argue that gender alone should not be a reason to change methods of evangelism and that outreach can and should remain gender neutral.

But let’s flip the debate coin for a moment.

Other philosophers and social researchers agree that gender differences do exist and should be noted, saying that “The Bible teaches that God not only created us ‘male and female,’ but that in Christ, ‘there is neither male nor female.’ Within this paradox, God not only affirms the differences between men and women, assigning complementary roles for each, but He also points to the equality existing between the sexes.”

So if men and women are different but equal, how might that impact evangelism efforts? Is gender alone a good-enough predictor of one’s receptivity to various outreach methods, or should other factors be considered? How might we view the gender-missions intersection from a biblical perspective?

Please join in the conversation! Leave your comments and tune in as we continue to brainstorm this missions mystery.

http://www.campbell-kibler.com/Stereo.pdf
http://www.pureintimacy.org/piArticles/A000000395.cfm

The WHY is Important

2009-08-04T16:23:00.002-04:00

While getting into money matters can seem to be a harried mess at times (yes…even within the Church!), the questions we have been asking are important for the future of world evangelization and outreach. We’re about ready to wrap up our discussion on funding missions work, but not without taking a look at one last perspective:

Week #5: God tells us that “Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” As a result, some might argue that it isn’t HOW you give to missions (whether individually, through churches, to organizations, and so on…), but WHY that’s important.

Many Christians would debate that data about the “most efficient funding model” or “philosophies of giving” just don’t matter when a person’s heart is in the right place.

Or…does it?

In Matthew Jesus tells the Parable of the Talents. In that story, the master praises the first two servants for wisely investing their monies so that they gained interest in the master’s absence. However, the third servant simply held on to the money with which he’d been entrusted and was chastised for being lazy.

Some people have interpreted this Scripture to be a lesson on good stewardship, that making wise financial decisions and doing the most with what God has “loaned” to you is an important part of being a Christian.

So how should Christians select where to give to missions? Is part of being a good steward knowing where you can make the best “spiritual investment?” And if so, what does this mean for individual Christians, churches, missions organizations, and missionaries around the world? What’s the right way to fund missions?

This is your last chance to get involved in solving this missions money mystery, so leave your comments.

2 Corinthians 9:7 (NIV)
Matthew 24:14-30 (NIV)
http://hubpages.com/hub/Are_You_a_Good_Steward_of_Your_Money

Seeking alternatives?

2009-08-04T16:22:00.002-04:00

Money is a necessary part of making missions happen. But what is the best way? Do all Christians have a responsibility to give financially to missions? What about the local church? Is one model of giving more effective than others?

We’ve been asking questions just like these over the last few weeks (if you missed out, be sure to jump back and take a peek!). Yet, we are still asking: What is the best way to fund missions?

While many people give to individual missionaries and projects or decide to give to missions through their local church, many Christians are seeking alternatives.

Week #4: “…Many Christians are now giving their money to different types of organizations instead of a church. They attend conventional churches less often. They are expanding their circle of Christian relationships beyond local church boundaries. And they are investing greater amounts of their time and money in service organizations that are not connected with a conventional church.”

This quote from a 2008 Barna Group study indicates that while Christians remain the most generous group of people in the United States, fewer Christians are giving through their local churches to help people in need.

So where is the money going? Because charitable giving is at a decade high but church giving is down, one might assume that Christians are deciding to invest their monies directly into non-profits of choice, picking and choosing among causes that resonate with them or that they agree with philosophically. Or maybe, they are giving directly to the needy or to specific people groups overseas without a “missionary middleman.”

Other people, like Elmer Grobler, have sought out an entirely different method for funding missions called the Business Ministry Model, which “involves the establishment of a real business that is run as a ministry (or is it a ministry run as a business?) for the purpose of making profits in order to financially support another ministry.”

While this model does not propose that individuals stop giving tithes, offerings, and the like, it does bring up another key question in this missions money debate: Are we missing out on key alternatives to more effectively and efficiently fund missions? Is efficiency the key motivator in the decision on where and how to give to missions, or are there others reasons to give another way?

The questions keep coming! Do you have the answers? Be part of the conversation.

http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/18-congregations/41-new-study-shows-trend-in-tithing-and-donating
http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/18-congregations/41-new-study-shows-trend-in-tithing-and-donating
http://ezinearticles.com/?Funding-Christian-Organisations-and-Missions---The-Business-Ministry-Model&id=2301596

Church Focus

2009-08-04T16:20:00.002-04:00

So, we’ve asked the tough questions about missions and money: Are all people called by God to give financially to missions work? Or does He prick only the hearts of a select group? Is there a right and wrong way to give to missions?

Last week, we began to look at some of the different ways Christians give to missions. We’ve taken a look at individuals giving to individual missionaries, and now it’s time to look at some new clues that focus on the Church.

Week #3: “Like frontline soldiers in war, resident missionaries have a critical dependence on the support ministry of the home base. […] Through our giving we enjoy (as the apostle Paul beautifully describes) the ‘favor of participation in the support of the saints’ (2 Corinthians 8:4 NASV).”

So then, what is the role of the Church when it comes to supporting missions financially? When you begin looking at the wide range of approaches that local churches have for supporting missions, the answer to this question doesn’t seem quite so clear.

Let’s take a look at a few examples:
•Castle Hills Church in Texas commits 20 percent of its overall annual budget to support missions work both in the US and overseas, including (but not limited to) Pregnancy Centers, Christian camps, individual missionaries, as well as missions organizations. According to a 2002 Your Church survey, the national average for how much churches allot for missions in their annual budgets is 15 percent, meaning that Castle Hills is above the national average.

•The Assemblies of God, as a denomination, asks its local churches to give to missions through the faith-promise concept , a philosophy that encourages individuals to “promise to give by faith above your tithes during the coming year to the world-evangelization program of your church.”

•Many house churches (also called simple churches, organic churches, cell churches—you get the picture) are able to dedicate a larger portion of their annual budgets to missions and outreach because they do not have as many of the overhead costs of traditional churches (mortgages, upkeep, building campaigns, and so on). Therefore, more money given to the church goes directly to people in need.

•Other churches become sending churches, meaning that whether or not a missionary within their congregation uses a missions organization, the church becomes “home base” for that missionary—an approach encouraged by Baptist International Missions. Not only do these sending churches take on the bulk of the missionary’s support needs, but may also take on additional responsibilities like providing needed equipment, allowing missionaries to be on the church’s benefit plan, maintaining regular contact with the missionary, sending care packages, and so on.

Whether they build in a financial line item into their annual budget or rely on the generosity of its members, local churches vary quite a bit in their approaches to giving to missions. There’s no doubt about it.

If a church supports an individual missionary, what happens if the church changes its priorities? If a church supports missions organizations, how can church members be growing in the cause of spreading the gospel? And, should missions support be part of a church budget or come from ‘extra’ giving by its members? If we are going to get to the bottom of this missions mystery, we need your thoughts and insight. Please take a few minutes to weigh in.

Barnett, B. (2002). Friend Raising: Building a Missionary Support Team That Lasts. Seattle, WA: YWAM Publishing. 23-36.

Individual Christians Supporting Individual Missionaries

2009-08-04T16:18:00.001-04:00

Talking about missions work can easily get people fired up: Hearts changed! Souls saved! Physical and spiritual lives transformed!

But few things dampen that fire like talking about money. Logistics such as these can easily be either overlooked or put on the back burner. However, the bottom line is that doing missions costs money.

Last week, we explored the question: Are all Christians called to give financially to missions, or is that a burden God puts on only a few? This week, we turn our attention to some of the various models for giving to missions to try to determine whether a “best way” really exists.

We’ll start with individual Christians supporting individual missionaries.

Week #2: “For individuals, it usually starts with the word ‘relationship,’” says World Venture.

Think about the missionaries you have supported financially, either currently or in the past. Did you have a personal connection with that missionary prior to your decision to support him or her? Or did you do research on a cause or country dear to your heart, find a missionary who works in that specific area, and then decide to give that individual your support (even if you’d never met)?

Most likely, you chose to support an individual missionary because of a personal connection you had with him or her. Maybe the missionary was a dear friend from school, or you made a real connection with a particular missionary family who once visited your church.

No matter how you look at it: Many individuals choose to support individual missionaries based on their relationship with that missionary. Many missionaries and missions organizations emphasize this relationship building as a technique to develop a support team back home.

Is this method of financially supporting missions a keeper? Is this a good way to connect ordinary Christians to missions work? Does it deepen an individual’s relationship to the cause of spreading the gospel? Is it sustainable when that particular missionary leaves the field?

Or…just maybe…is there a different missions-giving model that trumps individuals supporting individuals? What do you think? Weigh in.

http://www.crown.org/LIBRARY/ViewArticle.aspx?ActicleId=405
http://www.worldventure.com/Give/Support-a-Missionary.html

Missions work costs money.

2009-08-04T16:17:00.001-04:00

There’s no way around it: Missions work costs money. From missionaries picking up and moving to a new country to the costs of starting new ministries, the bills can quickly pile up. In fact, the average cost of supporting a North American missionary going overseas is about $6,032 per month (multiply that times 12 and that’s an annual average of over $72k!).

And many things factor into how much financial support a missionary needs before he or she can even get to the field of service, including number of family members, where the missionary is headed, ministry expenses, housing, educational expenses (if the missionary needs to take language classes or put children in schools), start-up costs, and the list continues.

But these financial factors bring up some important questions: How should missions work be funded? Should churches support individual missionaries? Missions organizations? Should individual Christians directly support individual missionaries? Missions organizations? Or, does a combination of those methods offer a better alternative? Is there a right and a wrong way? And, let’s back the truck up: Is every Christian called to support missions financially, or is that a call God reserves for only a few?

Quick Disclaimer: Does this feel like an awkward discussion for a missionary-sending agency like WGM? Maybe. But, financial support is a real, practical concern for all missionaries. So this month, we’re going to dive in anyway, trying to discover the answers to these missions money matters. Join in the fiscal journey as we try to find an effective and biblical way to fund world missions today.

Let’s do this!

Week #1: “According to the Global Evangelization Movement in 2001, there were 212 million Americans who identify with Christianity. This represents approximately 660,000 households... Of the 660,000 households, roughly 120,000 gave to missions in 2001.”

According to this statistic, most Christians in America are not giving to missions. So is this a calling reserved for the few and able?

Not according to many, including Robert J. Young who writes on his blog: “God’s divine mandate is to take the gospel to the world. Where I cannot go, I can send. When I cannot go, others can go. Where no one can go, radio and TV signals can go. My commitment to be a follower of Jesus will reach into my pocket and I will preach the gospel.”

Crown Financial Ministries echoes Young’s sentiment saying that “God calls each of us to fill in the gap in order to spread His Gospel to all parts of the world. […] We have enough money in North America to fund all the Christian work in the world if the people of God would just give.”

However, others might argue that the call to support missions means more than financial giving—that while supporting the Great Commission is essential for all Christians, you can do that in a number of ways. But, can we fulfill our responsibility in missions by giving OR going, or should we be giving AND going?

What do you think? What role is an ordinary Christian called to play in missions work? Should all Christians be giving financially to missions work in some way, shape, or form? Or, does God give this calling to only a few?

Your input is crucial to our investigation! Please share your thoughts on this missions mystery by leaving your comments.

http://www.efca.org/files/document/reachglobal/understanding-missionary-support-8-08.pdf
http://www.efca.org/files/document/reachglobal/understanding-missionary-support-8-08.pdf
http://www.crown.org/LIBRARY/ViewArticle.aspx?ActicleId=405
http://www.surfinthespirit.com/chartiy/why-i-give-to-mission.html

Urban Ministries: The future of missions?

2009-07-23T10:47:00.002-04:00

With about 60 percent of the world’s population projected to be living in cities by the year 2025 , does it make sense to focus more missions efforts on urban areas?

Over the last few weeks, we’ve discovered that many needs exist in metropolitan areas around the world. So, by making urban areas the center of missions outreach, it might be argued that missionaries can reach the most people with a variety of needs and beliefs.

But that does not mean that rural areas are exempt from needing a helping hand. In some areas, rural peoples continue to be the poorest and most neglected groups.

So what are missions organizations and missionaries to do in light of these global issues?

Week #4: Christian missionaries aren’t the only ones asking questions about urbanization. Other religious groups, such as the Mormons, have already begun efforts in the cities in order to influence people in these diverse areas. Is Christianity behind the curve? And if the future of missions is in the cities, what must happen to existing rural ministries?

These questions may seem overwhelming…and rightly so. Many may be asking: Do the problems caused by urbanization really have an “either-or” solution, or should it be more “both-and”? Can’t missions remain in rural areas while expanding ministry into the urban setting?

While that seems like a reasonable solution, many might argue that missionaries cannot transition from rural ministry to urban outreach, thinking that their same methodology will work in the city. As we’ve seen in posts from weeks past, the needs and even the culture often vary greatly.

In an online article, “Imagining Christ’s Church in the City,” from Missiology.org, the writer notes how an effective urban church might look, with an emphasis on including the following elements: spiritual formation; community; equipping members for ministry; caring for the weak; their missional, kingdom identity; and multicultural ministry.

Similarly, Servant Partners who works in urban poor areas, notes that “poverty is a complex issue that demands multifaceted long-term solutions—solutions that must come from the poor themselves. That is why we partner with national agencies and churches whenever we can and tailor our approach to fit the unique needs of each context in which we serve.”

So how can missionaries follow suit? Do we need to move some rural missionaries to urban areas, or do we need new missionaries to pioneer urban areas? How should existing missions organizations that have traditionally focused on rural areas make a transition to include urban ministry?

Can we offer a solution to this global missions concern? Share your thoughts! Be a part of the conversation.

http://fampra.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/20/4/457.pdf
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/urban_gc/
http://www.cnn.com/US/9610/13/mormons/

Rural vs. Urban Residents Treatment

2009-07-23T10:45:00.002-04:00

There’s no doubt about it: More and more people are moving to cities around the world. But are missions efforts following suit? Should they? Are missionaries uniquely qualified to address urban needs like poverty, social injustice, crime, housing, the breakdown of families, cultural relativism, and so on?

These are the questions we’re asking…and we need your help to find the answers.

While we’ve established the growing migration to cities as well as the many needs facing urban areas, we have yet to determine whether focusing missions efforts more onto cities is really the best move.

Week #3: “The rights of urban residents [in China] are essentially protected, but the rights of rural residents lack protection in comparison. Urban residents are not easily mistreated, but rural residents are comparatively easily mistreated. Urban residents rarely encounter violent treatment in their lives, while rural residents encounter violent treatment comparatively frequently.”

Using China as an example of the gap between rural and urban needs, one might note that the problems look quite different. In fact, the above quote from Chinese sociologist Lі Уіnhe, points out that while many people are flocking to the cities, the rural people of China continue to be the least of these—as evidenced, among other things, by the fact that urban income per capita was 3.33 times that of rural income.

And problems continue to exist in other rural areas worldwide. One research study notes: “Even in the countries where the majority of the population lives in rural areas, the resources are concentrated in the cities. All countries have difficulties with transport and communication, and they all face the challenge of shortages of doctors and other health professionals in rural and remote areas. Many rural people are caught in the poverty–ill health–low productivity downward spiral, particularly in developing countries.”

So if rural peoples continue to be “the least of these,” should missionaries really focus their efforts on the cities? Or would such a move only exacerbate nations’ problems rather than help? When it comes to adjusting efforts in light of urbanization, is there a solution that missions and outreach organizations just aren’t seeing?

Please share your thoughts and unique insights.

Van Rheenen, G. (1996). Missions. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing. 159-162.
http://www.danwei.org/ip_and_law/chinese_sociologist_l_nhe_on_r.php
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/china/growing-income-disparity-between-rural-and-urban-chinese-3675.html

The Strain of City Growth

2009-07-23T10:43:00.002-04:00

This month, we’re analyzing how global urbanization may flip traditional missions on its head!

What we’ve discovered is that more than half of today’s world population now lives in metropolitan areas. And the question that remains: While missions has often set up camp in rural areas, is it time to “go urban”? If so, what are the key differences in urban versus rural ministry?

This week, we’ll dig deeper into these questions by taking a closer look at what relocating missions to urban areas might look like by surveying the existing needs and brainstorming how missionaries can make a difference.

Week #2: “The rapid growth of cities strains their capacity to provide services such as energy, education, healthcare, transportation, sanitation, and physical security. Because governments have less revenue to spend on the basic upkeep of cities and the provision of services, cities have become areas of massive sprawl, serious environmental problems, and widespread poverty.”

Many needs face people living in urban areas around the world. The Urban Institute, a nonpartisan economic and social policy research center, notes on its website that the primary problems facing urban areas in all 50 U.S. states as well as 23 other countries generally include: crime and justice, economy and taxes, education, healthcare, housing, welfare, and work/income issues.

In her book Missions, Gailyn Van Rheenen points out how different urban and rural areas are. Van Rheenen notes that while people in rural communities remain primarily homogenous, connected with friends and family, and educated for subsistence skills, urbanites live in a context that is pluralistic, heterogeneous, populated but not connected, focused on jobs over families, and fueled by formal education, especially in technological and informational training. So, clearly, missions organizations must realize that when comparing rural and urban missions, they are talking about two completely different contexts.

Additionally, Van Rheenen notes that urban peoples’ mindsets vary drastically from their rural counterparts. In order to work with and understand people in cities, missionaries must know that urbanites live in situations characterized by:
•Being consumed by commodities
•Disintegrating communities, where marriages and families are breaking down and many people are lonely
•Tremendous complexity, with a wide variety of choices in everything from food to religion
•A dominating cultural relativistic mindset, fueled by individualism

Is the Church uniquely qualified through its missions efforts to address such needs and cultural contexts? What might such ministry and evangelism efforts look like, in light of such information?

Your opinion matters. Weigh in.

Living Among the Urban Poor

2009-07-23T10:40:00.002-04:00

Traditionally, missions work has often taken itself to rural areas: tribal or remote communities that need to hear the gospel.

But the cold, hard fact is that people are on the move! Now, more than ever before, people who once lived in rural areas are moving to the cities—a phenomenon researchers have called “Global Urbanization.” And this movement is taking place worldwide!

In fact, today more than half of the world’s population lives in metropolitan areas, and within the next 50 years, analysts expect that more than two-thirds of the world’s population will be living in towns and cities instead of rural areas.

So with this rapid move to the cities, should missions efforts transition to the cities, where the most people are? Have we been neglecting the urbanites and their needs? How does missions look different in urban versus rural areas? And if a move to the city is inevitable, should missionaries join existing outreach efforts or human service providers or should they continue to exist as indigenous missionaries?

These questions are what we will attempt to answer over the next few weeks. Join us in this missions mystery by taking part in the conversation!

Week #1: “Although half the world’s population now lives in cities, most humanitarian agencies continue to focus their efforts on rural development. There is a desperate need for people to live among the urban poor as ministers of God’s hope and redeeming power, and to partner with them in transforming their communities.”

In developed and developing countries alike, many people are moving to urban areas in hopes of a job, a home, and an all-around improved economic condition. But what they often meet is a lack of housing or poor living conditions, job shortages, and other major issues. And the problems brought on by urbanization look different in each country.

According to Servant Partners, a Christian organization dedicated to reaching out to people in urban areas, “One out of every six people in the world today lives in an urban slum, with very few churches among them.” Even in the United States, about 80 percent of the U.S. population lives in the nation's 300-plus metropolitan areas.

So is it time for missions to follow the masses and focus on cities? Is it time to re-evaluate how many resources are being plugged into rural areas when cities have just as many (if not more) needs? What do you think? Please join in the conversation and leave your comments.

http://www.unhabitat.org/content.asp?cid=4613&catid=535&typeid=24&subMenuId=0
http://servantpartners.org/display.php?slug=focus
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/urban_gc/
http://servantpartners.org/display.php?slug=focus
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-02-08-metro-power_x.htm

The Future of Missions

2009-07-08T14:07:00.003-04:00

MySpace, Skype, iPhones…the list goes on and on. Are these modern advances in technology valuable resources or distractions on the mission field? The jury is still out.

Many people think that these and other postmodern changes around the world have completely changed the traditional “pick up and go” style of missions. Are they right? Will missions and outreach never be the same? Let’s take a look at the evidence.

Week #4: “Missionaries at Open Doors use computer courses to train nationals in countries not open to Christian missionaries. They use chat rooms and questions-and-answer sites to do work that would be impossible using traditional missions methods.” Is this format the future of missions? Does technology make the go-and-stay model obsolete?

Online training and evangelism increasingly seem to be topics of conversation in the missions world. The questions that seem to be floating around include: Why spend money to send individuals overseas to conduct training that could be done over the Internet? With the rise of social networking sites, instant messaging, and other communication tools, do people actually need to uproot their lives in order to work effectively with people around the globe?

Internet Evangelism Day notes “the Internet is unique in its ability to reach people, and, we believe a God-given tool for the whole Church.” And the resources seem to abound!

Missionary Geek is an entire online resource devoted to “focusing on the modern missionary, […] look at the latest tools, processes and hacks that will help you do your job easier, more cleanly and leave you with more time to drink coffee with your friends.” Some missions organizations, including WGM, even have manuals for people wanting to get involved in becoming a virtual missionary.

So is it time to say goodbye to old models of missions work? Should Internet evangelism or online training techniques replace having missionaries go overseas and stay for long periods of time? Or do you think it’s important to retain the tactics and tradition from years gone by? Is there still benefit in actually sending missionaries to foreign lands for long periods of time?

Share your thoughts! Be a part of the conversation.

http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2753&Itemid=120
http://www.internetevangelismday.com/results.php
http://missionarygeek.blogspot.com/
http://www.wgm.org/Page.aspx?&pid=3262&srcid=3262

Are there downsides to using technology in missions?

2009-07-08T14:04:00.002-04:00

You just can’t get away from the impact of technology. Even right now, you’re reading a blog that connects you with the missions world—maybe from the comfort of your living room, at the office, or even at a local park.

But have technological advances impacted the missions world at a deeper level? Has the face of traditional missions changed forever?

This week, we’re going to ask: Are there downsides to using technology in the missions world? Have we lost elements of what once was an efficient and effective tradition? Is technology really improving missions?

Week #3: Not everyone sees these technological advances as a godsend to the missions world. So are there downsides to using technology in missions?

A recent NY Times article, “Surveillance of Skype Messages Found in China,” noted that “Researchers in China have estimated that 30,000 or more ‘internet police’ monitor online traffic, Web sites and blogs for political and other offending content in what is called the Golden Shield Project or the Great Firewall of China.” For missionaries in that country and those like it, using Skype or other online communication tools may actually increase their personal security risk.

Others note that downsides to using technology on the mission field include: altering “missionary tactics and systems that have worked for decades” and distracting missionaries from their work with nationals by increasing their responsibility to stay connected back home.

So do these critics have a point? Should the ever-mobile and global world impact how missionaries do their work and stay connected? Or by using the most recent technological tools, have missionaries actually lost important fundamentals to worldwide outreach?

What’s your verdict? Do you have friends or family members who share your sentiments? We’re sure there are a variety of views out there when it comes to technology and missions, so please share your thoughts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/02/technology/internet/02skype.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1
http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2753&Itemid=120

Social Networking in Missions

2009-07-08T14:02:00.003-04:00

Due to the availability of information and communication technologies, the world is not as “big” as it once was. And not many have felt the impact of this transition like those in the missions world. While missionaries still go overseas and stay for years at a time, technology has greatly changed how many missionaries go, reach out, and stay connected.

Last week, we began asking whether all these technological changes have actually advanced missions worldwide. Now, we want to look specifically at how technology has impacted missionaries’ interpersonal relationships, especially with those regular supporters.

Week #2: One Barna Group study notes: “The impact of (these) technologies on interpersonal relationships—a domain often called social networking—has begun to rewire the way people meet, express themselves, and stay connected.” How does this American trend translate to the mission field?

Simply put: The expectations of missions champions in the United States are rising. With tools such as Skype, e-mail, Facebook, and even YouTube available just a click away, champions want to do more than give regularly, but to also stay connected with the missionary and the cause that impassioned them in the first place.

And how has this changed missions? One survey of American non-profits discovered that over 74 percent of the non-profit responders had a presence on the ever-popular commercial social networking site, Facebook. By not being on Facebook or at least having a social networking presence, missionaries or missionary organizations seem to be behind the curve when it comes to reaching its target demographic and remaining up-to-date with the most recent strategies for “getting the word out.”

So do these social networking sites actually enhance the missionary’s work, helping them connect with and update their champions back home, or is this just another skill missionaries have to acquire in order to stay up with what is merely a fad? Can these types of tools actually detract from the goal of missions—seeing people come to know Jesus Christ personally?

Your opinion matters.

http://www.blogcatalog.com/search.frame.php?term=technology+and+christian+missions&id=6f7fd7737024f40ed78420f78767d7d4
http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/14-media/36-barna-technology-study-social-networking-online-entertainment-and-church-podcasts
http://www.commonknow.com/html/white-papers/NonprofitSocialNetworkSurveyReport.pdf

Living in a Flat World

2009-07-08T13:59:00.003-04:00

How has missions changed since the world became flat? Have technologies such as the Internet, cell phones, Skype, or social networking sites such as Facebook or MySpace revolutionized the missions world?

When missionaries would once leave for the field, only to return and give their supporters a report every three to four years, modern technologies allowed not only an almost constant exchange of information, but also increased global awareness on the part of the missionary’s champions back home.

So have technological advances changed the face of missions forever? Are these resources helping or hindering outreach efforts worldwide? This month, we’re going to “link together” to discover answers to these questions.

Ready to interface? Then, let’s get started.

Week #1: “Several years ago, many congregations thought a laptop was an excessive luxury for a missionary. Now, it’s accepted as a necessary tool.” Why this shift in ideology?

According to one Barna group study, “consumer technologies—such as cell phones, DVD players, and mobile computers—have generated mainstream adoption and have significantly shaped the lifestyles and expectations of the nation’s population.” This study goes on to note that Americans’ lifestyles are growing increasingly mobile, having access to information and communication tools at just the click of a few buttons.

Missions champions no longer have to wait for their missions team to return from a far-off land to hear how God is working in that country or to know the needs there. All one has to do is go online, Google a phrase like “poverty in Ghana” or “Christianity in Ukraine” to get millions (yes, millions) of links that the champion can research all from the comfort of the local coffee shop.

For missionaries, tasks such as missionary prayer letters or huge posterboard presentations, that may have once been considered cumbersome, can be replaced by more frequent, interactive, and up-to-date ministry reports via e-mail, blogs, or social networking sites such as Facebook or MySpace.

Plus, with all these communication tools, picking up your family and moving to a foreign country is not the “leap off the face of the earth” it may have once been. Through regular e-mails, social networking sites, or other online technologies such as Skype, missionaries can be half a world away and still be able to weekly or even daily stay in touch with family and friends.

So have all these changes actually enhanced missions efforts around the world? Do increased communication abilities and availability of information streamline the administrative side of worldwide evangelism?

Your input is crucial to keeping this discussion alive. Please join in and leave your comments.

http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2753&Itemid=120
http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/163-americans-on-the-go-lifestyles-and-entertainment-appetites-fuel-increasing-reliance-upon-technology

Church Attendance

2009-05-31T00:08:00.001-04:00

Experiencing loss on both large and personal scales brings up important spiritual questions in many people. In some cases, people flock to the Church for answers or for comfort. But do these trends indicate that people are genuinely more open to the gospel in the wake of tragedy?

Over the last month, we’ve dissected people’s responses and observations following natural disasters, terrorism, and even individual loss. We’ve seen myriad responses to these types of loss, both initially and over time. But what about spiritual responses to the current economy? Has financial loss (or the risk of it) provided an open door for the Church to offer the gospel as long-term security? Are people turning to God for answers, and if so, what will happen if their financial situation stabilizes?

In this last week, we’ll take one last look at these missions mysteries and try to solve these evangelism questions that plague us.

Week #5: In November 2008, the Gallup organization released the following statement in response to the economic recession: “Despite some news reports to the contrary, a review of almost 300,000 interviews conducted by Gallup so far in 2008 shows no evidence that church attendance in America has been increasing late this year as a result of bad economic times.” Are these trends accurate, or is there another side to the story?

The Gallup report seems to indicate that although many people in America find themselves more financially unstable, the majority of them are not turning to the Church for answers. However, writer Paul Vitello released an article “Bad Times Draw Bigger Crowds to Churches” in the December 2008 New York Times that seemed to have the opposite message.

Using Seattle’s Mars Hill Church and Chicago’s Willow Creek as a few examples, Vitello noted that “bad times are good for evangelical churches” and “part of the evangelicals’ new excitement is rooted in a communal belief that the big Christian revivals of the 19th century, known as the second and third Great Awakenings, were touched off by economic panics.” But Vitello goes on to note that these beliefs are not largely backed by religious historians and are instead considered an evangelism myth.

So who has it right?

Has the economic crisis spurred people to turn to God? Is the field ripe for evangelistic harvest? Or, has anything really changed? Why aren’t more people looking to Christ and the Church for solutions to their financial burdens?

And how does all of this fit into the link between loss and evangelism? After looking at different types of tragedy, what conclusions can you draw? This is your last chance to get involved in solving this missions mystery, so add evidence and offer solutions by leaving your comments.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=9&version=31&context=chapter

Faith as a Result of Hardship

2009-05-31T00:06:00.002-04:00

Okay, super sleuth: We’ve been trying to tackle important evangelism questions related to loss. You’ve helped us dig deeper into what spiritual trends after natural disasters and terrorist acts mean. Such large-scale loss often triggers more questions than answers.

But what about individual loss that occurs on a day-to-day basis? The death of a loved one after battling cancer? A job loss? Or you watch as fire wreaks havoc on your home, minimizing it to a pile of ashes and brokenness.

When people go through these types of loss, are they more open to evangelism in the aftermath? Does the scale of the loss impact the spiritual change in the heart of the seeker?

Week #4: In Matthew 9, the writer describes the loss of two people: the ruler whose daughter had died and the woman who suffered from incessant bleeding. Both individuals came to Jesus as a result of their hardships, and because of their faith, Jesus reached out to each of them and healed them in unique ways. But were they changed in the long run?

Many people face individual loss just like the ruler and the woman in Matthew 9. Just as we see in this passage, and probably in situations around you, individual hardships often cause people to seek out Jesus when they have not previously done so. Many pastors or Christians want the gospel message given at funerals because they know the healing Christ can provide to a broken or hurting heart, as evidenced by how Jesus responded to the faith of these seekers and, in turn, provided healing.

But while news of Jesus’ healings spread throughout the region, we cannot get an accurate account from this passage alone as to whether these two people continued to follow Christ.

What do you think? Have you witnessed individuals’ lives being changed when they come to Christ after personal loss? Do they seek Jesus out of genuine desire or as acts of desperation? And, if the Church is to follow Jesus’ example, how can we effectively provide spiritual healing through evangelism?

Get involved in this tangled missions mystery and be part of the conversation.

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_05094ats.shtml

The Church in Time of Tragedy

2009-05-31T00:01:00.004-04:00

Natural Disasters. Terrorism. Large-scale loss can often be devastating, not only to individuals but also to entire nations. But can the message of Jesus Christ infiltrate such situations and bring redemption to tragedy? Or do evangelistic efforts fall flat in the face of loss?

In the last few weeks, we’ve looked at just two forms of loss: natural disasters and terrorism. While these case studies revealed some interesting results, we aren’t quite sure if we have our answer.

This week, we turn our attention to the Church’s response to large-scale loss, and ask: Is evangelism in the midst of tragic situations pointless or has the Church just missed the mark when it comes to strategy?

Week #3: In the Barna post-9/11 report, director of the study David Kinnaman remarked, “Most leaders—religious and otherwise—were completely caught off guard in 2001. Without intentional planning, most churches were satisfied merely to provide a safe haven for people to come together and seek comfort, but few congregations led people to a serious and prolonged period of self-reflection and personal change.”

Incidents like the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, have brought people to churches in record numbers—but only for a short time. Is this because the threat of terrorism decreased, or could it be that the Church did not effectively reach out to the masses? Was consolation and a helping hand enough to bring people to Christ for the long haul? As Kinnaman stated: Maybe not.

But even though Christians saw no lasting change in the hearts of fellow Americans post-9/11, we may not be able to conclude quite yet that evangelism after loss is completely ineffective. The Barna report begs the Church to question: Have we simply missed the mark? Are our methods of spreading the gospel in such situations off base? Were we prepared to reach out as Jesus would have?

In addition to providing consolation, another evangelistic method that surfaced after the Hurricane Katrina tragedy was the “When you lose it all...God still cares” gospel tract released by the American Tract Society. This tract was considered insensitive and controversial by many people, even though they were widely distributed to hurricane victims.

So does the Church have it all together when it comes to responding to natural disasters, terrorism, economic recession, or even individual loss? Does a shoulder to cry on or a gospel brochure really provide what people’s hearts crave? Could it be that the lack of lasting change has less to do with open hearts and more to do with the Church’s response? Or, does it turn out that evangelism after loss is just not effective no matter what the outreach philosophy?

If we are going to get to the bottom of this missions investigation, we need your thoughts and insight. Please take a moment to weigh in.

http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/13-culture/148-five-years-later-911-attacks-show-no-lasting-influence-on-americans-faith
http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/13-culture/148-five-years-later-911-attacks-show-no-lasting-influence-on-americans-faith

Response to Tragedy

2009-05-30T23:52:00.004-04:00

This month, we’re asking how loss (both on the large scale and in individuals’ lives) impacts evangelism efforts. Last week, we looked specifically at challenges to church expansion in Asia.

Now, we turn our attention to a growing concern in the United States and abroad: terrorism.

Does the threat of terrorism actually draw people to find a deeper peace and comfort in Christ? Can evangelism actually come alive in the midst of higher threat levels or even after terrorist acts themselves? And if so, is the openness genuine and lasting or shallow and short-lived?

In order to answer some of these questions, we need to take a close look at how America responded after the September 11, 2001, attacks and ask, “Does the U.S. response to this tragedy indicate the long-term spiritual effects of loss? Can we generalize these statistics to other hardships people face?”

Let’s find out…

Week #2: “In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, half of all Americans said their faith helped them cope with the shock and uncertainty. The change most widely reported was a significant spike in church attendance, with some churches experiencing more than double their normal crowd on the Sunday after the shocking event. However, by the time January 2002 rolled around, churchgoing was back to pre-attack levels, and has remained consistent in the five years since.”

This report from the Barna Group, a private non-profit research group led by Christian George Barna, outlined how Americans responded post-9/11. Initially, church attendance shot up in large numbers, but the Barna Group followed this trend over the next five years to watch what happened.

Here are just a few of the results:
In addition to the initial spike and then leveling out of church attendance, the report indicated that religious behaviors (like Bible reading and prayer) were not affected in the long term. In other words, people who took part in these disciplines before the attack did so afterwards, and vice versa. The same was true of religious beliefs and the number of people who called themselves Christians. No dramatic lasting changes took place.

So looking at this Barna report on 9/11, can we theorize that loss as the result of terrorism does not spur people to follow Christ? Are evangelistic efforts post-terrorism or even post-natural disasters fruitless? Or are we missing something?

What do you think? Weigh in.

http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/13-culture/148-five-years-later-911-attacks-show-no-lasting-influence-on-americans-faith

Loss and Following Jesus

2009-05-30T23:48:00.002-04:00

Are you ready for a new missions mystery? This one is a doozy—plagued with questions without clear answers. We may not be able to find an answer by looking at the stats alone. But are you ready for this month’s missions challenge?

Well, here are the questions we’re asking:

Have you ever wondered how terrorist attacks, natural disasters, or even economic hardships impact evangelism? Is there a link between loss and an openness to following Jesus Christ? And if so, how should Christians respond to the losses people face daily around the world?

Each week, we’ll try to unfold different clues and ask you to weigh in on their impact on world evangelism. You’re an important sleuth in this case, so grab your detective gear and let’s get started!

Week #1: Describing the challenges to expanding the Asian Church, Rev. Godfrey Yogarajah said that in addition to taking the gospel to the unreached, “Poverty and the widening gulf between rich and poor, global food shortages, rampant materialism side by side with abject poverty, natural disasters, political and cultural nationalism, war and armed conflict, religious fundamentalism and persecution are other hindrances to the expansion of the Asian church…”

Whether talking about tsunamis, earthquakes, or other forms of personal tragedy, the people of Asia have experienced many forms of loss over the last several years. And while Rev. Yogarajah states that the Church “cannot ignore” helping to rebuild after such hardships, that these incidents become challenging to expanding the church.

Why do they become challenging, you might ask? Although Rev. Yogarajah does not outline the reasons explicitly, can we make some assumptions about what the church in Asia is facing?

Consider the May 2008 earthquake in the Sichuan province of China. Only a few weeks before the Summer Olympics in Beijing, this quake ravaged parts of China, leaving well over 50,000 deaths in its wake. Tang Hong, a woman whose husband was injured, wept as she described how she had witnessed an entire school building collapse on the handicapped and deaf children still inside.

Now let’s put ourselves in Ms. Tang’s position. Such trauma can often be debilitating. So would finding a relationship with God be at the forefront of your mind when you are simply trying to breathe in and breathe out? Does such tragedy as this natural disaster slow down evangelism efforts around the world? Or are we missing an important part of the puzzle?

Your input is vital to continuing our investigation. Please share your thoughts on this missions mystery by leaving your comments.

Can we draw any conclusions about Christian persecution and world evangelism?

2009-05-07T22:14:00.002-04:00

The 2009 World Watch List shows the intense persecution of Christians worldwide. But where persecution rates are high, how is Christianity faring? Does the risk of martyrdom keep people away from following Jesus Christ, or is the opposite true?

During the last few weeks, we’ve looked at some of today’s worst persecuted countries: North Korea, Iran, and China. These case studies have helped us to see whether people are converting to Christianity, even in the midst of religious intolerance and suffering.

But our discussion could not be complete if we did not compare these findings to countries that do not have the daily risk of persecution. So, we turn our attention to evangelism in the United States.

Week #4: The Barna Group recently released survey results that indicated that “half of all adults now contend that Christianity is just one of many options that Americans choose from.” Perhaps hand in hand with this finding, the Pew Forum notes that the percentage of people identifying themselves as Protestant Evangelical Christians has been steadily declining since 1974.

Known for its religious freedom, the United States has long had a high percentage of Christians. The words “American” and “persecution” rarely go hand in hand, in comparison to countries on the World Watch List. And for years, this religious freedom has been celebrated!

One source notes that “countries with Christian backgrounds have the best religious freedom record” and the US remains high on that list, falling into the top four in the world. Today, some estimate that the Christian population still accounts for somewhere between 76 percent and 82 percent of the people’s stated faiths. [Note: These numbers include Protestant, Catholic, and other Christian affiliations.]

However, as we noted earlier, these numbers have been declining rapidly over the last thirty years—with the number of Protestant Christians falling by at least 14 percent from 1974 and 2004. And with this fall, “Protestant decline has been accompanied by a corresponding growth in the number of the unaffiliated and those identifying with other religions.”

So does increased religious freedom enhance the spread of the gospel, as evidenced by the high percentage of Christians in the United States? Or, do you think that the declining numbers in the US indicate that persecution actually enhances Christianity conversion rates? How do you account for these discrepancies?

After looking at North Korea, Iran, China, and the United States, how do they compare? Can we draw any conclusions about Christian persecution and world evangelism? Get involved in this hot topic! Be a part of the conversation.

http://pewforum.org/world-affairs/countries/?CountryID=222
http://www.christianpost.com/Intl/Human_rights/2007/07/-christian-nations-dominate-world-146-s-best-religious-freedom-spots-10/index.html
http://pewforum.org/world-affairs/countries/?CountryID=222
http://pewforum.org/world-affairs/countries/?CountryID=222
http://pewforum.org/world-affairs/countries/?CountryID=222

Do you think that the risk of religious suffering actually opens doors for Christian converts?

2009-05-07T22:11:00.002-04:00

This month, we’ve been investigating how the risk of persecution impacts evangelism. Do converts come to Christianity more easily once it is presented even when faced with potential suffering for their faith? Or is it actually harder to become a Christian in countries on the World Watch List?

During week one, we looked specifically at North Korea—known for its intense persecution of Christians, but also for its underground church presence. Then, in week two, we moved to the Middle East to see how the gospel is faring in Iran, number three on the World Watch List and having only a tiny Christian population. Now, we dig in deeper by looking at China.

Week #3: China ranks number twelve on the World Watch List. The majority of Christians in China worship secretly in homes—they “preach, worship and evangelize, risking the loss of jobs and homes, arrest, imprisonment, torture and death.”

Although China would like the world to think it is tolerant of Christianity and other religions, its policies and actions prove otherwise. People who attend churches or claim a faith not recognized by the socialist regime put themselves at risk of harassment, arrest, imprisonment, torture, and even murder.

Before, during, and after the 2008 Beijing Olympics, Christian persecution only intensified despite China’s claims to promote human rights in the country. One pastor, “Bike” Zhang Mingxuan, along with his wife and son were even cast out from Beijing but not without first withstanding severe beatings as well as arrest for Pastor “Bike”.

Even so, the Chinese church is growing with great vigor. ChinaAid notes that although many meet in homes, abandoned buildings, woods, and even caves, some estimate that their numbers are growing exponentially—some say over 35,000 daily! Recent estimates claim that at least 6 percent of China’s people now cling to Christianity as their faith, and these numbers may not include many of the underground converts.

Christianity seems to be on the rise in China. So does this trend indicate that persecution actually pushes people toward the gospel? Do you think that the risk of religious suffering actually opens doors for Christian converts? Or is China’s Christian population higher because it is lower than North Korea and Iran on the World Watch List? Is it growing because China’s population has greater access to Christian teaching and slightly less persecution than others on the list?

What do you think these trends indicate? We need your input if we are to get to the bottom of this missions investigation, so please share your thoughts.

http://www.persecution.net/iran.htm
http://www.persecution.net/iran.htm
http://www.persecution.com/recent_iranianChristianReleased.html
http://www.opendoorsusa.org/content/view/432/
http://chinaaid.org/persecution/the-underground-church/
http://chinaaid.org/persecution/

Does the fear of Christian persecution outweigh the spread of the gospel in Iran?

2009-05-07T22:06:00.003-04:00

Being a Christian in a persecuted country involves daily suffering—of mind, body, soul, and spirit. However, as Paul wrote in Romans 8:17 (NIV), “we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.”

So how is the gospel faring in today’s worst persecuted countries? Is converting people to Christianity easier or harder in the countries at the top of the World Watch List? Do you think that the risk of persecution plays a factor in peoples’ decisions to accept Jesus Christ?

This month, we’re attempting to answer these soul-shaping questions by looking at some of the countries at the top of the 2009 World Watch List. Last week, we looked at North Korea, which ranks in at number one. Now, we turn our attention and our hearts to Iran.

Week #2: Although the Iranian government touts religious tolerance of Christianity, attempting to convert Muslims to Christianity could result in the death penalty.

Number three on the 2009 World Watch List, Iran is no stranger to Christian persecution. The Voice of the Martyrs-Canada notes that:

“Christians make up less than one-half of 1 percent of the population. The open witness of the Good News is banned and government spies monitor Christian groups. Believers are discriminated against in education, employment, and property ownership and also face arrests, imprisonment, and sometimes even death.”

However, Christianity is not dead in Iran. While missionaries are not allowed to work in this country, many stories of Muslim converts to Christianity have surfaced. Recent converts such as 27-year-old Hossein Karimi make the decision to risk their lives to follow Jesus Christ—even after being arrested and imprisoned for participating in Christian activities.

So what’s your verdict? Does the fear of Christian persecution outweigh the spread of the gospel in Iran? Is it simply lack of access to the gospel that is hindering its spread? Do stories of converts such as Hossein indicate spiritual growth and the quiet rise of Christianity? Or do the numbers indicate stifled growth due to the religious persecution at the hand of the Iranian government? What does this mean for world evangelism? Weigh in.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/december/3.19.html
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/kn.html
http://www.releaseinternational.org/pages/posts/north-korea---underground-church-prepares-for-growth531.php
http://www.persecution.org/suffering/countryinfodetail.php?countrycode=21

How does Christian persecution impact world evangelization?

2009-05-07T22:00:00.003-04:00

Suffering knows no borders or boundaries. Daily, men, women, and children in nearly every country go without basic necessities such as water and shelter—their physical bodies wasting away. Others face situations that torment their souls to the point of complete hopelessness.

But very few people, especially Americans, know suffering like Christians in countries that top the World Watch List, an annual ranking of “the countries where Christians suffer the greatest persecution.” You have probably heard of the religious intolerance at the hands of dictator Kim Jong Il in North Korea (number one on the watch list) or of the daily unrest in Middle Eastern countries such as Iran or Afghanistan.

No one can deny that being a Christian in persecuted countries involves daily suffering—of mind, body, soul, and even spirit. Many believers risk their lives to even bow their knees in prayer or attend underground church gatherings. Just like the apostle Paul, who also “participate[d] in the sufferings of Christ,” hundreds of thousands (or more!) are imprisoned around the world due to their Christian faith.

But one question remains: How does Christian persecution impact world evangelization? Does it hinder or help the spread of the gospel? Could it actually be easier to convert people to Christianity in a country where it’s harder to be a Christian? Or does suffering due to religious intolerance hinder people from giving their lives to Jesus Christ?

This month, we will be tackling these difficult, but important questions—and we need your help. We’ll be looking at several countries on the World Watch List as case studies, starting with number one on the list: North Korea. Let’s get started…

Week #1: “North Korea is suspected of detaining more political and religious prisoners than any other country in the world. Estimates reveal there are at least 200,000 prisoners, with up to as many as 70,000 being Christians […] Under the leadership of Kim Jong-Il, Christianity is considered to be one of the greatest threats to the regime’s power.”

North Korea is far and away the worst persecutor of Christians today. Its “great leader” Kim Jong Il has even gone so far as to offer rewards for people who turn in information about Christians, which has, in turn, created a national atmosphere of paranoia and distrust. While the majority of the North Korean population suffers on many levels, the worst persecution is reserved for Christians.

Therefore, the North Korean Church has gone underground, which makes an accurate measurement of growth difficult. However, expert estimates of the number of Christians in North Korea range from around 100,000 to nearly 500,000 out of its total population of 22,665,345 (July 2008 estimate). That could be as many as 2 percent of North Koreans!

One writer even notes, “The underground church of North Korea is preparing for growth.” So do you think these facts and figures indicate a rise of Christianity in North Korea? Could such harsh persecution and religious restriction actually be drawing people to Jesus Christ? Or…does Kim Jong Il still have the upper hand?

What does the situation in North Korea mean for world evangelism? Can the gospel really go forth in such a spiritually dark and oppressive country? And do you think North Korea is representative of other countries on the World Watch List? Share your thoughts on this missions mystery by leaving your comments.

The Future of Effective Outreach Efforts

2009-05-06T14:13:00.001-04:00

Baby Boomers. Generation Y. Builders. Generation X. How can Christians effectively evangelize people from each of these generations? This is the question we’ve been asking over the last few weeks.

We’ve looked at it from several different angles, pouring over the research, gathering different perspectives, and even expanding our view globally. And what have we discovered thus far?

People in different generations certainly have fundamental differences in not only their outlook on life, but also in their preferred evangelism methods. However, that does not mean that only intra-generational evangelism should occur; there is great value in the community gained through cross-generational outreach. Yet, we also cannot ignore generational differences altogether.

Week #5: Individuals and “ministries seeking to prepare people to effectively share their faith in today’s society would advance the process by enabling young adults to carry on knowledgeable conversations about the substance of the Christian faith and how it affects all dimensions of a person’s life. The ability to relate biblical principles to current issues and personal struggles—that is, to interact beyond the level of simply ‘getting saved’—will be crucial for the future of effective outreach efforts.”

Each generation differs, and the more effective approach may be for all Christians from all age groups to be as prepared as possible to reach out in a variety of methods. One might argue that just because a young adult is more comfortable sharing his faith on Facebook than with a stranger on the street does not mean he should not be prepared to have deep, meaningful conversations about Christianity.

In that vein, the reverse is also true: Older generations must be willing to connect with the younger generations as individuals, perhaps over a cup of coffee or via e-mail, but that does not mean they have to give up their ties to lifestyle evangelism.

As one source noted, “We should be aspiring to genuine unity, rather than mere ‘similarity,’ because God sees beneath the surface even if we can’t.”

So if the goal is not conformity but unity, does targeted generational evangelism become necessary in today’s world? Or, just as one study that warned readers about over-generalizing people groups , should we still approach generation-based outreach with caution? Share your conclusions.

http://www.mrs.org.sg/icmat2005/index.php?dir=programme&page=public_lectures_macdiarmid
http://www.agts.edu/faculty/faculty_publications/articles/creps_generations_chart.pdf
http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/186-survey-shows-how-christians-share-their-faith

Is generational evangelism, using different approaches based on the person’s age, applicable outside the United States?

2009-05-06T14:11:00.001-04:00

For the last few weeks, we’ve been investigating the link between evangelism and generational differences. Here are a few of the questions we’ve been asking:

While each generation is clearly different on many grounds, from motivation to ministry or relationships to daily schedules, do these variations matter when it comes to sharing your faith? Should young adults or baby boomers reach out only to people in their age groups, or is there a benefit in cross-generational evangelism?

You’re not too late to join the generational debate! While we’ve looked at several different perspectives from Christian researchers and leaders, we’ve yet to take this discussion global.

Week #4: Evangelism techniques vary not only by the different age groups, but also by region and race. So is generational evangelism, using different approaches based on the person’s age, applicable outside the United States?

Many of the sources we’ve investigated thus far have stemmed from surveys and research within the United States. But does that mean we can’t apply their findings, at least loosely, to people outside the US?

Many people might answer, “No.” Yet, due to advances in technology (especially online communication tools) and travel opportunities, “the world is rapidly becoming smaller—the world today is very different from the world five years ago and the world five years from now will be very different from the world today.”

We may be remiss not to think that some of the generational trends carry into other cultures and that evangelism techniques found to be effective with age groups (especially today’s more-globally minded young adults ) within the US may also apply to other countries.

So does generation-based evangelism, whether done cross-generationally or within one’s own age group, become the model for sharing Christ with the world? Can you really be more effective in advancing the gospel message if you use different methods with different generations? Share your thoughts! Be a part of the conversation.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=12&verse=12&version=31&context=verse
http://www.the-next-wave-ezine.info/issue86/index.cfm?id=9&ref=ARTICLES_EMERGING%20CHURCH_163
http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/186-survey-shows-how-christians-share-their-faith

Old vs. New

2009-05-06T12:20:00.002-04:00

While many Christians vary their evangelism techniques based on culture or location, should they do the same based on generation? Should 20-year-old Sally share her faith with Grandpa Bob through a well-thought-out e-mail, or should she either adjust her approach or leave it to someone who is closer to Grandpa’s age?

Questions about evangelism and generational differences often bring more questions than answers. But, this month, we’re trying to get to the bottom of this debate. Over the last two weeks, we’ve looked at current research trends as well as the various evangelism techniques employed by each generation.

Some might think that generational differences are too great, so much so that cross-generational evangelism is archaic or inefficient in today’s world. But is that really the case?

Week #3: “…There are definite benefits to young people remaining in communion with older people…Older people provide a model of what Christian adulthood looks like and can provide wisdom and guidance of having invented the wheel once before. Young people have fervor and a willingness to try new things that inspire those around them to be responsive to God’s call and prompting.”

Cross-generational evangelism, people of different ages reaching out to one another, is arguably an important part of global outreach. Just as the Bible says in 1 Corinthians 12:12 (NIV), “The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ.” It seems that generations cannot ignore each other if they are to be the Body of Christ, as God intended them to be.

While certain generations may find specific evangelistic methods more natural, many would argue that the benefits to cross-generational evangelism far outweigh any negatives. One young Christian man in Australia noted, “While people are most comfortable reaching to their own demographic, I have seen 14-year-old girls sharing God’s love in nursing homes in an amazing way. Age need not be a barrier.”

So does the type of evangelism technique matter at all when sharing your faith with someone from a different generation? Or, if done in love, does the age and philosophy of the individual really matter? We need your perspective if we are to get to the bottom of this debate, so please share your thoughts.

http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/186-survey-shows-how-christians-share-their-faith
http://www.the-next-wave-ezine.info/issue86/index.cfm?id=9&ref=ARTICLES_EMERGING%20CHURCH_163

Do outreach methods differ by generation?

2009-05-05T23:20:00.003-04:00

From Baby Boomers to Generation X-ers, the discussion about generational differences has exploded in recent years. But should these differences based on age make any impact on how Christians are evangelizing? This month, we are attempting to unpack this question.

Last week, we discovered how many organizations (religious and nonreligious alike) find generational data to be an important facet of discussion and research. But how does this apply to evangelism directly?

Week #2: Evangelism isn’t viewed the same way by any two people. In fact, one study done by The Barna Group revealed that “the preferred outreach method varied by people groups,” based primarily on the generations.

If you ask a group of people how to evangelize, you will most likely get myriad answers. One pastor noted,

“For many, evangelism is what Billy Graham does when he preaches to stadiums full of seekers and thousands come forward.…To others, evangelism meant intruding into the lives of total strangers by handing out tracts at the mall or going door-to-door or phoning a list of names.”

But what does evangelism look like, based on generations? The Barna survey showed that “adults under the age of 40 were by far the most likely to practice Socratic [dialogue-based] evangelism,” more so than any other generation. On the other hand, the older generations were more likely to employ lifestyle evangelism, defined as “living in ways that impress non-Christians and cause them to raise questions about that lifestyle.”

And what about the younger generation? Well, these young adults were less likely than any other generation to use tracts, booklets, or other types of evangelism literature, but were more likely to use communication tools, such as e-mail, texting, or personal notes to share their faith.

The evangelism methodology employed by the various generations certainly differ. But does that mean cross-generational evangelism just won’t work? Should we adjust our methods to reach someone of a different generation? Or, should we use our natural methods to reach out to people of other generations?

To what generation do you belong, and how would you approach these difficult questions about evangelism? Christians young and old can glean from your thoughts, so be sure to weigh in.

http://www.agts.edu/faculty/faculty_publications/articles/creps_generations_chart.pdf
http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/186-survey-shows-how-christians-share-their-faith
http://www.christianitytoday.com/outreach/articles/evangelismfortheordinarychurch.html
http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/186-survey-shows-how-christians-share-their-faith
http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/186-survey-shows-how-christians-share-their-faith

Generations

2009-05-05T23:12:00.006-04:00

During the summer months, many recent college graduates take their freshly earned degrees to the mission field, both in the United States and abroad. Their passion for sharing God’s love may be obvious, but evangelism research begs to question:

Do generational differences impact evangelism? Is it important for these graduates, as well as Christians of all ages, to consider their “target” when deciding how to share Jesus Christ with nonbelievers? Or is the discussion of generations just a bunch of mumbo jumbo?

This month, we are going to look in depth at whether generational differences are critical to evangelism efforts. Just so we know who we’re talking about, here’s a brief summary of the generational terms and age ranges we’ll be using:
• Generation Y: Born 1977-1991
• Generation X: Born 1963-1976
• Baby Boomers: Born 1942-1962
• Builders: Born before 1942

While others may use the terms “Millenials” or “Busters” to describe these same generations, we’ll stick with these labels and age ranges for the purposes of our discovery process.

Ready to get started? Let’s dig into our first clue.

Week #1: “The Old Testament, the ancient Greeks, philosophers, poets, historians and sociologists through the centuries have described life in terms of the ebb and flow of generations. It has been called the most important conception in history.”

Whether you’re attending a church worship service, taking a class, or even sitting in a meeting at work, you’ve probably heard someone broach the topic of generational differences: “Those Generation X-ers just love to break the rules!” or “Why can’t the Builders just give up singing hymns already?”

But like it or not, generational differences exist. Much research has been done on key ideological, social, spiritual, and cultural differences that exist between the Builders, Boomers, Generation X-ers, and Generation Y-ers.

One study has even broken down generational differences into key religious, social, and even ministerial characteristics. Interested in an example? Well, one of the categorical differences has to do with the generational attitudes toward technology. While the Builder generation just hopes to “live it out,” the Baby Boomers are intent on mastering technology. And the younger generations? They either view it as something simply to enjoy or employ. And the generational differences don’t stop at technology.

But is this data something to consider when it comes to evangelism? Do we need to consider the age of the person with whom we are sharing Christ before launching into a full-force effort? Or is this generational talk better left to sociologists?
Your input is crucial to keeping this discussion alive. Please join in the conversation and leave your comments.

http://www.ncls.org.au/default.aspx?docid=4298
http://www.ncls.org.au/default.aspx?docid=4298

Advice on Sharing the Gospel

2009-04-23T09:41:00.002-04:00

We have been investigating whether a culture’s belief in one ultimate God (monotheism) or many gods (polytheism) impacts its people’s openness to the gospel. While God made it clear in His Word that “The LORD our God, the LORD is one” (Deuteronomy 6:4 NKJV), sharing the gospel in monotheistic and polytheistic cultures means facing different sets of challenges.

But is one more challenging than the other? So far we’ve looked at modern-day polytheistic and monotheistic cultures and their overall reactions to Christianity. We also asked whether understanding the Trinity and its relation to the ‘one versus many gods’ argument made the gospel easier to swallow. And last week, we took a look back at the early church and how these two cultures reacted to Jesus’ message.

Week #5: Whether you’re sharing the gospel with someone in a polytheistic or monotheistic culture, much of the advice seems to be the same. So is one culture really more difficult than another? Or does it all come down to the individual?

If you search the Internet for ways to evangelize different people groups, you can find many techniques or tips. For example, one source on how to share your faith with Muslims (who are monotheistic) offers the following advice: establish a genuine one-on-one friendship, pray for discernment, find ways to connect with and respect the culture, and share your story.

Another website that addresses outreach to the primarily polytheistic Hindus advises readers “to engage the person, not the religion of the person” and to use humanitarian efforts that show God’s love and mercy to open doors. A young woman who has lived in India for the past few years noted that,

“In general, it takes a completely different mentality to share Christ with a Hindu than it does a Muslim. Anyone who is involved in serious ministry to Hindus requires a different lifestyle and a different way of looking at life and relating to God than it would for someone working with Muslims. Same goes for people working with Buddhists, Sikhs, Animists, etc.”

On one hand, you can see a common thread of making evangelism about the person and building a relationship in both cultures. However, many experts agree that despite similar approaches, “on the whole, Hindu Indians have responded to the gospel more readily than their Muslim counterparts.”

So does examining monotheistic Muslim outreach and modern-day polytheistic Hindu evangelism techniques give us our answer? Is a polytheistic culture more accepting of Jesus Christ? Or, like many of the ‘sharing your faith’ techniques suggest, does it all come down to the individual?

It’s time for you to give your verdict. Please weigh in on the conversation and offer your perspective.

http://www.lifebuilders.to/muslim.pdf
http://christiananswers.net/evangelism/beliefs/hinduism.html
Personal communication.
http://christiananswers.net/evangelism/beliefs/hinduism.html

Was Christ’s message more readily accepted during the early church movement?

2009-04-23T09:26:00.004-04:00

For the last few weeks, we’ve been trying to solve an eyebrow-raising missions mystery about evangelizing in polytheistic and monotheistic cultures. Many questions have surfaced over the past several weeks as we’ve looked at different angles of this issue.

A few of our queries include: In which type of culture is it more challenging for people to accept God’s Word? Do polytheism and monotheism impact a person’s openness to Jesus Christ? And does the Trinity produce greater openness or resistance depending upon whether one comes from a monotheistic or polytheistic culture?

Our journey is not yet over. We’ve yet to look back into history and see whether we have something to learn from the past.

Week #4: Was Christ’s message more readily accepted by Jews (monotheistic) or Gentiles, many of whom came from Greek and Roman (polytheistic) backgrounds, during the early church movement?

Many Jews, like the disciples, made the decision to follow Christ despite great odds and persecution. You can read about their trials and triumphs throughout the book of Acts.

However, many other Jews felt that Jesus was not the Son of God. Groups of Jewish leaders—including many Pharisees and the Sanhedrin—rejected Jesus’ divinity and became part of the plot to have him crucified. But we still cannot lump all Jewish leaders into the same camp.

Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council, came to Jesus at night (in John 3) convinced that Jesus had come from God but still confused about Jesus’ teaching about being “born again.” However, after Jesus’ death, we again see Nicodemus with Joseph of Arimathea (another member of the Jewish council) as they asked Pilate for the body of Jesus to give it a proper burial.

Despite these individual conversions, one source boldly notes that “It was from the Jews, and only from the Jews, that the early Church was to suffer persecution.” However, Christians quickly went on to suffer far more intense persecution and rejection at the hands of the Romans, a polytheistic culture. So while the monotheistic Jews may have been the first to reject Christ’s message, other cultures went on to do the same—much of which continues to this day.

So has history taught us anything about whether monotheistic or polytheistic cultures are more accepting of God’s Word? Was the Jewish reaction to Christianity based on their historically monotheistic past, or did it have more to do with geography or other social or theological issues? Share your thoughts! Be a part of the conversation.

http://www.gospeloutreach.net/trinity.html
http://myownweirdness.blogspot.com/2007/11/christian-polytheism.html
http://christiananswers.net/evangelism/beliefs/hinduism.html
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~carlas/GRRsep9.htm

Monotheistic and Polytheistic Cultures

2009-04-23T09:09:00.002-04:00

Ready to engage the great polytheism versus monotheism debate? Then, join the discussion! This month we’ve been talking about whether cultures that historically believe in one god or many gods are more or less difficult climates in which to present Jesus Christ’s message.

Here are a few questions we’ve been asking: Since Christianity is also monotheistic, does that mean people from other monotheistic religions will more readily convert? Or are they too much alike? Do polytheistic cultures automatically shut out the idea of “one God” and turn their backs on Jesus? Do polytheism and monotheism really make a difference?

In week one, we took a brief snapshot of Christianity’s presence in predominately polytheistic countries. We turned our focus in week two to monotheistic cultures, including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. And now, we’re ready to turn a new corner.

Week #3: Are monotheistic or polytheistic cultures better able to understand and accept the idea of the Christian Trinity?

Although the word “Trinity” was not used in the Bible, Christians have used this term for centuries to explain the unique character of God. Simply put, the “doctrine of the Trinity teaches that there is one God, yet three distinct persons, each person is the same in substance and equal in glory and power.”

Upon hearing about this for the first time, some people mistakenly characterize Christianity as a polytheistic religion. This raises an important question in light of our current discussion: Does the Trinity explanation of God make it easier for polytheistic religions to accept Christianity?

With Hinduism, for instance, “it is generally fair to describe Hinduism as polytheistic, but only if we keep in mind that for numerous Hindus, all the gods [totaling more than 330 million, to be exact] emanate from the same fundamental deity.”

So, because many Hindus believe that their many individual gods actually all belong ultimately to one supreme, will they be more likely to accept the Godhead concept and salvation message of Scripture? Or do monotheistic cultures such as the United States or Europe find the Trinity easier to embrace and are they therefore faster to convert to Christianity? Is a discussion of the Trinity even important to evangelizing the nations?

These questions aren’t easy to answer alone. We need your unique perspective if we are going to get to the bottom of this debate, so please share your thoughts.

Monotheistic religions

2009-04-23T09:05:00.004-04:00

Missionaries travel to all parts of the world—polytheistic and monotheistic alike— to share the message of Jesus Christ. Last week, we began to ask whether a culture’s belief in one ultimate God (monotheism) or many gods (polytheism) impacts its people’s openness to the gospel. Which cultural history is more challenging to acceptance of the Word?

We began by taking a look at parts of the world where forms of polytheism are predominant, such as Japan and India. In these areas, we saw that the percentage of Christians is quite low, and we began to wonder whether this indicated that polytheistic cultures find it difficult to accept that “the LORD is one” (Deuteronomy 6:4).

However, our discussion would not be complete if we did not look at the other side of the coin. This week, we’ll turn our attention to the influence of Christianity in monotheistic cultures worldwide.

Week #2: Monotheistic religions include Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. While all three believe in one supreme being, is it really easier for people in these cultures to become Christ followers?

About 33 percent of the world’s population has been pegged as Christian, 21 percent identifies with Islam, and less than one percent (0.22 percent) follows Judaism. Let’s begin our discussion by taking a look at regions of the world that represent all three religions.

Christianity is concentrated primarily in Europe, North America, and South America, with a more recent expansion in parts of Africa. It is important to note that although Christianity is considered the largest world religion, the projections include Catholicism, Protestantism, Jehovah’s Witness, Eastern Orthodox, and many other religious sects in the totals.

Therefore, one cannot assume that everyone in these world regions either follows Jesus Christ or is even open to the gospel. In fact, one missions organization noted that “European Christians [once] told the world about Jesus. [But] today’s ‘Christian’ Europe is spiritually bankrupt. The ruins of ancient churches symbolize a continent that has turned away from Christ.”

And what about people in predominately Islamic or Judaic cultures? Does their similar belief in one God mean that they are more open to the gospel message of Jesus?

The answer doesn’t look good. In fact, Islam and Christianity have been at odds for centuries. Some think that “Muslim evangelism is one of the toughest fields of Christian witness. During the last two centuries, Christians have sought to win Muslims to Christ, only to find that it is extremely difficult to persuade the sons of Islam that Jesus Christ should be their Lord and Savior.”

And what about Judaism? While its followers share many beliefs with Christians, they disagree on one key point: Jesus. Most Jewish people do not think badly of Jesus and may even consider Him to have been “a nice man, a prophet, or even a teacher. For any loyal Jew to think any more of Him, however, would often be considered spiritual treason” says the Hope of Israel Baptist Mission.

So what’s your verdict? Will missionaries find more or less of a challenge sharing God’s Word in monotheistic cultures? Does the belief and worship of one or more gods really make a difference? Post your comments.

http://www.polytheism.net/
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/comparison_charts/islam_judaism_christianity.htm
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
http://www.om.org/what-we-do/europe.html

Polytheism

2009-04-23T09:02:00.003-04:00

In Biblical times, God made it clear to his people that “The LORD our God, the LORD is one” (Deuteronomy 6:4 NKJV). Because believers are called to worship one single, all-powerful God, Christianity is categorized as a monotheistic religion. However, many missionaries reach out to cultures that are polytheistic, meaning that its people believe in and worship many gods.

So, is it more difficult to share Jesus Christ with people in polytheistic cultures? And is it really easier to evangelize someone from a primarily monotheistic culture—or could the opposite, in fact, be true? Should missionaries even consider the impact of polytheism or monotheism before heading to the field?

These are the questions we will try to answer together in the coming month. Are you ready for your first clue? Then let’s get started.

Week #1: “Polytheism characterizes the beliefs of Hinduism, Mahayana Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, and Shintoism in the East, and also contemporary tribal religions in Africa and the Americas. These religions are widely practiced throughout the world and remain very popular in their ancestral areas.” So, after nearly 2,000 years of missionary efforts, how is Christianity faring in these regions?

If simple percentages indicate the difficulty of witnessing to someone in a polytheistic culture, then we might assume that “it ain’t easy.” In India, where over 90 percent of the world’s Hindus live, only 2.3 percent of the population identifies itself as Christian. Parts of Northern Asia, such as Japan, are primarily Shinto and Buddhist (84 percent), and Christianity represents less than one percent of the population.

Although these polytheistic religions vary greatly from one another in their specific beliefs, they all seem to have a unifying thread that does not leave room for one, all-powerful God.

But what do you think? Do these percentages reflect how complex it is for people in primarily polytheistic cultures to accept and believe in the one, true God? Does that mean that people in predominately monotheistic cultures, such as the United States, Spain, or even Iran, are more likely to embrace the gospel message? Or could other factors be contributing to the low Christianity rates in these parts of the world?

Our investigation has just begun, and we need you to share your thoughts on this important missions mystery. Please join in the conversation and leave your comments.

http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/cot/t0w03monopolytheism.htm
http://www.polytheism.net/
http://christiananswers.net/evangelism/beliefs/hinduism.html
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2122.html

Are past trends a good indicator of the future?

2009-03-16T22:27:00.003-04:00

Over the past few weeks, we’ve mulled over the world’s current socioeconomic condition as it impacts the spread of the gospel. In our discussion, many questions have surfaced:

How does the socioeconomic condition of a country affect the spread of the gospel? Do financial hardships help or hinder global missions work? Are people in poverty actually more open to the message of Jesus than those who live in relative comfort?

We’ve looked at both the benefits and pitfalls of having financial resources in relation to missionary work and outreach. Last week, we even investigated what church growth has looked like in some of the poorest countries of the world. But one question still remains.

Week #4: The United States has experienced recessions and economic crises in the past. What happened to the Church during those times? And are past trends a good indicator of the future?

In December 2008, the New York Times ran an article entitled, “Bad Times Draw Bigger Crowds to Churches.” The author, Paul Vitello, noted that since the United States economy went into a recession, evangelical churches have seen an increase in attendance—a trend that translates into a “bad times are good for the church” mentality.

Vitello pointed out that a study, “Praying for Recession,” conducted by David Beckworth at Texas State University, indicated that “during each recession cycle [in the United States] between 1968 and 2004, the rate of growth in evangelical churches jumped by 50 percent.”

Similarly, Steven Wilkes—editor of the Journal of Evangelism and Missions—was quoted in Christianity Today as saying, “People right now are more open to hearing about Jesus. They've lost something, and they're scared. I've told people that I'd rather my friends and relatives go to heaven hungry than go to hell full.” Wilkes is confident that the declining economic condition of the United States may be just what Christians need to spread the gospel in the United States.

So how should missions-active Christians respond to the current socioeconomic condition? Should Christians be praying for economic recession for the sake of the gospel? Will increased church attendance translate into souls saved and lives transformed?

Share your thoughts! Be a part of the conversation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/14/nyregion/14churches.html?_r=2
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/march/4.18.html

Does poverty actually enhance church growth and missionary work?

2009-03-16T22:21:00.003-04:00

This month, we’re discussing how the socioeconomic conditions of the United States (and the world) will affect global missions. Here’s a recap of some of the discussion thus far:

In the gospel of Luke, a rich young ruler was unwilling to part with his wealth in order to follow Jesus. Riches can often get in the way of choosing Jesus, so in the face of an economic crisis, should Christians invite poverty with open arms for the sake of the gospel? Or, knowing that missionary work takes financial resources, should we continue to pray for God’s monetary blessing so that Jesus’ message can continue to go forth? The verdict is still out.

Today, we’ll take a look at the global community’s response to poverty and its impact on the spread of the gospel.

Week #3: Some of the fastest-growing churches in the world are in third-world countries. So does poverty actually enhance church growth and missionary work?

In the face of both poverty and persecution, the gospel in Asia, Africa, and Latin America has often not subsided but has exploded. For example, Colombia—where the average annual income is $2,740 (USD) and 49 percent of the population is below the poverty line —is home to the fastest-growing individual church in the world, the Misión Carismática Internacional.

Globally, the Church has not focused on money to further the gospel. Its plea is not for increased funding or decreased poverty. Instead, in places like India (where the average annual income per person is $370 USD), the Church asks Christians to advance the faith through continued prayer and one-on-one evangelism.

So do these statistics indicate that poverty brings more people to Jesus? Is this what Jesus meant when he said in Luke 6:20, “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God”? In these countries, poverty is definitely present, and so is Christianity.

In her study on poverty and possessions, Sister Galligan writes,

“Throughout Luke's narrative it is usually the poor who readily receive, and trustingly respond to, Jesus' proclamation. The rich are smugly secure, resting in comfortable inertia—self-reliant, self-sufficient, self-satisfied. Their ‘possessions’ present a constant obstacle to their spiritual growth. Jesus shrewdly notes (and reality corroborates his wisdom) that a lack of material possessions, being ‘poor,’ facilitates a wholehearted response to God's gift of mercy and love. The very need for and lack of resources become a blessing when they leave people free and disposed to accept the enriching good news of salvation.”5

What do you think of Sister Galligan’s assessment on the benefits of being poor? Does church growth in third-world countries indicate that more poverty in the United States could advance the cause of the gospel? Do missionaries really need money to tell people about Jesus? Please share your thoughts.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3835
http://www.cartercenter.org/countries/colombia.html
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3835
http://www.operationworld.org/country/indi/owtext.html

Does having money better equip people to spread the gospel?

2009-03-16T22:20:00.001-04:00

Be a part of the discussion! Your voice could shed light on current questions challenging missions. Ready to dig in? Our topic this month focuses on socioeconomics—definitely a relevant issue today for the missions and global community!

Here are the questions we’re trying to examine: How does the socioeconomic condition of a country impact the spread of the gospel? Do financial hardships help or hinder global missions work? Are the poor actually more open to the message of Jesus than the rich?

Last week, we asked whether being rich was a hindrance to following Jesus. Now we flip the coin and look at how wealth and other resources can enhance the kingdom.

Week #2: Does having money better equip people to spread the gospel? How much does missionary work depend on financial resources?

While some might argue that the “most successful form of evangelism—individual Christians sharing their faith—costs nothing,” Christianity Today notes financial resources can enhance missions work and the spread of the gospel.1

If you’re going into global missionary service, you need money to get overseas, to secure housing and supplies, and to maintain ministries. Traditionally, career missionaries return to the United States (or their home country) periodically to raise necessary funds, so that they can continue overseas ministry.

So, when it comes to missions work, wouldn’t having money help get people where they need to go in order to share Jesus’ message? The rich young ruler in the book of Luke was unwilling to part with his wealth, so the gospel did not advance in his heart or through him. But what would have happened if he had said “Yes!” to Jesus?

“The rich man could have used his earthly abundance in a creative and responsible way. His riches could have been a source of blessing if he had unselfishly given to the poor,” wrote religious educator Sister Galligan in her study on poverty and possessions. “He missed having both friends on earth and treasure in heaven!”

What do you think? In today’s world, is money essential to keeping missionary work going? Does having financial resources benefit or hinder the gospel? As Christians, how should we be responding as we face an international economic crisis? Weigh in below.

Do riches get in the way of entering the kingdom of God?

2009-03-16T22:13:00.003-04:00

Daily you hear the terms “recession,” “stimulus package,” and “economic crisis.” All you have to do is stand in line at the grocery store or turn on the radio to hear that people are talking about the current financial situation in the United States and around the world. Maybe you and your family have personally felt the effects of the economic downturn.

But have you ever wondered how the socioeconomic condition of a country impacts the spread of the gospel? Do financial hardships help or hinder global missions work? Might people in poverty actually be more open to the message of Jesus than those who live in comparative comfort?

Since the current economy is not going to change overnight, these questions may be relevant for years to come! So over the next few weeks, we are going to try to find some answers for several questions. Won’t you weigh in?

Week #1: Do riches get in the way of entering the kingdom of God?

Some people argue that wealth can get in the way of salvation and that it is the poor who are better able to recognize their need for a Savior. Is this really the case? Do riches get in the way of the gospel?

Sister Galligan, a religious educator, wrote an article on the Book of Luke that considers this very question. She notes: “There seems to be an inherent tendency in people to be drawn by the seductive lure of the power, pleasure, and security that are the by-products of being wealthy….”

Having “things” often gives people a false sense of control over their lives. They have more than enough, so they don’t sense a need for God. In Luke 12:15 (NIV), however, Jesus warned against such reactions, saying, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.”

Luke 18:18-30 also reiterated the harmful power riches can have. A rich young ruler, unwilling to give all he had to the poor, denied Jesus’s offer to follow Him. Likely with a heavy heart, Jesus proclaimed in verses 24-25 (NIV), “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

So what does this mean for the missions world? Should Christians rejoice in or even pray for a downturn of the global economy? Will an increase in poverty result in an explosion of true Christian converts? And what does this mean for those who are missions active in the United States? The verdict is still out, so we need your input. Please join in the conversation and leave your thoughts below.

http://www.spiritualitytoday.org/spir2day/853711galligan.html

The separation of church and state.

2009-03-09T11:01:00.001-04:00

Politics and missions. The words just don’t seem to go together. Over the last few weeks, we’ve been discussing how the recent U.S. presidential change might affect American missionaries and missionary organizations.

We’ve asked how to reconcile President Obama’s concern for the poor with other concerns raised by some American Christians. We have even looked at how other countries are reacting to the new leadership. But what about the question of separation of church and state?

Week #4: The separation of church and state.

In 2001 the Bush administration launched the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (OFBCI) to combat “poverty, disease, and other social problems in partnership with faith-based and community organizations.” The OFBCI was created to give religious organizations an equal opportunity to receive government funding to help the poor.

In order to maintain separation of church and state, grant monies were not to be used for “inherently religious activities” such as “religious worship, instruction, or proselytization.” Christian organizations were to use these Federal grants only “to support the non-religious social services that they provide.”

The division between how the government works and how individuals worship remains, but President Bush helped level the playing field for religious institutions to receive much-needed funding. The change opened doors for many religious organizations, such as World Hope International, which in 2007 received over $2 million dollars in federal grants and contracts.

The question is, with the change in administrations, will such support of religious non-profits (including missionary-sending organizations) continue? In a January 2008 interview with Christianity Today, candidate Obama cautioned Christians, saying, “One of the things that I think churches have to be mindful of is that if the federal government starts paying the piper, then they get to call the tune. It can, over the long term, be an encroachment on religious freedom.” That was over a year ago, and recent reports indicate that President Obama plans to continue the OFBCI.

http://www.christianpost.com/Society/Church-state/2009/01/faith-based-office-looks-back-on-8-years/index.html
http://www.in.gov/ofbci/files/GuidanceDocument.pdf
http://www.in.gov/ofbci/files/GuidanceDocument.pdf
http://www.worldhope.org/pdf/2007_financial.pdf

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/januaryweb-only/104-32.0.html?start=1
http://www.christianpost.com/Society/Church-state/2009/01/faith-based-office-looks-back-on-8-years/index.html

Share your thoughts! Could the continuation of the OFBCI mean increased funding for missionaries and the religious organizations with whom they serve? Should missionaries be excited or concerned about governmental financial support? Would increased government involvement mean stricter practices and policies for compassionate ministries overseas? Be a part of the conversation at www.unsolvedministries.blogspot.com.

How has the global community responded to the US President?

2009-03-09T10:59:00.003-04:00

This month, we’ve been discussing whether the recent inauguration of a new American president will affect global missions. Here’s a recap of the discussion thus far:

When Barack Obama became the 44th president of the United States in January 2009, many people began to ask what global changes would occur due to his leadership. So what does a new U.S. president mean to global missions? Does this leadership change impact U.S. missionaries as they continue their ministries overseas?

During week one, we discussed President Obama’s stance on helping the poor around the world. Then, in week two, we turned our attention to concerns many Christian Americans have about possible changes in religious freedom in the USA and the effect on missions.

Today, let’s investigate how the rest of the world views the change in U.S. leadership and how those views might affect missions activity.

Week #3: How has the global community responded to the United States’ new President?

Many countries watched America’s 2008 elections with great interest. And like many Americans, they have wondered what this change in leadership could mean for their country and interests. However, from Brazil to North Korea, countries around the world have varied greatly in their responses to the newly elected American president.

On one hand, President Obama has received overwhelming support from countries such as Germany, Indonesia, and Kenya. The people in these countries seem to relate to Obama’s message of hope and change. Joseph Ochieng, a 36-year-old carpenter from Nairobi, said, “If it were possible for me to get to the United States on my bicycle, I would.”

Not all the world is quite as enthusiastic, however. Places such as North Korea, Russia, Iran, and others either completely ignored the change of administrations or expressed continued skepticism at American politics. One Pakistani schoolteacher said that, “Bush gave America a very bad name. He has become a symbol of hate. But I don’t think the change of face will suddenly make any big difference.”

Other countries are watching America’s new president—with mixed reactions. Some expect great changes on a global level, while others simply turn away in disgust.

But what does this mean for global missions? How will the president’s relationship with these countries flavor the reception of missionaries from the United States? Will it help or hinder the spread of the gospel? Please share your thoughts at www.unsolvedministries.blogspot.com.

6 http://www.christianpost.com/Society/Church-state/2009/01/faith-based-office-looks-back-on-8-years/index.html
7 http://www.in.gov/ofbci/files/GuidanceDocument.pdf
8 http://www.in.gov/ofbci/files/GuidanceDocument.pdf
9 http://www.worldhope.org/pdf/2007_financial.pdf

The concern about changes in religious freedom.

2009-03-09T10:57:00.002-04:00

Will you join in the missions conversation? Last week, we started by asking the question: Does change in U.S. leadership impact the missions world?

Since January 20, 2009, when Barack Obama became the 44th president of the United States, people have been wondering what might be different globally as U.S. leadership changes hands. For American missionaries serving overseas, will the changes be noticeable? Will the new administration support their activities?

Last week, we looked at how President Obama addressed the poor in his inauguration speech, calling Americans to take care of their needy brothers and sisters across the nation and around the world. But does taking care of the poor translate to missionary support?

Week #2: Some Christian Americans are concerned about changes in religious freedom.

Before and after President Obama was sworn into office, some Christian evangelicals were concerned whether the change in the presidency would include a change in religious freedoms. There is a fear that President Obama’s policies will “…threaten their freedom to live according to the Bible and profess it as the literal word of God.”

Jeff King, president of International Christian Concern, is among the skeptical. He is quoted as saying, “Bush, no matter what you think of him, was a great friend of the persecuted church. He stood up for them. He would intervene. He would talk to government leaders of other countries. With Obama, I’m not so sure.”

Days before the 2008 election, Focus on the Family expressed similar concerns when they released the “Letter from 2012 in Obama’s America.” Over 16 pages long, this letter presented a scenario of our nation after four years of the Obama presidency, written from an American Christian’s perspective. Although the letter did not hinder Obama’s election to the White House, it did question whether the United States would experience a loss of religious freedoms.

So should Christian workers be worried about whether they will be able to freely speak the name of Jesus? What would a loss of religious freedom mean for missionaries? Could American missionaries and missions organizations be facing new challenges over the next several years as a direct result of the change in the presidency?

What do you think? Are you among Christians concerned about this? Or can you offer a different perspective on how Obama’s presidency might influence global missions? Weigh in at www.unsolvedministries.blogspot.com.

Does politics impacts the missions world?

2009-03-09T10:53:00.002-04:00

Have you ever wondered whether politics impacts the missions world? What about a change in U.S. leadership?

Since January 20, 2009, when Barack Obama became the 44th president of the United States, the word change has been hanging in the air. Change won’t be exclusive to the United States, and people are asking what will be different globally with new U.S. leadership.

So what does a new U.S. president mean for global missions? Does this leadership change impact U.S. missionaries as they continue their ministries overseas?

Over the next few weeks, we’ll dig deeper into these questions and try to determine whether there’s a link between the change in the U.S. presidency and worldwide missions.

Week #1: In his inauguration speech, President Obama directly addressed poor nations around the world, saying, “We pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds.”

Many U.S. missionaries around the world are doing just that. Daily they provide sustenance, education, and care to the poorest of the poor. Based on the new president’s sentiments about caring for the less fortunate, one might assume that he supports missional activities such as these.

Proverbs 14:31 says that, “He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God” (NIV). On Martin Luther King Day, only hours before his inauguration, President-elect Obama participated in community service activities, which might be an indication of his commitment to serve those around him .

President Obama has a heart for the broken and downtrodden—but is it missional? Missions is about much more than human rights activism. After all, what is clean water or the ability to read without a relationship with Jesus Christ? While missionaries show God’s love by meeting needs, they always remain God’s messengers to share His love, forgiveness, and hope.

So what do you think? Does the president’s heart for the poor imply his support of missionary work? Do human rights activism and the advancement of the gospel overseas go hand in hand? Join in the conversation and leave your thoughts at www.unsolvedministries.blogspot.com.

The Power of Prayer

2009-02-25T21:08:00.004-05:00

Before we enter the final discussion about prayer for missions, let’s recap the last four weeks. We talked about if we should pray, how we can pray, why to pray, and ways to pray for missions. Today we will consider the results of missions prayer.

Clue #5: “The prayer of a righteous person has great power….” (James 5:16 ESV)

As a general rule, people are task-oriented—and Christians are no exception. Don’t you prefer “tangible progress” (answers) over the intangible nature of the “progress” of prayer (the journey)?

But Scripture reassures us, time and time again, that prayer is effective and accomplishes much.

Luke 18:7-8 states clearly that God will “bring about justice for His elect who cry to Him day and night.” (NASB)

Psalm 50:15 doesn’t say that God might rescue His people. It states that He will rescue His people: “Call upon Me in the day of trouble; I shall rescue you, and you will honor Me.” (NASB)

In Psalm 2:8, God promises, “I will make the nations your inheritance…” (NIV)

And Psalm 22:27 reveals the perfect effectiveness of the prayers of the saints: “All the ends of the world shall remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations shall worship before You.” (NKJV)

So, are you a Christian? Then pray! Pray in thanksgiving and pray with intercession. Confess and believe. Lift missions to the Lord, pray for yourself, and pray for unbelievers. Don’t just think about prayer, read books on prayer, and listen to sermons on prayer. Pray!

I suspect God will give you some answers and lead you on some journeys, so share your insights and observations.

“We have plenty of opposition in the heavenlies and from human powers and
persecutors … May you become an intercessor with a world vision that prays
Satan-defeating, kingdom-taking, people-reaching, captive-releasing,
revival-giving, Christ-glorifying prayers.”[1]

[1] Johnstone, Patrick and Jason Mandryk, Operation World: 21st Century Edition. Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster Publishing, 2001.

Prayer for...

2009-02-25T20:59:00.006-05:00

Prayer is important and God helps us to pray, but we still want to further investigate the importance of prayer for missions.

Week #4: Every major denomination and missionary organization regularly publishes information to help Christians to pray.[1]

Whenever you go to a new place, it is helpful to have a roadmap—or a GPS system. There are some tremendous prayer guides available to those who are interested in praying for missions. Rather than getting bogged down in the complexities of various cultures and variety of needs, Christians are jumping in and praying for missions and missionaries with help from their churches, denominations, and missions agencies. The details can be organized in a number of different ways.

But the encouraging news is that Christians are praying:

1. With Thankfulness—For God’s mercy and saving grace; the gifting, equipping, and
sending of missionaries around the world; and the privilege of giving and praying.

“Devote yourselves to prayer, being watchful and thankful.” (Colossians 4:2 NIV)

2. For Missionaries—Missionaries are people too! They have personal struggles and joys as well as ministry challenges too. Therefore, it is helpful to pray for their faith, courage, health, marriages, parenting, teaching, preaching, and love.

“Pray also for me, that whenever I open my mouth, words may be given me so that I will fearlessly make known the mystery of the gospel.” (Ephesians 6:19 NIV)

3. For Open Doors—Not only in “restricted” areas but in every country, we pray for favor with governing authorities and open doors to continue to preach the gospel and establish churches.

“And pray for us, too, that God may open a door for our message, so that we may proclaim the mystery of Christ…” (Colossians 4:3 NIV)

4. For Repentance and Faith—God delights in saving His children! And Christians pray that unbelievers will respond to the gospel with saving repentance and faith.

“Pray for us that the message of the Lord may spread rapidly and be honored, just as it was with you.” (2 Thessalonians 3:1 NIV)

Though that may seem like a lot to pray for, there are other broad categories that may have been missed. Do you have something to add? Please share your thoughts. And let’s all rejoice together that “the prayer of the upright is His delight.” (Proverbs 15:8 NKJV)

[1] See, for example http://www.purposedrivenlife.com/en-US/FreeTools/HowToPrayForMissionaries/prayForMissionaries.htm, http://americas.wycliffe.net/Getinvolved/Pray/HowtoPrayforMissionaries/tabid/151/Default.aspx, and http://www.iym.org/missions/howtopray.htm.

Why is it important to pray for missions?

2009-02-25T20:54:00.004-05:00

This month we are talking about the importance of prayer for missions and whether or not it makes a tangible difference. The basis of the discussion is:

Throughout the history of Christendom, people have banded together to pray for mission fields and missionaries. For many years, organized prayer groups were even referred to as prayer bands—but such groups are no longer prevalent. Is it still important for Christians to pray for missions? If so, how should they be praying? And how effective are their prayers?

We’ve discussed whether we should pray for missions and how to pray for missions. Today we’ll investigate why it is important to pray for missions.

Week #3 Why is it important to pray for missions?

Isn’t it wise to pray in accordance with Psalm 86:8-9?

“There is no one like You among the gods, O Lord, nor are there any works like
Yours. All the nations whom you have made shall come and worship before You, O
Lord, and they shall glorify Your name.” (NASB)

This seems particularly true for missions and missionaries. Remember what one missionary, the Apostle Paul, wrote in 2 Corinthians 1:10-11:

“He has delivered us from such a deadly peril, and he will deliver us. On him we
have set our hope that he will continue to deliver us, as you help us by your
prayers. Then many will give thanks on our behalf for the gracious favor granted
us in answer to the prayers of many.” (NIV)

Why do many pray?

“Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be
saved.” (Romans 10:1 ESV)

Do Christians pray perfectly? No. But they pray. Maybe only for a moment at first—but then for minutes, hours, and maybe even “at all times” (Ephesians 6:18). Why? To open their hearts to the gospel.

Do you agree? Is the reason people pray for missions to open their hearts to what God has to say about missions? Please share your thoughts.

How should we pray?

2009-02-25T20:37:00.005-05:00

Will you join the missions discussion? We are talking about the importance of prayer for missions and whether or not it makes a tangible difference. The basis of the discussion is:

Throughout the history of Christendom, people have banded together to pray for mission fields and missionaries. For many years, organized prayer groups were even referred to as prayer bands—but such groups are no longer prevalent. Is it still important for Christians to pray for missions? If so, how should they be praying? And how effective are their prayers?

Last week we talked about whether we should pray, and we looked at Scriptures which seem to indicate that missional prayer is biblical. But we have encountered a disturbing pattern: Christians are often prayerless people—especially when it comes to missions. Overwhelmed by the complexities of millions and millions of missionary prayer needs, it can seem overly complex and intangible—where do you even begin praying for missions and missionaries? And what if you don’t understand all of the cross-cultural nuances?

Week #2 considers how we should pray:

Praying perfectly and completely is not the goal. If you wait until your
prayers are perfect, you’ll never pray. What matters is the Source and Focus of your prayers and simply that you are praying.

If prayer were to only emanate from people and only reach the ears of people, it would be a terrific waste of time. But doesn’t God Himself intercede for us? And isn’t Christ praying at the right hand of the Father? Since the Creator of the Universe is both the Source and the Focus of our prayers—are your prayer efforts ever in vain?

This is the true mystery! Why prayers should matter to God is baffling. But they do! Therefore, you don’t have to figure everything out and pray “perfectly.” With your heart fixed on honoring God and demonstrating your love for Him by your obedience to Him, you pray.

Pray daily.
Pray multiple times throughout the day.

Pray in the quietness of your own home.

Pray in the midst of the chaos of a sporting event.

Pray as you gather as a corporate body.

Pray alone.

What do you think? Should there be more of a focus on how to pray for missionaries or is it just important that you are praying? Contribute your thoughts.

The Value of Prayer

2009-02-25T20:16:00.005-05:00

Like most everyone, mission-minded people like to see results. Maybe you can relate to this propensity to value tangible, visible accomplishments. If so, this month’s topic might be a challenging one to discuss.

Throughout the history of Christendom, people have banded together to pray for mission fields and missionaries. For many years, organized prayer groups were even referred to as prayer bands[1]—but such groups are no longer prevalent. Is it still important for Christians to pray for missions? If so, how should they be praying? And how effective are their prayers?

The topic dredges up tough faith questions. Just as we cannot see God (but He always sees us!), we can’t see the effect of our prayers. Therefore, prayer can sometimes feel intangible, even unimportant.

So why should we pray? And why pray for missionaries? Would our time be better spent “doing something”?

Week #1: The Bible clearly values prayer and calls Christians to pray.

As with any biblical discussion, let’s first look to the Holy Scripture and see what God says in His Word.

“Finally, brothers, pray for us that the message of the Lord may spread rapidly and be honored, just as it was with you.” (2 Thess. 3:1 NIV)

“Now I urge you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to strive together with me in your prayers to God for me… that my service for Jerusalem may prove acceptable to the saints…” (Romans 15:30-31 NASB)

“Continue stedfastly in prayer, watching therein with thanksgiving; withal praying for us also, that God may open unto us a door for the word, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in bonds....” (Colossians 4:2-3 ASV)

The missionary prayer handbook, Operation World, values prayer over all other Christian activities:

“The ministry of the children of God is not doing but praying, not strategizing,
but prostrate before God seeking His will, not clever stratagems for manipulating people and events but trusting in God who moves in the hearts of even His most implacable enemies.”[2]

If you consider missionaries “workers,” then the following scripture becomes quite compelling:

“The harvest is abundant, but the workers are few. Therefore, pray to the Lord
of the harvest to send out workers into His harvest.” (Matthew 9:37-38 HCSB)

Would you agree that the previous Scripture makes a case that prayer is important to missions? Or, is prayer something that we use to fall back on because we don’t know what else to do? Join the conversation and let's delve into the topic even further.

[1] See, for example: http://www.cefsoindiana.com/prayer.html, http://www.alliancewomen.org/aw/pbands.html, and http://www.yearofevangelism.com/article.php?id=26.
[2] Johnstone, Patrick and Jason Mandryk, Operation World: 21st Century Edition. Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster Publishing, 2001.

The search for relationships and community.

2009-01-25T22:37:00.004-05:00

We have been discussing the topic of whether or not it is a good idea to send missionaries into the virtual online world. As we reflect on this issue, we must determine whether or not it is even possible to be in the virtual world without being of the virtual world. What do you think?

We've looked at three perspectives so far—how John 17 applies to the virtual world, the ease of access to many temptations, and the anonymity of the virtual world. Maybe this last idea will make things more clear:

Week #4: The search for relationships and community.

One aspect of the virtual world that may make it an appropriate mission field is that the virtual world is, by design, a place where people seek to connect with other people. Virtual worlds are, by and large, all about interacting with others.

Many who spend time in the virtual world say they are happier there than in the real world—they momentarily leave behind the struggles of life as they find new relationships online. Often they hunger for what the church has to offer—real community. So even as we harness the great power of technology and foster online relationships, we must be careful to point people to the place of real community—messy as it might be—the local church.

For example, Mars Hill Church in Seattle has created a cutting-edge Facebook-like community online—see www.OnTheCity.org. They make it very clear that this online tool is meant to support the real relationships and ministry taking place within their church. Their motto is "Real, not virtual, community for Jesus' fame." Technology has many opportunities, but it should point people to the local church.

There are many good things happening for the cause of Christ online. The Global Media Outreach organization hosts 71 evangelistic websites targeted to various demographics, and in 2007, they reported that 1.3 million people made a decision for Christ.[i] This organization seeks to connect these new believers with churches to watch them be discipled in the faith. Then there are the positive evangelism stories from virtual worlds like Second Life. One man writes:

"The other day I went in to Second Life to have a look around, and
once I had mastered the controls, I searched for a coffee shop. I wanted to find somewhere to sit and relax, hoping to have a chat with someone who was enjoying an online cup of coffee. [I found one] and so I went in and sat down with a few others. I chatted with someone there and it wasn’t long before our discussion had turned to spiritual things. We talked about whether there could be a God and who Jesus really was. We talked for about two hours and covered a lot of ground – including sin, forgiveness, and Jesus’ death on the cross. The potential and opportunities for evangelism are huge and as the residents of Second Life are from over 100 countries—you never quite know who you will be able to reach with the gospel.”[ii]

So what do you think? Is the search for connection and community a good enough reason to have missionaries in the virtual world, especially when compared with the dangers we examined earlier? Weigh in with your thoughts about whether it is possible to be sanctified for ministering in the virtual world.

[i] http://christianpost.com/article/20081009/online-missionaries-new-force-in-evangelism.htm
[ii] http://ied.gospelcom.net/secondlife-evangelism.php

Relative anonymity and ease of secrecy and deception.

2009-01-25T22:32:00.004-05:00

Our current discussion revolves around the appropriateness of sending missionaries to the virtual online world, where vice and temptations abound. Is it possible to be in the virtual world without being of the online world (John 17:13-19)? What do you think? Should missionaries not even bother with the virtual world?

We've looked at two clues—the applicability of John 17 as well as some of the specific temptations available in virtual worlds. This week, let's look at third challenge inherent to the virtual world:

Week #3: Relative anonymity and ease of secrecy and deception. The virtual world is a place where people take on a new identity (called an ‘avatar’). These personas may be just like the people behind them or utterly different, as there are few restrictions from representing yourself as a different age, gender, or personality. As a result, it can be very easy for people to live out all sorts of fantasies that they would never indulge in real life because of social pressures or their own shyness. But in the virtual world, those inhibitions can fall away because nobody knows who you really are, and most likely no one will ever know what you are doing.

This ease of secrecy and deception can even influence Christians to act in ways they never would have considered. One woman wrote of her experience:

"I joined Second Life with the thought of it being a great mission
field. However, being lonely in a marriage, I actually met someone that I began to spend a lot of time with. Even us Christians are vulnerable. Instead of sharing the good news of Christ, I actually (surprising to me) found myself in a virtual life of sin. My intensions were so good, yet as a human, I failed. I failed the Lord, I failed myself, and I failed my husband as well. In Second Life, I met many people who in real life are married yet have SL boyfriends, girlfriends etc."[i]

Anyone desiring to minister in the context of the virtual world must be acutely aware of the dangers and must have accountability measures in place to protect themselves. Returning to what Jesus said in John 17, it is clear that Jesus knew that there would be the temptation to be deceived. That's what being "of the world" really means—becoming just like everyone else, fooled into believing that, rather than the kingdom of God, the surrounding world is the "real" thing. To keep from being caught up in this deception, it is necessary to remain grounded in the truth—God’s Word. The Word of God helps us battle the deceptive nature of this world, including the virtual world.

What do you think? Should Christians minister in the virtual world? Weigh in with your thoughts.

[i] http://ied.gospelcom.net/secondlife-evangelism.php

Ease of access to all kinds of temptations and vices.

2009-01-25T22:29:00.002-05:00

Will you join the missions discussion? We are talking about the online world, and whether or not it is possible for online missionaries to be in the virtual world but not of the virtual world (John 17:13-19). What do you think? Is this possible or should missionaries stay far away because of all the inherent temptations and challenges with online communities?

In week #1 we examined the applicability of John 17 to the virtual world. This week, we’ll look at one of the specific challenges inherent in the virtual world:

Week # 2: Ease of access to all kinds of temptations and vices.

Name one of the seven deadly sins and you can pretty much find it online within about 10 seconds—20 if you have to use dial-up. This is true for the Internet in general as well as virtual worlds such as Second Life. Many who frequent this virtual society like this "benefit"—that they seemingly can indulge their vices without any "real" consequences. As a visitor to the virtual world, it’s not unusual to witness activities, behaviors, and language that you wouldn't encounter in a public place in the “real world.” Not only can you easily access pornography and gambling (or other temptations that tend to enslave those who partake), but you even might come upon avatars having virtual sex. And even if you avoid those situations, you might just find yourself engaging in a conversation in which the other person begins to flirt or follow some other illicit instinct.

Missionaries to the virtual world must be aware of these traps and have plans in place to combat them. Having one or more accountability partners is one key strategy—these partners pray and ask the missionaries hard questions which help them stay pure and sanctified for this work. But let's be realistic. For someone who struggles with pornography (or any other prevalent temptation available online), being a missionary to the virtual world is not a good idea.

At the same time, don't be misled to think that the virtual world is entirely inhabited by unsavory types. There are people there who are genuine and are truly searching for friendships and the answers to life's questions. Of the millions of Internet users, thousands want to engage with someone in a meaningful conversation about faith. Technology often bridges the geographical gap in those closed societies where this kind of spiritual conversation would be impossible to have in the country's real-life coffee shops.

So what do you think? Does this ease of access (and likely anonymity) to many temptations mean Christians should stay away from the virtual online world? Or is it a non-issue, especially when minimized by careful accountability? Weigh in with your thoughts and check in next week for yet another perspective…

The Virtual Online World

2009-01-25T22:21:00.001-05:00

Here is a missions-related issue brought to us by changing technologies. Will you join in the conversation to help us determine how to best handle this missions challenge?

The mission under scrutiny: The Virtual Online World

The virtual online world is a relatively new phenomenon, and as a result, it can be compared to a newly-discovered, unreached mission field. The virtual world is a relatively untapped market for evangelism, and yet there are challenges beyond those faced in person-to-person contact. These challenges could prevent the online world from being what most missions organizations would describe as a good “missions field prospect.” So the dilemma before us is straight-forward: Is it possible to be in the virtual world and not of the virtual world? That is, are the temptations of the virtual world so compelling that missionaries should avoid an online presence, or is it possible to be an influence for good within it?

Week #1: John 17 still applies to life online. The call for Christians to be in the world but not of the world is based on a portion of Jesus' high priestly prayer in John 17:13-19. In this prayer, Jesus affirms that he has sent his disciples (which applies to Christians today) into the world. But he says that they are "not of the world."

Jesus did not want his disciples taken from the world, but he did pray specifically that God would protect them from the evil one. There would be many dangers and evils lurking in the world, and rather than asking the Father to remove those dangers or remove the disciples from the danger, Jesus specifically prays for protection in the midst of them.

A key word in this prayer is "sanctify"—Jesus asks his Father to set apart his disciples for a great purpose in this world. And how were they to be sanctified? By adhering to the truth—the truth of God’s Word—and by faith in Jesus himself. Just as Jesus has set himself apart, so he promises to sanctify his disciples.

Is it too much of a stretch to apply this passage to the virtual world? Aren’t Christians called to be consecrated—set apart—for ministry, wherever that may be—virtual or otherwise? Aren’t we still to pray for protection from evil and to be sanctified in the context of whatever ministry God has called us to?

John 17's applicability to life online is one clue in favor of supporting a virtual missionary field. But is it a key factor? One which should be used to strongly influence the subject? Or will clues related to opposing factors be more convincing? Please share your thoughts.

Relationships: Short-term vs. Long-term

2009-01-07T13:27:00.002-05:00

We have been discussing the topic of short-terms versus long-term missions activities:

There are those who believe short-term missions are a “feel good about yourself” way to make a brief impact on the world, while long-term missions require submersion into a culture and an opportunity to develop deeper relationships to make lasting change. Others believe long-term missions produce missionaries who are so focused on an area that they are “out of touch”, while the impact of short-term missions keeps missions workers grounded in both realities. So what is the most effective role of short- and long-term missions?

We have been all over the map with this one—from supporting short-term missions to not supporting short-term missions to maybe (?) supporting short-term missions. Maybe today’s topic will bring it all together:

Week #4: Christianity is relational. (God saves sinners and adopts them as His own children into His family.) And one of the most effective ways that both short-term and long-term missionaries serve is by improving relationships among missionaries and their supporters/churches.

Long-term, “career” missionaries work hard. Very hard. It takes years, if not decades, to master foreign languages, develop trust among the people they serve, evangelize, disciple, and plant churches.

When short-term missionaries get to know their long-term missionary partners, they play an important role in encouraging, equipping, and resourcing long-term missionaries. It is critical that short-term missionaries determine what role they best play by asking questions. What are the long-term missionaries’ needs? What would be most helpful? Least helpful? What do the short-term missionaries need to avoid? What should they be sure to do?

By integrating short-term and long-term missionaries’ needs, not only will problems be avoided, but there will also be opportunities for blessing. And these opportunities do not end when a short-term trip is over. Instead, both parties must work hard to maintain communication and relationship so that ongoing needs are prayed for, addressed, and funded.

Working in such a relational manner allows for strategic ministry:

- A Bible translator’s computer system crashes and a church sends out an IT expert on a short-term (week-long) mission project. The work is back on track—and the computer expert’s passion for sharing Christ in that part of the world increases.

- A church and seminary planter’s wife gets sick and he is suddenly behind on all of his ministry goals because he is caring for and educating his young children. The church provides a revolving team of child-care and home educator “experts”—people coordinated to give a few weeks or a few months of service.

Though project help is a positive, it’s the friendships and relationships which matter more than the projects. As one Honduran NGO puts it, “The truth is that they don't have to come here to build homes. … If they come, they should come for the friendships.”[1]

Those who spend time on a mission field experience the needs of the field, which results in increased giving, prayer, encouragement, and other expressions of love and support. [2]

So after four weeks of pondering long-term and short-term missions, what are your thoughts? Please be sure to share at the comments link below …

And tune in next week for another unsolved mystery in missions!

[1] http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/julyweb-only/22.0.html?start=3
[2] http://www.eldrbarry.net/ug/ugstmsns.htm

Understanding and Commitment: Short-term vs. Long-term

2009-01-07T07:51:00.002-05:00

Our current debate revolves around the effectiveness of short-term versus long-term missionary activity:

There are those who believe short-term missions are a “feel good about yourself” way to make a brief impact on the world, while long-term missions require submersion into a culture and an opportunity to develop deeper relationships to make lasting change. Others believe long-term missions produce missionaries who are so focused on an area that they are “out of touch”, while the impact of short-term missions keeps missions workers grounded in both realities. So what is the most effective role of short- and long-term missions?

Week #1 suggested supporting short-term missionaries and week #2 explored some of the strongest arguments against short-term missions. What will today’s topic add to the discussion?

Week #3: As a result of the conversations, fund-raising, and actual time spent on short-term missions, many individuals, families, and churches have grown in their understanding of and commitment to long-term cross-cultural missions.

The evidence clearly shows that short-term missions can be wasted time and money when they are approached selfishly, lazily, or with an eye toward, “What’s in it for me?”[1]

However, when the focus is on serving God and neighbor, short-term mission projects can also have a positive impact on long-term missions including:
- Increased knowledge of and sensitivity toward different cultures and how hard long-term missionaries have to work to learn about and acclimate to their new environments.

- Firsthand knowledge of just how huge the cause of evangelism and missions work really is around the world—hopefully building a stronger commitment to raising awareness, funds, and support for career missionaries.

- How powerful and important prayer is to missionaries and the people, communities, and countries they serve.

- What the current needs are among long-term missionaries so that resources and funds can be raised and sent to the areas of need (including temporary—short-term—workers to help on strategic projects).
When organized with the big picture in mind, short-term mission projects help churches have conversations regarding their missions strategy and focus and about the individual’s role within that structure. That way, short-term workers have the opportunity to serve, and long-term workers’ initiatives are furthered.
“They didn’t come to tell us how to do things, which is what the gringos have always done in the past,” said Toribio Dubón, a peasant leader in Nueva Victoria, a rebuilt village in the Honduran province of Santa Barbara. “These people came to sweat in the sun with us, to listen, to treat us as equals. We felt blessed by their presence beside us.”[2]
One long-term missionary stated, “Those who spend time on a mission field become much more aware of the needs of the career missionary and the mission work and this results in increased giving, praying, writing encouraging letters, and other expressions of love and support.” [3]

So what do you think? Please join in the discussion by clicking on the comments link below!

[1] Miriam Adeney, research professor of missions at Regent College and associate professor of cross-cultural ministries at Seattle Pacific University, at the Fellowship of Short-Term Mission Leaders (FSTML) 1998 Conference.
[2] http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2145
[3] http://www.eldrbarry.net/ug/ugstmsns.htm

The Cost: Short-term vs. Long-term

2009-01-07T07:48:00.003-05:00

Will you join in the missions debate? This can be a divisive topic and Christians are beginning to take sides against one another. In unity, let’s discuss the topic:

There are those who believe short-term missions are a “feel good about yourself” way to make a brief impact on the world, while long-term missions require submersion into a culture and an opportunity to develop deeper relationships to make lasting change. Others believe long-term missions produce missionaries who are so focused on an area that they are “out of touch”, while the impact of short-term missions keeps missions workers grounded in both realities. So what is the most effective role of short- and long-term missions?

Week #1 discussed whether it is a wise decision to offer only short-term missions just because tremendous amounts of excitement, money, and participation are poured into these ventures.

Today we will look at some information that short-term missionaries might not be too eager to talk about. In fact, it might dampen some of the enthusiasm for short-term missions.

What do you think?

Week #2: In general, sending short-term missionaries costs five
times as much as sending long-term missionaries, AND some short-term missionary ventures have been so unhelpful and unproductive to their hosts that the term “vacationaries” has been coined to describe some short-term missionaries. [1]

You don’t have to look far to hear criticisms of short-term missionary projects:

- “Participants are ill-prepared and culturally-insensitive.”

- “Participants select projects that they want to do rather than finding out what the locals need or what would best serve local churches and long-term missionaries.”

- “Short-term ‘missionaries’ aren’t there to work; they’re just on a ‘feel good about myself’ vacation.”

- “Even when they try hard, short-term missionaries put a huge drain on the locals and the long-term missionaries—sometimes they even make things worse because they are not well trained, prepared, or supervised.”

- “Short-term missions is a huge waste of time and money.”

There are people who even go so far as to say, “Short-term missionaries, please stay home and just send money!” They believe that this strategy would help many more of the people that the short-term missionaries claim they want to help.[2]

In the words of Rev. Roger Peterson, chairman of the Alliance for Excellence in Short-Term Mission, “If [the trips] are only about ourselves, then we're doing nothing more than using another culture...to get some benefit at their expense, and I don't care what verse of the Bible you read, it's wrong, it's wrong, it's wrong.”[3]

So while week #1 pointed us away from long-term missionary support and toward short-term missionary activities, week #2 indicates that the most effective missionary venture is long-term.

What do you think? Should short-term missions be slowed? Should long-term missions be heralded as a more effective way to reach others? Please join in the conversation by clikcing on the comments link below and check in next week for yet another perspective.

[1] http://ww.christianpost.com/article/20080707/churches-revamp-short-term-mission-programs.htm
[2] http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/julyweb-only/22.0.html?start=3
[3] http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080707/churches-revamp-short-term-mission-programs.htm

Short-term vs. Long-term Missionary Service

2009-01-05T16:14:00.002-05:00

There is an issue threatening to tear apart the relationships among Christian missionaries and their supporters:

There are those who believe short-term missions are a “feel good about yourself” way to make a brief impact on the world, while long-term missions require submersion into a culture and an opportunity to develop deeper relationships to make lasting change. Others believe long-term missions produce missionaries who become so focused on one area that they are “out of touch”, while the impact of short-term missions keeps missions workers grounded in both realities. So what
is the most effective role of short- and long-term missions?

Let’s take a look at this from four different angles over the next few weeks.

Week #1: Churches in the United States send out only a few thousand long-term missionaries each year but millions of short-term missionaries. And the disparity in these numbers is increasing.[1]

Back in 1965, there were only a few hundred short-term missionaries sent out from North America.[2] Current estimates show that the number has escalated to almost two million every year.[3]

Giving to short-term missions is estimated to be in the billions—$2.4 billion in 2007 alone. Most experts believe that this number is above the total amount given to long-term missions, and short-term missions giving is only increasing.[4] All the while, a recent Wheaton College study reported that the number of people willing to enter into long-term missionary commitments or support long-term missionaries is decreasing.[5]

Missions work is important. As the founder of Operation Mobilization has said, “Churches must stay involved in sending overseas missionaries or they will lose their vision within one generation.”[6]

But just because there is such a striking difference between how much people support and join short-term versus long-term missionary ventures, does it mean the practice is in the best interest of overall mission work?

Would it be wise to stop support for long-term missions and pour evangelistic efforts into short-term missions? Why or why not? Please share your thoughts by clicking on the comments link below.

[1] http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080707/churches-revamp-short-term-mission-programs.htm
[2] http://www.lam.org/news/article.php?id=109
[3] http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2006-06-18-mission-vacations_x.htm
[4] http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/julyweb-only/22.0.html?start=3
[5] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/04/AR2008070402233_2.html
[6] http://tallskinnykiwi.typepad.com/tallskinnykiwi/2008/07/are-short-term.html

Emphasis on Suffering in Life

2008-11-12T13:49:00.004-05:00

This is it. The final week to solve our current missions mystery. Can you help?

European, Asian, and Latin American views of the U.S. have dramatically worsened since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Many believe the U.S. acts out of self interest, arrogance, and indulgence while ignoring the interests of other countries. How has this post-9/11 anti-American sentiment changed the way missionaries and missions agencies from the U.S. approach their fields?

Working together, we’ve identified several clues that have helped us with this mystery, and Clue #4 might be the key to solving it:

Clue #4: Since 9/11, some U.S.-based Christian missionary sending organizations have begun to emphasize the role of suffering in the life of a missionary.

Christians throughout history have been taught the biblical concept of “suffering for the sake of the gospel” (see Colossians 1:24-29). In light of growing anti-American sentiment and increased danger in certain parts of the world, the role of suffering in the life of a Christian is beginning to be re-emphasized by some Christian missionary organizations.

For example, Fuller Theological Seminary trains future missionaries to take extra precautions regarding cultural sensitivity and safety issues. Fuller is also training non-Western missionaries to serve around the world. In addition, Fuller is emphasizing to U.S.-sponsored and Western missionaries that they may be called to suffer and even give their lives for the sake of the gospel.[1]

One example of such suffering is the 2002 murder of three American missionaries at a hospital in Yemen. Another is the tragic story of a Christian missionary family being burned to death.[2]

Surely their suffering reflects Paul’s statement in Romans 8:18 (NIV):

“I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us.”

Do you agree that suffering should be emphasized to missionaries in this post-9/11 era? Do you think that this has been one of our most challenging and sensitive unsolved ministries? Will you help solve the puzzle? Please be sure to report your findings by clicking on the comments link below …

And tune in next week for another unsolved mystery in missions!

[1] http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0220/p13s01-lire.html
[2] http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A05E0D7153FF932A05751C1A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

U.S. based missionary organizations

2008-11-12T13:45:00.003-05:00

Great to see you again! Our entire team is working on a sensitive mystery which requires covert care:

European, Asian, and Latin American views of the United States have dramatically worsened since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Many believe the Uself interest, arrogance, and indulgence while ignoring the interests of other countries. How has this post-9/11 anti-American sentiment changed the way missionaries and missions agencies from the U.S. approach their fields?

US-sponsored Christian missionaries are often the targets of anti-American sentiment.[1] Many people are still at great risk and in harm’s way, so we must be sure to handle this mystery with great care.

Clue #3: Since 9/11, men and women of non-U.S. and non-Western origins are frequently being trained, funded, and supported by U.S.-based missionary organizations. This is particularly true for Muslim countries.[2]

In response to the growing anti-American sentiment around the world, missionaries and missionary organizations are training, funding, and sending more non-U.S. and non-Western missionaries. For example, men and women of Latino origin often have more fruitful ministry in Arab countries “because their dark skin and modest economic backgrounds help build relationships with indigenous Muslims.” Brazilians in particular often master the Arabic language much faster than people for whom English is their primary language.[3]

What do you think about funding the education and training of non-U.S. missionaries to minister in countries which are anti-American? Please report in by clicking on the comments link! More clues to come …

[1] http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2006/10/10/together_but_worlds_apart/
[2] http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0220/p13s01-lire.html
[3] http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A05E0D7153FF932A05751C1A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

Precautions: Safety and Honor

2008-11-12T13:42:00.003-05:00

Our missions detectives are upset! While working on the current missions mystery, nefarious evildoers attempted to foil their investigation with a phony clue.

This is our current unsolved mystery in missions:

European, Asian, and Latin American views of the United States have dramatically
worsened since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Many believe the US acts out of
self interest, arrogance, and indulgence while ignoring the interests of other
countries. How has this post-9/11 anti-American sentiment changed the way
missionaries and missions agencies from the U.S. approach their fields?

Did Clue #1 attempt to get us off the trail by explaining that threats against U.S.-based Christian missionaries have increased since 9/11? Some countries have become less open to Christian activities, and some missionary sending organizations have curtailed or even stopped sending missionaries to certain countries.

Did this sneaky clue stop our detective team from even investigating the current mystery—why consider how post-9/11 anti-American sentiment changed the ways missionaries operate if there are no U.S.-based missionaries being sent out? There are still U.S.-based missionaries and missions agencies active around the world! But in certain situations, how missionaries approach their service has changed.

We see this clearly in Clue #2.

Clue #2: While continuing to serve around the world, U.S.-sponsored Christian missionaries have taken some extra precautions—both for their safety and to honor the cultures of their host countries. This is particularly true in primarily Muslim countries.

The vast majority of formally-trained Christian missionaries in the United States receive extensive training in cross-cultural sensitivities and safety precautions. The increased risk since 9/11, however, has brought increased vigilance.

For example, in response to growing anti-American sentiment since 9/11, Christian medical workers in one Muslim country have instituted both greater cultural accommodations in order to honor the people they serve and greater safety precautions to protect their staff members. These include having separate waiting areas, lines, and housing for men and women seeking medical care; and having armed guards patrolling a brand-new thick concrete wall in order to protect staff members.[1]

For added security, Christian missionaries have also increased their own external adaptation to their host cultures—clothing, housing, foods, etc. And in certain locations they have also become more vigilant about not using their real names and locations in their prayer requests, praise reports, and appeals for support.

By taking these steps, missionaries and missions agencies hope to be able to stay on the mission field in all countries around the world, regardless of how often they are—even misguidedly—tied to the policies of U.S. government.

So what do you think? Does Clue #2 help to solve this missions mystery, or is it another red herring? Please be sure toclick on the comments link and let us all know your thoughts. Tune in next week and we’ll discuss additional information. Hopefully, working together, we can crack this missions mystery wide open!

[1] http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2006/10/10/together_but_worlds_apart/

The Growing Danger of Missions

2008-11-12T13:33:00.003-05:00

It’s been quiet here at the WGM Missions Detective Agency—maybe too quiet. Is something subversive going on with world missions that we should be aware of? Is something influencing our missionaries and missions agencies to approach their fields differently? Consider:

European, Asian, and Latin American views of the United States have dramatically worsened since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Many believe the U.S. acts out of self interest, arrogance, and indulgence while ignoring the interests of other countries. How has this post-9/11 anti-American sentiment changed the way U.S. missionaries and missions agencies approach their fields?

The topic is sensitive—many lives were lost on 9/11, thousands have died since then, and to this date, people remain in harm’s way because of issues related to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. We must be careful, stealthy, and wise as we interpret the clues that will get us to the bottom of this missions mystery.

Clue #1: After September 11, 2001, U.S.-sponsored Christian missionaries around the world have faced growing danger; some countries have banned formerly allowed Christian missionary and church planting activities; and some Bible colleges, seminaries, and mission agencies have stopped sending missionaries to certain countries altogether.

Some countries have been concerned about the “Americanization” of their cultures for years. And even though Christian missionaries have been serving in dangerous areas around the world for generations, many U.S.-based missionaries have found that their ministries have been even more precarious since 9/11. The increased risk and danger may be attributable to the negative view that some countries have of the United States—particularly since the U.S. response to 9/11.

Consider just one example of the increase in anti-American sentiment: prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001, the “favorable opinions” of many European countries toward the United States were still often above 50, 60, and even 70 percent. But between 2000 and 2006, these “favorable opinions” dropped significantly (from 83 to 56 percent in the United Kingdom, from 62 to 39 percent in France, from 78 to 37 percent in Germany and from 50 to 23 percent in Spain).[1]

Because missionaries and missionary activities are often linked to external views of the U.S., some countries that were formerly open to Christian activities like church planting and evangelism have now banned such activities. Because they are sometimes being associated with “U.S. imperialism” and political decisions made by the U.S. government, some U.S. Christian missionaries have been “asked” (i.e., required) to leave their host countries.

In response to the increased threat to missionaries and the less-than-open attitude toward Christian missionary and church planting activities, some Bible colleges, seminaries, and missions organizations have dramatically curtailed—and in some instances even stopped entirely—their outreach to certain countries.[2]

So what do you make of this clue? Given the growing anti-American sentiment in countries around the world, the risk to US-sponsored missionaries, the more “closed” attitude of some countries, and the fact that some institutions and agencies have stopped sending missionaries to certain countries, should our missions detectives even keep looking into this mystery? Is it worth our time to consider how things have changed for missionaries since 9/11 if the real answer is that there no longer are any U.S.-sponsored missionaries going to certain countries?

What do you think? Is this relevant to our missions mystery? Please be sure to share your thoughts by clicking on the comments button below.

More clues are yet to come …

[1] America's Image Slips, But Allies Share U.S. Concerns Over Iran, Hamas, June 13, 2006, http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=252
[2] http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0220/p13s01-lire.html

Clue #4: Despite their historically Christian roots, they are struggling with extreme poverty.

2008-10-20T20:43:00.003-04:00

Calling all missionary detectives! Time has run out and we need you back at base with a full report of your findings on our currently-open, ongoing missions mystery:

Should missionaries go to “historically Christian countries”? What are the most effective ways to evangelize in countries that are primarily Christian?

We’ve looked in some unexpected hiding places and now offer one last clue for your final determination:

Clue #4: Despite their historically Christian roots, these nations are filled with families in crisis, people struggling with addictions, financial stressors, and huge percentages of their own populations in prison and/or struggling with homelessness or extreme poverty.

What do you make of the struggles and pain of people in these nations when it comes to the allocation of missionary resources? After all, there is suffering—often intense suffering—in every nation on the planet.

What did Jesus say? Did He call His followers to meet the spiritual needs of people in general, or did he specifically talk about people in prison, the sick, the homeless, prostitutes, the disabled? Does reading Matthew 25 and John 14 help with your understanding?

As you think back on your own life, what sticks out the most about your faith? An abstract theological idea you read or heard? Or a truth—relevant to your circumstances—presented in the context of a loving, humble, authentic community?

People in historically Christian nations continue to struggle even though they may be aware of redemption through Jesus Christ. Is it time to give up our evangelistic efforts in these nations or does the burden to win souls for the glory of God press us to persevere with grace, truth, and love?

The clues have been gathered. It’s time for you to make the call. Do you think that missionaries shouldn’t “waste their time” in historically Christian nations? Are there any particularly wise and effective ways for Christians to evangelize in these areas? Please report your findings by clicking on the comments link below …

And thanks again for helping us with yet another unsolved mystery in missions!

Clue #3: Many less-reached people groups often have major groupings in historically Christian countries.

2008-10-20T20:39:00.003-04:00

There's an open case—a missions mystery—that we need your help to solve:

Should missionaries go to “historically Christian countries”? If so, what are the most effective ways to evangelize in countries that are primarily Christian?

We’ve already looked at two clues, but this third one may prove to be the most helpful of all.

Clue #3: Many less-reached people groups (such as Jews, Muslims, and people from African and Asian countries) often have major groupings in historically Christian countries.

When Jesus said in Matthew 28 that His followers were to “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations…” (Matthew 28:19 NASB), do you think He anticipated how strategic it would be to evangelize less-reached people groups right in your own backyard? Of course He did! He is God and He knew what we’d be facing.

But what about you? Have you considered how many members of less-reached people groups you come into contact with every single day—at the grocery store you’re your doctor’s office, through your business or school, or even at your local YMCA?

The truth is that people from around the world are attracted to the financial, legal, business, and educational opportunities afforded by historically Christian nations—and they often flock to these nations. Missionaries and evangelists—especially those who provide services such as language assistance, childcare, medical and dental services, etc.—often find fruitful mission fields inside historically Christian nations.

Maybe being a missionary doesn’t require getting a full set of international travel shots and regular passport updates. Maybe there is a strategic reason for evangelizing in these historically Christian nations.

Do you agree or disagree? Be sure to share your thoughts by clicking on the comments link below! And if you want more information, don’t forget to check in next week—one more clue is yet to come …

Clue #2: Postmodernism is a dominant influence, even in historically Christian nations.

2008-10-20T20:33:00.003-04:00

Our tip line is ringing off the hook and the clues are beginning to come together to help us solve our current missions mystery:

Should missionaries go to “historically Christian countries”? And if yes, what are the most effective ways to evangelize in countries that are primarily Christian?

Clue #1 helped us weed out a few of the confusing details when it reminded us that mere “head-knowledge” does not save anyone. Lots of people, even in historically Christian countries, know “facts” about Jesus—but knowledge alone is not enough.

Our next clue might dovetail right into Clue #1 and help us put this mystery to bed—then again, it may just confuse the issue.

Clue #2: Postmodernism is a dominant influence, even in historically Christian nations.

According to leading experts in evangelism, missionaries must take seriously the impact that worldview has on a nation.[1] And even in historically Christian nations, postmodernism is a dominant influence on the lives of many people today.

This clue impacts our missions mystery in two ways. First, it indicates that whatever influence a biblical Christian worldview has had on these nations, there is still work to be done. Second, it means that missionaries must be particularly strategic when it comes to evangelizing in historically Christian nations where people already have some knowledge about Jesus Christ.

For example, when postmoderns deny the existence of “truth,” how persuasive are logical arguments? What about the people who know something about “Jesus” and “Christianity,” and their view is negative? Should missionaries “share the gospel” and press for a quick commitment? Or, perhaps, is something else required—something that reveals the love of God and His redemptive plan throughout all of history? Or maybe good works and discipleship that are founded on truth but that radiate loving, genuine relationship?

What do you think? Should missionaries even be in these historically Christian countries or pull out and move on to more “fruitful” areas of the world?

Be sure to share your thoughts by clicking on the comments link below as we work together to solve this mystery.

[1] Brian McLaren at LeadershipJournal.net (http://www.christianitytoday.com/leaders/newsletter/2001/cln10801.html)

Should missionaries work in historically Christian countries?

2008-10-20T20:25:00.006-04:00

Late last night, our top missions detective called for an emergency meeting. Apparently, some ne’er-do-wells were spreading a rumor—

“Historically Christian countries” like the United Kingdom, Australia, and even the United State of America, don’t need missionaries! Their population already knows about Jesus, so just like European countries and Israel, no evangelistic efforts are needed there. Don’t waste your time!”

We were shocked that such a rumor could be spreading! Surely it isn’t true. Aren’t missionaries still needed in “historically Christian countries”? Don’t they have effective ways to evangelize, even among people who have probably already heard about Jesus?

Let’s look at the clues. What do they reveal?

Clue #1: Mere “head-knowledge” is not enough. Knowing the “facts” about Jesus isn’t the same as having faith in Jesus, hearing and understanding how the gospel is relevant.

As Christians who joyfully proclaim the gospel and call people to know Jesus, missionaries are not praying and hoping that people will come to some sort of intellectual assent about a “good teacher” or “moral person” who lived just over two thousand years ago. Rather, missionaries proclaim the gospel with the hope that people will come to saving faith in Jesus—that they will trust in Christ alone for their salvation.

Yes, Jesus truly lived. Yes, history affirms the impact He has had on the entire world. However, a mere “historical knowledge” of Jesus does not save. James 2:19 (NIV) says:

“You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.”

It is not enough to know mere “facts.” Faith comes from hearing and understanding the gospel and embracing a personal relationship with Christ.

Do you agree? Or not? Is this clue relevant to our missions mystery? Should missionaries work in historically Christian countries? Please be sure to share your thoughts by clicking on the comments link below. More clues are yet to come …

Clue #4: Death is a mystery and human beings have an instinctual craving to know where they are headed—what their ultimate destination is.

2008-09-29T20:21:00.007-04:00

Calling all detectives! It’s almost time to return to base and report your findings! This is the last clue you have to solve this ongoing missions mystery:

What is the best way to bring the gospel to people who have absolutely no biblical foundation?

Grab your gear and keep your eyes open for details as you observe the people around you. Don’t follow too closely! You don’t want to tip them off that you are watching their every move.

Clue #4: Death is a mystery and human beings have an instinctual craving to know where they are headed—what their ultimate destination is.

Every human being observes death around them and must, at some point, face the eventuality of his or her own death. Because of this, thousands of songs, poems, and books have been written about death and what happens after death—if anything at all.

People want to know their ultimate destination! But death remains a stubborn mystery. Even “near-death” survivors do not understand actual, eternal death, so all human efforts to understand, describe, and even “master” death are futile.

Unless, of course, we listen to the One Person who did experience the painful and shameful death of the cross—and then rose again from the dead in order to tell all people the Way to eternal life.

Is it wise to put the gospel into the stories and traditions, longings and cravings, and dreams and fears of an unreached people group? Does understanding their worldview help? By putting all of these clues together, can you figure out the best way to bring the Gospel to people with no biblical foundation? You get to decide! Just please be sure to share your findings by clicking on the comments link below.

(If you would like to research this topic in more depth, you may want to read Peacechild[1] by Don Richardson.)

[1] http://www.amazon.com/Peace-Child-Don-Richardson/dp/0830704159

Clue #3: Human beings have a strong drive to know why they exist—what is their purpose and what makes life meaningful?

2008-09-29T20:17:00.003-04:00

There's an open case—a missions mystery—that we need your help to solve:

What is the best way to bring Christianity to people who have absolutely no biblical foundation?

We’ve already looked at two clues that seem to have given us a good start on solving this mystery. Could this third clue just be a red herring? Will you take out your best magnifying glass and help us determine whether it keeps us moving toward the right solution or if it is here simply to confuse us?

Clue #3: Human beings have a strong drive to know why they exist—what is their purpose and what makes life meaningful?

Look back to the days of Plato and Aristotle (and even earlier!). People have consistently debated, what is the meaning of life?[1] Some have tried to find purpose by pursuing knowledge, happiness, and health, while others pursue wealth, power, and fame—and yet most still come up wanting.

There are those who have even gone ‘round the bend and declared that “life is meaningless” and “nothing is of value”—but even pronouncements such as these reveal the strong human drive to search for purpose and meaning.

Does this clue help us to determine the best way to evangelize people with no biblical worldview? Why or why not? What evidence supports your conclusion? Share your thoughts by clicking the comments button below, and let’s figure this mystery out together. One more clue is coming…

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning_of_life

Clue #2: Whenever and wherever people have been in relationship, they needed to establish “rules for living”—some sort of morality.

2008-09-29T20:14:00.003-04:00

The coffee is flowing to keep our entire missionary detective squad alert 24-7 as we work together to solve this open missions mystery. Can you help us? Here is the question that has us all stumped:

What is the best way to bring Christianity to people who have absolutely no biblical foundation?

Clue #1 started us off. We learned that all people groups have some sort of creation narrative—they try to figure out, where did I come from? But origin is only one piece of a worldview. In addition to origin, people of all religions or no religion at all have to figure out how to live. This is called morality, and it leads us to our second clue …

Clue #2: Whenever and wherever people have been in relationship, they needed to establish “rules for living”—some sort of morality.[1] Amazingly, people groups then seem to have an inherent sense of not living up to their own moral requirements.

When two or more people live or work together, there will be friction, conflict, and situations that require some sort of mutual determination of “right” and “wrong”:

-Can I eat right away, or do I need to wait for the elders in my group to eat first?

-What happens if I want your beaded necklace? Can I just take it? Or am I supposed to give you something of value in return?

-If I really, really like your wife, can I kill you and take her? What will the community do to me if I do?

As a people group works through each specific situation and determines their “code of conduct” or “ethical rules,” an interesting thing often develops. People quickly learn that they cannot abide by their own rules! They know they shouldn’t yearn for other people’s stuff, but they do. They decide that children should respect their elders, but they don’t. Then punishments and compensation are introduced to the cultural norms.

So let’s put this clue in the context of our missions mystery. Does it help us to come up with a plan for reaching people with no biblical foundation? Is there something inscribed on the hearts of all people that might help us to share the gospel?

Have another cup of coffee to perk up as you tackle this clue, and then be sure to share your thoughts by clicking on the comments below.

[1] http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/morality.htm

What is the best way to bring Christianity to people who have absolutely no biblical foundation?

2008-09-28T18:43:00.003-04:00

Code red! Code red! We have a missions mystery emergency and we need your help! Christians around the world who are laboring to share the gospel in countries filled with false religions are trying to figure out:

What is the best way to bring Christianity to people who have absolutely no biblical foundation?

It’s one thing to talk about a “Savior” and “Redeemer” to people who already have a sense of a Holy God and their own personal sinfulness. But where do you start when people have never even heard of such things?

Better clean off your magnifying glass and get to work! The clues are not obvious for this mystery.

Clue #1: All people groups have some sort of creation narrative.[1]

As any sociologist will tell you, and every culture’s songs and poems will reveal, one of the foundational cries of the human heart is, where did I come from?

People want to understand the meaning of their lives, and they want to know where they were before they were in their mothers’ wombs. How did the stars and sun and moon get into the sky? Why does the ocean stop at the shore? What is the great “spark of life” that created everything, including human beings who can talk and sing and love?

There is no culture that does not ask, what is our origin?

How a people group describes its origin is sometimes called a creation narrative. It can be a mythology, a religious teaching, or a story passed down from generation to generation. But one thing is for sure—a creation narrative that explains origin is one of the foundational issues of a worldview.[2]

Now you need to make the call—is this clue relevant to determining the best way to reach people with no biblical foundation? Test your hypotheses and be sure to report your findings by clicking on the comments button below. Another clue will be revealed next week.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldview

Clue #4: Churches in the United States do not even rank in the top ten of countries worldwide in sending out missionaries per congregation.

2008-09-15T10:26:00.004-04:00

Wow! You are part of the best detective squad we have ever had! Thanks for sharing your observations and counsel, too. With your help, we think we can crack this missions mystery wide open and move on to our next case. Just one more clue to consider and then you need to weigh in with your verdict:

What country represents the best success in missions?

So far, we’ve looked at patterns of moral decline and future growth related to the number of Christians in and the number of missionaries sent from a country. The clues seem to be pointing us away from Western countries—will Clue #4 do the same? You make the call!

Clue #4: Churches in the United States do not even rank in the top ten of countries worldwide in sending out missionaries per congregation.[1]

As you try to unravel the clues and figure out what “success” means in missions, think back on your own career choice and why you picked the life path you did. Most of us were strongly influenced by our parents and other important adults when it came time to head in a certain direction with our education, profession, and family choices. (In fact, statistically when it comes to career choices, parents have the strongest influence on their children.)[2]

Could this be because children learn about what excites and motivates adults by watching them day in and day out? When a parent, teacher, or church leader values something, children often value it too. So why is it that Korea ranks 11th in the world when it comes to sending out missionaries (one missionary sent for every 4.2 churches), whereas the United States doesn’t even rank in the top 10?

You’re the missions mystery detective! The verdict is in your hands. Just please be sure to share your findings by clicking the comments link below!

[1] http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/march/16.28.html
[2] http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0198-407748/Parents-have-biggest-clout-influencing.html

Clue #3: India has eclipsed all countries except two (the US and S. Korea) in sending missionaries.

2008-09-15T10:21:00.004-04:00

We have an open missions mystery and we could really use your help:

What country represents the best success in missions?

So far the facts just haven’t quite come together. On one hand, huge statistical numbers seem to point to Western countries as the best missions success stories. But when we examine the moral decline in these so-called “Christian nations,” we wonder if they can really be called missions successes. To complicate matters, recent research indicates the center of gravity for the Christian Church is moving further and further away from the West.[1]

Where does that leave us, fearless detective? Maybe we’re coming at this case from the wrong direction when we look at the sheer number of Christians. Let’s step back and look at this from another angle. Maybe the way we should figure out the “best” missions country is by looking at the country that sends out the most missionaries.

Clue #3: Even though only a miniscule percentage of the population of India is Christian, it has eclipsed all countries except two (the United States and South Korea) in sending out missionaries.[2]

You can’t read the Great Commission (Matthew 28:16-20) [link] without realizing that missionary work was important to Jesus. He said, “go and make disciples of all nations,” so it is important!

Christians in India think so, and they prove it by putting their (extremely limited!) money where their mouths are. Even though the annual income of an Indian citizen is a mere sliver of the income of citizens of most countries,[3] Indian Christians are vying neck-and-neck with South Korea to knock the U.S. right out of the running and claim the number one spot as the country that sends out the most missionaries.

Just like the last clue, this points to a future pattern and further diverts our attention away from Western countries. But is that wise? Are we going off of the real trail of relevant clues on a hunt down an irrelevant rabbit trail? Please share your thoughts by clicking the comments link below and help us today! One more clue is yet to come …

[1] Johnstone, Patrick and Jason Mandryk, Operation World: 21st Century Edition. Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster Publishing, 2001.
[2] Johnstone, Patrick and Jason Mandryk, Operation World: 21st Century Edition. Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster Publishing, 2001.
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

Clue #2: The United States and other Western countries have historically had large numbers of Christians per capita.

2008-09-15T10:18:00.002-04:00

Time is rapidly disappearing and our current missions mystery is stumping even the most experienced of our detectives. Can you help? Here is the question:

What country represents the best success in missions?

Did you immediately think of countries like the United States and the United Kingdom because they have such large populations of Christians? If so, you’re not alone! Even some of our veteran missionary detectives were thrown off the trail by their gut reaction! But consider Clue #2 …

Clue #2: The United States and other Western countries have historically had large numbers of Christians per capita. However, if current growth rates continue, 83 percent of all of the Christians in the entire world will soon live in non-Western countries (located in Africa, Asia, and Latin America).[1]

If you instinctively thought that countries with the largest number of Christians must of course be the best at missions, take a moment to consider the following:

-If you had $1,000 in the bank and your income from Job A allowed you to add to your account balance but your income from Job B meant that, within ten years, your bank account would be lower, which job would be “the best”? Would you rather look backwards and say, “Historically, I used to have some savings.” Or would you rather look forward and say, “Over time, my savings is growing?”

-Take out some old family photo albums and look at your great-grandparents and great-aunts and uncles. Now look at your nieces and nephews and your grandchildren. Would you rather say, “Back in the old days, marriages in our family tree were happy and secure”? (That’s important, right?) Or, if you had your preference, would you rather say, “In the future, more and more of our family’s marriages will be happy and secure”?

Keeping your thoughts on these two questions in mind, apply your wisdom to the facts of this case. Is “missions success” based on the historical number of Christians in a country from the past? Or should success in missions be based on growth in the future? Be sure to report your decision by clicking the comments link below! More clues coming soon …

[1] Johnstone, Patrick and Jason Mandryk, Operation World: 21st Century Edition. Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster Publishing, 2001.

What country represents the best success in missions?

2008-09-15T09:57:00.002-04:00

There’s no getting around it—this is a difficult and important missions mystery. Millions of dollars in donations and lifetimes of service and sacrifice depend on what you discover. Are you ready to hear the facts? Do you have your Bible handy? We have a mystery to solve:

What country represents the best success in missions?

At first glance, this may appear to be a simple question with an obvious solution. “What country is best at missions? Why, the one with the most Christians, of course!” But is that true? Will the facts lead you to that conclusion?

Let’s look at the clues.

Clue #1: The trajectory of moral compass readings in “traditionally Christian nations” is pointed due south—public sin is becoming more and more culturally acceptable.

You don’t have to look very far back in history to see that many behaviors that used to be considered morally unacceptable, especially in a public light, are now often flaunted and even encouraged. Yet this is true in countries that have historically been known as “Christian nations”:

- Immodesty, pornography use, and sexual behaviors are at all-time highs.

- Taking the Lord’s name in vain and using other profanities are considered “entertainment” and “no big deal.”

- Overspending and overindulgence in food, work, exercise, and mind-altering drugs are encouraged by marketing “experts”.

If behaviors that would have made even Woodstock attendees blush in the ’60s are now openly promoted on daytime TV and public billboards, can “historically Christian nations” really be thought of as missions success stories?

Please share your thoughts by clicking on the comment link below.

Clue #4: One of the fastest growing demographics for missionaries is native outreach.

2008-08-13T22:08:00.003-04:00

Thanks to your input, we’ve almost solved the ongoing missions mystery of: What does it mean to be a missionary? There is one more clue that needs your attention before we can crack this case wide-open. Can you help to solve this mystery?

Clue #4: One of the fastest growing demographics for missionaries is native outreach.

One of the fastest growing demographics for missionary ventures is native outreach—people sharing the good news with their own people groups in their own countries. According to traditional thinking about missions (as crossing a cultural barrier), this kind of activity would not be considered missions work.

Now, no one doubts the vital role of the cross-cultural missionary. And yet, is there any more effective or efficient result for a cross-cultural missionary than to make his or her presence obsolete? This is a particularly important clue when you consider that Western missionaries require 30 to 40 times the financial support of native missionaries.

What does this mean for our missions mystery? Must someone go overseas or learn a foreign language to be considered a missionary? Or can Christians be considered missionaries right in their own backyards? In fact—does the evidence show that Christians are called to be missionaries right in their own backyards—as well as “to the ends of the earth?”

You make the call! Just be sure to share your findings by clicking the comments link below. Eternity is forever! And sharing the gospel is the most important thing you will ever do…wherever that sharing takes place.

Clue #3: Millions of people hear about Jesus online every single day.

2008-08-13T22:06:00.003-04:00

There's an open case—a missions mystery—that we need your help to solve. The question is fairly straightforward, and millions of Christians may be affected by what you discover! What is the evidence telling you? Where are the facts taking you as you unlock the secrets to the mystery: What does it mean to be a missionary?

Clue #3: Millions of people hear about Jesus online every single day.

As of March 2008, over 1.4 billion people use the Internet every single day[1]. Christians have online radio stations, sermon websites, podcasts, blogs, prayer communities, and even “virtual churches.” Almost every translation of the Bible is available for free in electronic format online, and millions of dollars are donated online every day by Christians.

Christians visit discussion boards and virtual worlds and share Bible verses and stories with unbelievers. Some dig deep into Scripture and rigorously defend biblical truth—just as they would in the “real” (i.e., non-Internet) world.

So what do you think? Are these online ventures missionary activities? Report in by clicking on the comments link below and help us to figure this mystery out. As you consider your answer, why not download WGM’s Virtual Missionary packet at www.virtualmissionary.com. And remember, one more clue on this topic is coming next week…

[1] http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_join_the_internet_every_day
[1] Revolution in World Missions, K.P. Yahonnan (Gospel for Asia, 2003).

Clue #2: Is evangelism “doing” or “telling”?

2008-08-13T22:01:00.003-04:00

Our missionary detective squad is working around the clock on an open case—a missions mystery—that we need your help to solve. It has to do with the very basis for missions, and the implications are incredibly far-reaching. Every single Christian on the planet might be involved in this mystery! So grab your Bible and help us to figure out…What does it mean to be a missionary?

Last week, we looked at the first clue—the call that every single Christian has to share the gospel of Jesus Christ “to the ends of the earth.” But does that necessarily mean that every Christian is a missionary? More evidence has come in, so let's look at another clue:

Clue #2: Is evangelism “doing” or “telling”?

When a group goes on a week-long trip and builds houses in a devastated community without sharing the gospel, are they being missionaries?

On the other hand, if someone preaches the good news to a gathering of malnourished people and hands them a New Testament instead of a sandwich, is he/she a missionary?

But when a well is drilled next to a church in a town ravaged by waterborne disease and the villagers are then told of the Living Water, hasn’t missionary work been done?

You decide… is a missionary someone who only tells people “the basics” of Christianity but makes no effort to effect lasting change regarding safety, health, and justice issues? Is it possible for a person to be a missionary by only helping people with these important things—but never getting around to “spiritual” topics? Can ”doing” and “telling” be separated? Or are they intrinsically intertwined?

Please help us to crack this mystery by sharing your thoughts by clicking on the comments link below. Working together, we’ll figure this out! Stay alert and be on the lookout for another clue next week…

The crime scene: home, church, and workplace

2008-08-13T21:55:00.005-04:00

Calling all missionary detectives! Report to your desks and grab your Bibles—we have a priority-one mystery to solve. It is urgent and time-sensitive because every single Christian is potentially implicated in this case. Are you ready? Let’s look at the evidence and see where it leads us.

The crime scene: The home, church, and workplace of every Christian in every nation around the world.

For hundreds of years, “missionaries” have been separated into two main categories:

1. New Testament apostles and disciples who obeyed the Great Commission (Matthew 28:16-20) and evangelized the Roman Empire, parts of Asia, and most of Southern Europe.

2. Eighteenth-century missionaries like William Carey who brought the gospel to the territories of European powers around the world.

But now it’s 2008, and millions of Christians around the world are wondering…What does it mean to be a missionary? Do I have to travel to a foreign land to be a missionary, or does it “count” when I pray with someone at my health club? When I evangelize, do I only focus on the spiritual needs of the people—or should justice, health, education, and environmental concerns also be considered? What about when I’m online? When I share the gospel with someone in my virtual community, am I a missionary—or am I just a “normal Christian”? Is there a distinction between a missionary and an ordinary Christian since every Christian is called to be a missionary?

This sounds like a hard one, detectives! But God has promised to help us understand what the Holy Scriptures say. Let’s get right to it.

Clue #1: All Christians are called to share the gospel “to the ends of the earth.”

The first couple things a new Christian is taught are how to read the Bible and how to pray. What’s third? How to evangelize. New believers are often excited to share their story and the good news of Jesus with others, even if their entire knowledge of the Christian message is as simple as, “God is holy. We are sinful. Jesus died on the cross for our sins and was raised again to life on the third day. When you believe in Jesus and receive him, you will be saved!”

As Christians grow in the faith, they are taught to be even more prayerful and wise about how to share the gospel. Cultural differences are gently accommodated. Language barriers are faithfully overcome. But the bottom-line is: Christians are called to share the gospel “to the ends of the earth.” That is exactly what missionaries are called to do, too.

It is up to you to decide… if Christians are called to evangelize and missionaries are called to evangelize, are they the same, or are they different? Is this piece of evidence something that will help to unlock this missionary mystery? Or is it just an irrelevant and distracting factoid? Report your findings by clicking the comments link below and let's work together to solve this mystery.

Another clue next week…

Clue #4: The nation's economic strength.

2008-06-29T13:08:00.001-04:00

We still need your help to close this case and solve this missions mystery. We've been trying to figure out the reason that the church in South Korea has been so prolific in producing foreign missionaries. Only the United States produces a greater number of missionaries, and South Korea actually sends out the highest number of missionaries per capita. Why is this the case? What makes South Korea so missions-minded and able to excel in sending out missionaries?

We've already looked at three culturally related clues—their strong practice of prayer, their ability to suffer well, and their respect of authority and obligation to family and church. This week, let's look at one last clue:

Clue #4: The nation's economic strength. By and large, the world's missionaries come from nations where the church is strong and the people are relatively wealthy. Places like the US, Canada, and the UK—some of the other top missionary-senders in the world—are all economically strong, and this allows the church in these countries to better support missions work. It is no different in South Korea. As the nation has prospered in recent years, so have its churches. These churches therefore have the means to invest in far more than beautiful buildings—they can invest in both people and missions infrastructure, including theological institutions and missions training centers. Christians in Korea are much more able to support missionaries than Christians from countries that are struggling economically.

So when coupled with the strength and passion that exist in the South Korean church, the relative wealth in Korea allows for a dynamic combination of unsurpassed missions support. As the vision for missions continues to increase and mature in Korea, this support will only increase.

What do you think? Is the economic strength of the Korean church a major factor in this missions mystery? What about the other clues we've already discussed? And are there different clues that have yet to be uncovered? Weigh in with your thoughts by clicking the comments link below and let's try to solve this mystery together. We rejoice at what God is doing in the South Korean church and pray that this passion and support for God's glory in missions would spread throughout the world!

Clue #3: Respect for elders and obligation to family and community.

2008-06-29T13:05:00.002-04:00

We're still trying to solve a missions mystery, and we need your help to crack the case. Again, it's about the church in South Korea, which has the highest number of foreign missionaries per capita in the whole world. What is it about Korean Christians that makes them so much more open to becoming missionaries?

We've already looked at two clues—their persistent and passionate prayers and their ability to endure through suffering. This week, let's look at another clue:

Clue #3: Respect for elders and obligation to family and community. The Korean culture places a high value on respecting leaders and authority figures. The cultural norm is that the younger generation is expected to obey the wishes of their parents, grandparents, and those in authority. This is also why titles are so important to Koreans (e.g., Dr., Rev., etc.), since they immediately afford the owner a high degree of respect.

Similarly, Koreans are extremely sensitive to the needs of family and community and never want to act in ways that would bring dishonor or shame upon the family (or church). In this sense—even out of obligation—Koreans tend to act for the greater good of those around them rather than for their own selfish gain.

These traits in Korean society lend themselves well to churches and missions work. If the pastor calls on church members to become missionaries, their great respect means it is very likely that they will honor him by following his request. And their desire to bring honor to the community also means that a church that values missions will see a great number of members become missionaries.

What do you think? Are these cultural traits (respect, honor, and obligation) the clues that will unlock this missions mystery? Or are they just a red herring that will just throw us off the trail? Weigh in with your thoughts by clicking on the comments link below and let's try to solve this mystery together. Another clue next week…

Clue # 2: Ability to suffer well.

2008-06-29T13:03:00.001-04:00

There's an open case—a missions mystery—that we need your help to solve. Ready to play gumshoe again? This mystery is about South Korea, which produces the highest number of foreign missionaries per capita in the entire world. So what's their secret? Why do the Koreans have such a passion for missions?

Last week, we looked at the first clue—persistent and passionate prayer. This week, let's look at another:

Clue # 2: Ability to suffer well. The church in South Korea began its most explosive growth in the last few decades of the twentieth century. This initial generation of new converts lived through decades of Japanese occupation as well as the Korean War. Those were extraordinarily difficult times, and so the trait of endurance through suffering became a defining virtue of Korean people. Christians, in particular, suffered greatly during this period of history. Therefore, Koreans strongly value the ability to endure suffering in painful situations, and this trait is encouraged in today's generation.

People who do not fear suffering probably do not fear entering the mission field either. Perhaps the potential hardship experienced as a foreign missionary is not as big of an obstacle for Koreans as it might be for those in other parts of the world.

So what do you think? Does the ability of Koreans to suffer well help explain this missions mystery? Or is it a non-issue, one not worth considering? Weigh in with your thoughts by clicking the comments button below, and let's try to solve this mystery together. Another clue next week…

The crime scene: South Korea

2008-06-29T13:00:00.002-04:00

OK, super-sleuth, you’ve done a great job of unraveling missions mysteries in the past. But your work isn't finished—we've got another missions-related conundrum to solve. Ready to play detective again? Let's look together at another unsolved mystery.

The crime scene: South Korea

Actually, it's not a crime scene at all. Instead, it's the scene of something really good! It’s only been over the past 120 years that South Korea has been influenced by Protestant missionaries, yet the church in South Korea has experienced phenomenal growth— particularly in the last few decades. Today this small nation produces more missionaries per capita than any other country in the world. In fact, South Korea trails only the United States in the total number of missionaries it sends to other countries—10,600 from South Korea compared to 46,400 from the U.S.

So what is it about the Koreans that makes them so dedicated to the worldwide work of missions? That's the mystery we need your help to solve.

Clue #1: Persistent and passionate prayer. Few, if any, nations match the Koreans' commitment to prayer. They begin the day with prayer—the pre-dawn morning prayer service is a staple in Korean church culture, where the entire church gathers daily to pour out their hearts before the Lord. Most churches in the US couldn't fathom having an all-church gathering for prayer at 5:00 a.m. every day! It is also common to have all night prayer meetings and prayer retreats. And those prayers aren't just quiet whispers—they are passionate, loud, whole body prayers. In general, the prayer meeting is central to worship and everything else the Korean church does.

Is it logical to conclude that a group of Christians who are so dedicated to prayer will also be dedicated to missions? And even if the answer is yes, is this the key factor regarding why Koreans produce such a high percentage of the world's missionaries per capita? Or are there clues that are more convincing? Weigh in with your thoughts at by clicking on the comments button below, and let's try to solve this mystery together. More clues next week.

(Statistics from Johnstone, Patrick and Jason Mandryk, Operation World: 21st Century Edition. Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster Publishing, 2001.)

Approach #4: Prioritize the evangelism of the immigrant population.

2008-06-24T13:37:00.003-04:00

We still need your help to close this case and solve this missions mystery. We've been trying to figure out how to reach Western Europe for Christ a second time—while this region was highly Christian for centuries, it is becoming more and more secular all the time. So what is the best way to evangelize nations that are "post-Christian"?

We've already looked at three approaches—a top-down leadership approach, reviving and reforming the existing churches, and seeking to specifically reach the postmodern youth. This week, let's look at one more:

Approach #4: Prioritize the evangelism of the immigrant population. Nations in Western Europe are no longer as homogeneous as they once were. An increase in immigration has changed the face of these nations—since 1945, as many as 30 million immigrants have come to Europe from other continents.

Many immigrants come from areas that are completely closed to Christianity, including those dominated by Islam. For example, there are now more than 7 million Muslims in France and the UK alone. While some immigrants’ religion and culture may inherently be more hostile to Christianity, it also represents a unique opportunity to reach a group of people that would have been unreachable in their country of origin.

Although Christian witness would have been restricted or prohibited in their nations of origin, the freedoms that exist in Western Europe allow the gospel to go forth among these diverse people groups much more easily. As immigration changes the makeup of the population (particularly in urban areas) or Europe, it should also influence the strategy for reaching the people of Western Europe.

What do you think? Is addressing the immigrant population a key factor in successfully evangelizing Europe? What about the other approaches we've already discussed? Are there other approaches that have yet to be uncovered? Weigh in with your thoughts by clicking the comments link below and let's try to solve this mystery together for God's glory and for the sake of the lost in Western Europe.

(Statistics from Johnstone, Patrick and Jason Mandryk, Operation World: 21st Century Edition. Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster Publishing, 2001.)

Approach #3: Concentrate on winning the postmodern youth.

2008-06-24T13:35:00.003-04:00

We're still trying to solve a missions mystery, and we need your help to crack the case. Again, it's about Western Europe, where Christianity once dominated society and culture but has been steadily declining for many years to the point that most of these nations are considered to be "post-Christian." So what is the best approach for trying to win Europe for Christ a second time?

We've already looked at two approaches—a top-down approach (gaining support from the leaders) as well as seeking to reform and revive the existing churches. This week, let's look at another approach:

Approach #3: Concentrate on winning the postmodern youth. The church has essentially lost the younger generations in Western Europe. Christianity holds little meaning to the youth—it is merely considered a remnant of a past age that has no influence on or relevance for today. Many youth actually have little exposure to Christianity. There's a story of an eleven-year-old boy who, having just heard the Christmas story, noted, "That's an interesting story. But why did they name the baby after a swear word?"

Young people in Western Europe also tend to come from a postmodern perspective. While this means they tend to question the status quo and have a hard time accepting that there is Truth with a capital T, they like to dialogue, are tuned in to spirituality, are particularly gripped by stories, and love the concept of true community. For these reasons, programs such as the ALPHA course are finding much success in reaching the lost youth of Western Europe for Christ.

What do you think? Will an approach aimed to reach the postmodern youth be the key step to unlocking this missions mystery? Or is it just a red herring that will just throw us off the trail to the right approach? Weigh in with your thoughts by clicking the comments link below, and let's try to solve this mystery together.

Another clue next week.

Approach # 2: Reform and revive the existing churches and denominations.

2008-06-24T13:34:00.002-04:00

There's an open case—a missions mystery—that we need your help to solve. It's about Western Europe, where, despite the fact that this region of the world was a flourishing home to Christianity for hundreds of years, Christianity has experienced a significant decline—to the point where Western Europe is largely considered to be "post-Christian." So what is the best way to win Europe for Christ a second time?

Last week, we looked at one approach—taking a top-down approach to evangelism. This week, let's look at another approach:

Approach # 2: Reform and revive the existing churches and denominations. Many of the churches and denominations that were so strong in the past are now in desperate need of reform. Liberal theology has risen and dominates the theological institutions, crippling the church with its lack of confidence in Scripture and lack of focus on the gospel. In the original Reformation, committed individual Christians stood up against the culture of a church gone astray. Today, more than ever, we need Christians in Western Europe to boldly stand up and seek to change their churches that have drifted far from their original moorings.

But beyond reformation, the existing church in Western Europe needs revival. While many claim to be Christians, they are Christian in name only—the gospel means little to them. May the Lord raise up great leaders and quicken the long-cold hearts of nominal Christians!

So what do you think? Are reformation and revival of the existing churches the key to winning Europe for Christ a second time? Or is there another approach that will be more effective? Weigh in with your thoughts by clicking on the comments link below, and let's try to solve this mystery together.

Another clue next week.

The crime scene: Western Europe

2008-06-24T11:01:00.002-04:00

OK, super-sleuth… you've done a great job of unraveling missions mysteries in the past. But your work isn't finished—we've got another missions-related conundrum to solve. Ready to play detective again? Let's look together at another unsolved mystery.

The crime scene: Western Europe

When Muslim invaders virtually wiped out Christianity in the Middle East in the eighth century, Western Europe became the de facto seat of Christianity. So for 1,000 years, Christianity took root and flourished in this region of the world. The Reformation spurred on an even greater passion in the European church, and some of the greatest theologians, pastors, and missionaries in Christian history came from Western Europe.

Since then however, the church in Western Europe has been in decline. It has come to the point today where, in spite of the fact that Christianity has been a part of the region's heritage for literally 1,000 years, the nations in the region can hardly be called Christian at all. Secularism is quickly becoming the primary worldview in the public arena. So then, in light of this history, here is the mystery at hand: how can we win Western Europe for Christ a second time? What does it take to evangelize a post-Christian region of the world?

Approach #1: "Do what worked the first time." Some might say that if it worked before, it will work now. Obviously, we can't replicate the conditions of the region over the past 1,000 years! But a couple approaches come to mind based on what has happened in the past. First, use a top-down approach to evangelism. In the past, Christianity was endorsed (even imposed) by the heads of state in Western Europe. So perhaps an evangelism strategy that focuses on leaders and people of influence will help to reverse the course of Christianity in Western Europe. In light of the fact that secular society is becoming more and more intolerant of Christianity, a greater level of support from the leaders and governments of these nations could be of real influence for the cause of Christ.

You decide… is trying those things that seemed to work before the best approach to winning Western Europe again? Or are there better approaches to take? Weigh in with your thoughts by clicking on the comments link below, and let's try to solve this mystery together. More clues to come next week…

Clue #4: The demographics of those who serve as Mormon missionaries.

2008-06-03T21:32:00.004-04:00

It's time to close this case and solve this missions mystery, but we still need your help. We've been trying to figure out the reason that Mormonism has seen such world-wide growth and, in many ways, has become the most recognizable face of American missionaries. Why is this the case?

We've already looked at three clues—the church’s cultural expectation to serve on a mission, the short-term nature of all missions, and the way that funding works for these missions. This week, let's look at one more clue:

Clue #4: The demographics of those who serve as Mormon missionaries. As previously mentioned, the "typical" Mormon missionary is a single young man. In 2007, 80 percent were young unmarried men, 13 percent young single women, and 7 percent retired couples. Let's just consider the influence of two aspects of these missionaries: their youth and their singleness.

Youth: Since 93 percent of Mormon missionaries are under age 25, it follows that they will tend to have more energy, more stamina, an increased ability to deal with difficult physical conditions, and fewer health issues. Many situations that missionaries face are simply easier for the young. And young missionaries, while giving Mormonism a young and fresh "face" that may be attractive to others, are also more easily able to reach out to young nationals.

Singleness: Since most Mormon missionaries are single, there’s a sense that they have a “singleness” focus (not unlike the Apostle Paul). They have restrictions on their relations with the opposite sex, and even in their communications with friends and families back home—meaning that they can concentrate on their mission work with few distractions.

There is a restriction for all Mormon missionaries: there are no children on the field. Think about it. There's no such thing as a "missionary kid" in Mormonism. Again, the absence of children means a greater ability to focus only on the missionary work—even for those that are married and retired. They don't have to worry about kids’ schooling, health, or the day-to-day issues of parenting. This also reduces the cost, since there are no "unproductive" dependents to support.

What do you think? Is the youth of the missionaries and their lack of dependent children a key factor for Mormon missions success? What about the other clues we've already scrutinized? Is there a clue that has yet to be discovered? What can we learn from the Mormons regarding missions? Weigh in with your thoughts by clicking the comments link below and let's try to solve this mystery together for God's glory and the sake of the lost all around the world.

Clue #3: The method of funding for missionaries.

2008-06-03T17:09:00.002-04:00

We're still trying to solve a missions mystery, and we need your help to crack the case. Again, it's about Mormonism, which has grown significantly in recent decades and has a high percentage of its members that participate in missions work. So why is it that Mormons tend to be the most globally successful and well-known American missionaries today?

We've already looked at two clues—the expectation that young Mormons will participate in missions and the lack of "career" missionaries. This week, let's look at another clue:

Clue #3: The method of funding for missionaries. Mormon missionaries aren't that much different from evangelical Christian missionaries in that they are asked to raise their own support. But with the cultural expectation for the young men to go on a mission at age 19, the young men are able to plan ahead and spend much of their teen years saving money for their mission. Most are able to raise the support they need within their own family and church. One would presume that those in the church who are former missionaries (a high percentage) will be quite willing to support the young men and women who are following in their own footsteps.

Knowing that it will be more expensive to live in some mission locations than others, the Mormon Church has equalized the costs so that every missionary pays the same amount regardless of where each one goes. The result is an extremely reasonable monthly cost—about $400 per month (in 2006). So a young man going on a two-year mission would have to raise about $10,000 in support. That's peanuts compared to what most evangelical Christian missionaries have to raise for two years of service! Presumably, the Mormon Church (at large) supports a significant portion of the overhead costs for administration and training facilities.

What do you think? Is the relatively low cost to send someone on a short-term mission the clue that will unlock this missions mystery? Or is it another red herring that will just throw us off the trail? Weigh in with your thoughts at by clicking on the comments link below and let's try to solve this mystery together.

Another clue next week.

Clue # 2: An intentional lack of "career" missionaries.

2008-06-02T07:36:00.001-04:00

There's an open case—a missions mystery—that we need your help to solve. It's about Mormonism, which has grown significantly in recent decades and sends out a much higher percentage of its members as missionaries compared to the evangelical Christian church. So why is it that Mormons are seeing such success and are quickly becoming the face of the "average" American missionary overseas?

Last week, we looked at the first clue—the strong expectation for young Mormons to participate in missions. This week, let's look at another clue:

Clue # 2: An intentional lack of "career" missionaries. There's no such thing as a twenty- or thirty-year veteran in Mormon missions. Pretty much all Mormon missionaries are short-term missionaries. In 2007, 80 percent of all Mormon missionaries were young single men, 13 percent young single women, and 7 percent retired couples. (Think about that—93 percent of Mormon missionaries are under age 26!) The young men generally spend two years on their mission. The young women generally serve shorter 18-month missions. The married retired couples' length of service may vary from 3 to 36 months depending on their circumstances and means.

This emphasis on short-term missions is the opposite of evangelical Christian mission work, where the highest value is placed on missionaries who will move to an area, learn the language, adapt to the culture, and serve locally for many years to come. This approach provides a much higher degree of continuity, but requires a much higher level of commitment.

So what do you think? Are continuity and experience overrated? Is it better to have missionaries work hard for a couple years and then move on with their lives? Is this the reason for the success of the Mormon missions movement? Or does it fail to help us adequately explain this missions mystery? Weigh in with your thoughts by clicking on the comments button below and let's try to solve this mystery together.

More clues next week.

Clue #1: The strong expectation for participation in missions.

2008-05-23T15:41:00.001-04:00

OK, super-sleuth… so you still think you know a thing or two about missions? Let's see if you can figure out this next mystery. We'll play Watson to your Holmes as we investigate another missions mystery.

Picture a police lineup.
A group of people stands against the wall, and from behind a two-way mirror, the injured party picks a perpetrator out of the bunch.

Now imagine that you line up "missionaries" and ask non-Christians from around the world to pick out the most easily recognized American missionary. More than likely, they will choose the one second from the end—that young man wearing a white shirt with a tie and riding a bicycle. That's right… the Mormon missionary.

So why is it that Mormons tend to be the most globally successful and well-known American missionaries today? That's the mystery we hope to unravel this month.

Mormonism worldwide has grown extensively over the last several decades—from 1.4 million in 1960 to about 11 million in 2000. Much of that growth is due to the strong missionary presence overseas—there are about 60,000 Mormon missionaries in 150 countries. The missionary-to-member ratio is about 20 times higher than that of the evangelical Christian church!

Clue #1: The strong expectation for participation in missions. While it isn't required per se, there is a strong expectation that young Mormons complete a two-year mission. For those families that are active in the church, approximately 80-90 percent of the 19-year-old young men serve a mission. If you include families that are more nominally affiliated with the Mormon Church, the number drops to about 30 percent. But even that low of 30 percent greatly exceeds the level of evangelical Christian church participation.

Just imagine the impact on Christian missions work if 30 percent of the young people in our churches got involved with missions?

Leaders in Mormon churches often say that "every member is a missionary." It's an integral part of the culture—in many ways a rite of passage—for the young men to do a two-year mission. As a result, Mormon missions has a constant stream of young, energetic, passionate, disciplined, and well-trained workers to go and share their message with the world.

You decide… is the expectation for all committed Mormon young men to go on a mission the reason for Mormonism's success and the key clue that will unlock this missions mystery? Or is it a just red herring that will just throw us off the trail? Weigh in with your thoughts by clicking on the comments link below and let's try to solve this mystery together.

More clues next week...

Clue #4: The state of the church.

2008-05-12T14:43:00.002-04:00

We still need your help to close this case and solve this missions mystery. We've been trying to figure out whether missions agencies should take advantage of the tenuous peace that currently exists in Sudan to expand their missions efforts to this region. Or are there too many dangers and difficulties that would hamper such an effort?

We've already looked at three clues—the struggles between the dominant Arab north North and the Christian southSouth, the economic difficulties of the country, and the human tragedy that has and is still taking place in Sudan. With those three negative pieces of information you might be led to think there's nothing good going on in this country. So this week, let's look at something more uplifting:

Clue #4: The state of the church. The Christian church in Sudan is alive and well, particularly in the southern region. For example, in the southern city of Juba, one church—the Juba Christian Center—has services of over 1,000 people and has planted 6 six other churches in the region. The congregation is self-supporting, self-governing, and self-propagating.

Africa Inland Church has 17 churches in the area—and that denomination is eagerly looking toward planting more in the surrounding region. Several other denominations have a strong presence in this city, and there is a sense of unity, sharing fellowship through the Sudan Council of Churches.

Elsewhere, there are many similar examples of churches and leaders who have withstood severe persecution and sacrifice in order to build the church in Sudan. The massive population movement (i.e., in political refugees) has broken down many language and customs barriers, helping to reach people for Christ who were previously unreachable. There's even a vision for church planting called "Cush for Christ 2000" with goals to plant 25,000 churches and reach every all people in the nation.

So what do you think? Does this good news convince you that now is the time to devote resources to missions work in Sudan? What impact do the various other clues we've uncovered have on your thinking? Are there important clues that we've missed? One missions leader in Sudan shares:

"While the door is open, this is the time to enter Sudan. This country can change overnight with a peace plan that is so fragile… As we sat under the shade tree and heard the Sudanese pastor quote the verse, 'The harvest is great, but the labors are few,' that verse has new meaning to us as we relate it to the needs in Sudan. May we seize every opportunity that God gives us. This is the time for Sudan!"

So at least one person thinks this case is ready to be closed. What do you think?

(Statistics from Johnstone, Patrick and Jason Mandryk, Operation World: 21st Century Edition. Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster Publishing, 2001.)

Clue #3: The human tragedy of Sudan.

2008-05-08T09:21:00.002-04:00

We're still trying to solve a missions mystery, and we need your help to crack the case! Again, it's about Sudan, where decades of civil war have torn apart a nation currently experiencing relative peace. Does this time of peace, shaky as it is, mean that now is the opportune time to for a concerted missions effort in Sudan?

We've already looked at two clues—the struggles between the dominant Arab North and the Christian South as well as the economic difficulties of Sudan. This week, let's look at another clue:

Clue #3: The human tragedy of Sudan. The cost of decades of war can't just be measured in lives lost, though over 2 million people have died in the last 25 years. Slavery has been re-institutionalized by the government, and some 200,000 people are now enslaved.

Many in the south have been captured by slave raiders. Well-meaning Western NGOs (non-governmental organizations, known to those in the USA as non-profit organizations) buy back these slaves, but may be unintentionally perpetuating this atrocity by making slave raiding a lucrative practice.

And that's not even mentioning the current tragedy in the Darfur region of Sudan (the western region).

What began as tribal clashes has encompassed government sponsored military action. In addition, independent militias are also vying for control. The militias have been responsible for what has been called genocide—launching raids, bombings, and attacks on villages; killing civilians based on ethnicity; raping women; stealing land, goods, and livestock; and committing other atrocities. Over 2.5 million people have been displaced! That’s the entire population of Brooklyn, New York, or Denver, Colorado!

What do you think? With so many lives lost over the last 25 years (and in the last few), does the inherent danger of the area mean that missions work in Sudan poses too great a risk? Or is the great suffering there the very reason why missions work should occur in this nation?

Weigh in with your thoughts by clicking on the comments link below and let's try to solve this mystery together. One more clue next week…

(Statistics from Wikipedia.com; Johnstone, Patrick and Jason Mandryk, Operation World: 21st Century Edition. Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster Publishing, 2001.)

Clue # 2: Economic Conditions.

2008-05-05T09:40:00.001-04:00

Here’s an open case—a missions mystery—that we need your help to solve. It's about Sudan, where in spite of a recent peace treaty, the nation is on edge. Is this time of relative peace the window of opportunity needed for missions to take hold in this troubled nation? It's a mystery…we want to know what you think.

Last week, we looked at the first clue—the tension between the dominant Arab North and Christian South. This week, let's look at another clue:

Clue # 2: Economic Conditions. Years of war have taken a toll on Sudan's economy. While oil income is significant, little has gone to develop infrastructure. Imagine fertile and productive farmland now lying barren because it was decimated by famine, or worse yet, is known to be filled with land mines.

As a result, the Sudanese economy struggles. The average worker earns the equivalent of about $8 a day (a skilled worker might earn a few dollars more). Food and gasoline are expensive, and the people struggle just to purchase necessities.

Land and building materials are expensive as well, which undermines the ability of churches to build (or re-build) worship facilities. It tends to be out of reach for many churches without the help of United States ministries.

So what do you think? Does the struggling economy and high cost of goods put undue burden on potential missions work in Sudan? Should ministries from the West intervene? Are there other factors that would better define whether this is the right time to focus on Sudan?

Weigh in with your thoughts by clicking on the comments link below and let's try to solve this mystery together. Another clue next week…

The Crime Scene: Sudan

2008-04-27T21:43:00.001-04:00

Are you ready for another missions-related mystery? We need your super sleuthing to solve another case. Keep your eyes peeled for the clues that will help you crack this one.

The crime scene: Sudan

For decades, Sudan has been torn apart by civil war. A recent agreement between the North and the South has resulted in an uneasy peace (well, except for the continued strife in the Darfur region). Though the nation as a whole is not necessarily friendly to the gospel, could this time of relative peace be the window of opportunity needed to invest in building up the church in Sudan?

Clue #1: The "Arab-izing" and "Islamizing" of the South. The northern region of Sudan is largely Arab, and thus largely Muslim. And yet in the southern region, Christianity has grown—from approximately 5 percent of the population in 1960 to as much as 70 percent in 2000!

For many, becoming a Christian was simply a way to express their opposition to Islam. In these cases, their faith was nominal at best. However, the Holy Spirit has genuinely moved in this area, and the number of true believers has grown significantly over the past few decades.

In 1983, Sudan was declared an Islamic country—the government, controlled by the Arab North, subsequently began to apply Sharia (Islamic) law to Muslims and non-Muslims alike. These changes were particularly distressing for Christians in the country. Schools—even those started and run by Christians—were turned into Quran schools. Churches were burned and bulldozed. Christians in general were persecuted.

The pressure of Islam was one of the key contributing factors to the friction between northern and southern Sudan. Unfortunately, the ramifications are still present despite the peace treaty.

You decide… is this long-standing discord between the dominant Arabs in the North and the Christians of the South reason enough to wait to reach this nation for Christ? Or to the contrary, is the strong presence of Christianity in the South a solid reason to move ahead? Are there other clues that will better help unravel this perplexing question? Weigh in with your thoughts by clicking on the comments link below and let's try to solve this mystery together.

More clues next week.

(Statistics from Johnstone, Patrick and Jason Mandryk, Operation World: 21st Century Edition. Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster Publishing, 2001.)

David Brainerd

2008-04-17T17:14:00.002-04:00

We still need your help to close this case and solve this missions mystery. We've been trying to figure out the reason that missionaries are not particularly well-known today.

We’ve looked for clues in the lives of three missions heroes—William Carey, David Livingstone, and Hudson Taylor. Now let's investigate the life of David Brainerd, a missionary who preceded these other great men.

By modern missionary board standards, David Brainerd would be a poor candidate. He was frail and sickly—prone to tuberculosis, from which he died at age 29. Brainerd never finished college and was expelled from Yale for criticizing a professor. He struggled with frequent bouts of deep depression. What sort of missions group would want such a high risk person?

Yet Brainerd became a missionary to the American Indians in 1743. Despite his many weaknesses, he had one great strength—he was man of fervent prayer. One night he camped outside an Indian settlement, preparing to enter the village to preach the Gospel of Christ. Warriors, sent to kill him, drew close to his tent and watched as he knelt in prayer. They saw a rattlesnake slither next to him, lift its head to strike, and then without any apparent reason, suddenly slip away. Believing this was divine intervention, the Indians gave Brainerd a prophet's welcome.

God miraculously intervened many times in Brainerd's ministry, and he saw something of revival on numerous occasions. After his short but passionate life came to a close in 1747, his journal was published as The Life and Diary of David Brainerd. These memoirs have transformed many, motivating them to become missionaries, evangelists, preachers, and people of prayer.

What do you think? Do today's strict missions work standards prevent flawed but potentially great missionaries from entering the field? Does our prayer life lack the fervency and consistency that gave Brainerd his strength? What other clues can we see that will help us understand why missionaries today have lost a bit of luster, so to speak?

Weigh in with your thoughts by clicking on the comments link below and let's try to solve this mystery together for God's glory and for the sake of the lost in every tongue, tribe, and nation.

William Carey

2008-04-15T07:47:00.001-04:00

We're still trying to solve a missions mystery, and we need your help to crack the case. Again, we're trying to pin down why it is that missionaries are not particularly well-known today—either inside or outside of the church—as compared to the past.

We have previously looked for clues in the lives of Hudson Taylor and Dr. David Livingstone. Let's look this week at the "father of modern missions"—William Carey.

In the late 1700s, Christians gave very little attention to the cause of missions. Carey began his adult life as a shoemaker. A voracious reader and budding linguist, he became a preacher as well. The more he read the more he became convinced that "If it be the duty of all men to believe the gospel...then it be the duty of those who are entrusted with the gospel to endeavor to make it known among all nations."

Based on his studies, Carey wrote a seminal missions book and preached what became his most famous sermon, calling Christians to "Expect great things from God. Attempt great things for God."

Carey formed the Baptist Missionary Society after which he went to India. For over 40 years, he persevered through periods of discouragement—no converts for seven years, debt, disease, death of loved ones, and setbacks to ministry. After a fire in his print shop destroyed many of the manuscripts and translations he had been working on literally for years, Carey continued translating the Scriptures and teaching the language to other missionaries.

Biographer F. Dealville Walker wrote of Carey: "He, with a few contemporaries, was almost singlehanded in conquering the prevailing indifference and hostility to missionary effort; he influenced timid and hesitating men to take steps to the evangelizing of the world."

That sounds like the kind of person we need involved today, too!

So what do you think? Do you have to write a seminary book to be well-known? What other ways are there for people who humbly hear God's call to "go into all the world" and receive the recognition they deserve? What clues are there from Carey's life that will help us to understand this missions mystery? Weigh in with your thoughts by clicking on the comments link below and let's try to solve this missions mystery together.

Dr. David Livingstone

2008-04-03T15:49:00.005-04:00

There's an open case—a missions mystery—that we need your help to solve. Why is it that missionaries are not particularly well-known today—either inside or outside of the church? A century ago, missionaries were among the giants of faith. Today, if you ask the average person to name a famous Christian, they rarely think of a missionary.

Last week, we looked at the example of Hudson Taylor and the clues we could learn from his life. This week, let's look at another Christian missionary hero of the past—Dr. Livingstone, I presume.

David Livingstone originally educated himself by fastening textbooks over his loom as he worked in a cotton mill. He studied medicine and theology, and was sent to southern Africa in 1840. While setting up a new mission among the Kgatla people, he barely escaped a lion’s attack that left one of his arms permanently disabled. Talk about a rough transition to another culture!

For years, Dr. Livingstone shared the gospel with native Africans, developing much trust and love in his relationships. Livingstone mapped out the river systems of the continent while looking for future missionary opportunities; this led to his discovery of Victoria Falls. After sixteen years in Africa, Livingstone returned to England for a brief time and was hailed as a hero. Scientists, politicians, and Christians—for different reasons—all paid tribute to his accomplishments.

Livingstone then took up a new cause—fighting the slave trade that plagued his beloved Africa. When no one had heard from him for an extended period, the New York Herald sent the well-known British journalist and explorer H.M. Stanley to find out whether Livingstone was still alive. In their famous meeting Stanley dryly noted, "Dr. Livingstone, I presume?" The two became close friends, and Stanley was led to Christ through Livingstone's influence.
So what do you think? Does a guy have to be mauled by a lion, discover one of the largest waterfalls in the world, fight slavery, and lead a famous explorer to Christ to gain some renown as a missionary? Were the sensational aspects of this humble and dedicated man's life what brought him such respect? Or are there other reasons that he gained such fame? Weigh in with your thoughts by clicking on the comments link below and let's try to solve this missions mystery together.

Why is it that missionaries are not particularly well-known today—either inside or outside of the church?

2008-03-31T07:55:00.000-04:00

OK, super-sleuth… you've done a great job of unraveling missions mysteries in the past. But don't rest on your laurels quite yet—there's still work to be done! Ready to play detective again? Let's look together at another unsolved mystery.

Why is it that missionaries are not particularly well-known today—either inside or outside of the church?

Think about it for a minute. Who is the most famous Christian in the world today? If you answered Billy Graham or Rick Warren or James Dobson, you are probably not alone. But look at that list… an evangelist, a pastor, and the leader of a parachurch organization. Missionaries are conspicuously absent from such a list of well-known Christians. Why do think this is the case?

It hasn't always been this way. While there have always been pastors and evangelists who were "heroes of the faith" in their time, missionaries used to be more prominent, even in secular culture. For example, Hudson Taylor was a model of the faith in his generation, and he has left a lasting legacy.

Taylor was an English missionary to China during the last half of the nineteenth century. Unlike many of his contemporaries, he deeply desired to fit in with the local culture—he even chose to wear native Chinese clothes and put his hair in a traditional queue (a pigtail) with shaved forehead. In 1865 he founded the China Inland Mission, dedicated to evangelizing the “unreached” in the inland provinces of China. Initially he dreamed of having twenty-four others join him—that happened within the first year. Taylor's vision and faith motivated those around him to follow in his footsteps. His enthusiasm, modeled in godly character, was contagious. In his lifetime, more than eight hundred missionaries reached China’s interior territories.

There are many humble and godly missionaries around the world who, like Hudson Taylor, serve faithfully. But most of us don't hear a whole lot about them! Is it because missionaries are stereotyped as being “professionally religious”? Is it because there are far fewer "uncharted" territories, as inland China was back in Taylor's day? Or is there a different reason altogether?

You decide… what are the clues that will unlock this missions mystery? Weigh in with your thoughts at by clicking on the comments link below and let's solve this mystery together.

Clue #4: The Long-Term Impact of the Crusades.

2008-03-20T09:55:00.002-04:00

We still need your help to close this case and solve this missions mystery. We've been trying to figure out the reason that the Middle East and Northern Africa, though it was the birthplace of Christianity, is now one of the least Christian places on earth.

We've already looked at three clues—the history of the nation of Israel, the lack of consistent missionary presence, and the predominance of the Muslim culture. This week, let's look at one more:

Clue #4: The Long-Term Impact of the Crusades. If you are looking at the history of Christianity in the Middle East, it's hard to ignore the influence of the Crusades on this region. These 11th – 13th century military campaigns (often with the sanction of the papacy) sought to free Jerusalem and other areas from Islamic rule and bring in Christianity by force. While there were long term benefits in terms of increased trade and an exchange of culture and knowledge, there certainly were no long-lasting "Christian nations" formed that truly followed Christ as a result of these conquests. Many consider the Crusades to be a black eye on historical Christianity.

The Crusades had profound effects upon the Islamic world. The Crusades were regarded as cruel and savage onslaughts by European Christians. One consequence was the creation of an Islamic mentality that sought a retreat into isolation. Historian Peter Mansfield says in A History of the Middle East that "Assaulted from all quarters, the Muslim world turned in on itself. It became oversensitive [and] defensive… attitudes that grew steadily worse as world-wide evolution, a process from which the Muslim world felt excluded, continued." These attitudes pervade this region yet today, and are one source of the hostility and enmity that exists between the Muslim and Christian faiths.

What do you think? Were the Crusades and the resulting aftermath major factors in this missions mystery? What about the other clues we've already discussed? And are there other clues that have yet to be uncovered? Please share your thoughts by clicking on the comments link below and let's try to solve this mystery together for God's glory and the sake of this part of the world where the Christian faith has such a precious history.

(Statistics from Johnstone, Patrick and Jason Mandryk, Operation World: 21st Century Edition. Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster Publishing, 2001.)

Clue #3: The predominant religion of the region being Islam.

2008-03-16T21:52:00.001-04:00

We're still trying to solve a missions mystery, and we need your help to crack the case. Again, it's about the Middle East and North Africa where less than 1% of the population are evangelical Christians. Why is this region of the world one of the least Christian places on earth, even though it was the birthplace of Christianity?

We've already looked at two clues—the history of the nation of Israel and the lack of consistent missionary presence in the region. This week, let's look at another clue:

Clue #3: The predominant religion of the region being Islam. Evangelical Christians are a tiny little minority in this part of the world—consider this roll call: Turkey (<0.1%), Iraq (0.1%), Saudi Arabia (0.9%), Israel (0.2%), Jordan (0.2%), Palestine (0.1%), Lebanon (0.6%), Syria (0.1%), Libya (0.3%), and the most Christian country in the region-Egypt (2.5%).

Compare that to Muslim populations in each of those respective countries of: 99%, 97%, 93%, 15% (Israel), 96%, 86%, 60%, 90%, 97%, and 87%. That's an overwhelming majority that unquestionably shapes the culture and openness to the gospel for this entire region.

As a result of their Muslim make-up, most of these nations are closed to missionaries and religious freedom is minimal. In many cases, it is against the law to convert from Islam, and Christian literature is banned within their borders. Even if people become Christian, they face many pressures in their societies—from relatives, employers, and authorities. Their families (including spouses) and communities will often ostracize and intimidate them, exerting all manner of social, cultural and economic pressure on them, wanting them to come back to the Muslim faith. They could face the loss of jobs and suffer other injustices while the authorities turn a blind eye. It is extraordinarily difficult to live as a Christian minority in these Muslim nations, and so many emigrate to places where there is much less pressure.

What do you think? Is the dominance of the Muslim culture the clue that will unlock this missions mystery? Or is it another red herring that will just throw us off the trail? Weigh in with your thoughts by clickin on the comments link below and let's try to solve this mystery together. Another clue next week…

(Statistics from Johnstone, Patrick and Jason Mandryk, Operation World: 21st Century Edition. Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster Publishing, 2001.)

Clue # 2: Lack of a continuous missionary presence in the region.

2008-03-09T21:09:00.001-04:00

There's an open case—a missions mystery—that we need your help to solve. It's about the Middle East and North Africa, where despite its history as the birthplace of Christianity, it is now one of the least Christian places on earth. Why do you think this is?

Last week, we looked at the first clue—the history of the nation of Israel. This week, let's look at another:

Clue # 2: Lack of a continuous missionary presence in the region. This region of the world is a prime example of the idea that even if an area has a strong Christian influence at one time in history, there's no guarantee that this influence will continue unabated. While Christianity began here, there was a long period where the church was not at all active. Any time there isn't much of a missionary presence in a region, the church is more likely to struggle and fizzle out.

This should be a lesson to those of us in a "Christian nation" such as the United States. Even though there's a huge Christian influence now, there's no guarantee it will continue forever. In fact, the US is becoming more and more un-churched all the time—making it all the more important to continue a missionary presence here in addition to more typical missionary contexts around the world.

So what do you think? Does the big gap in missionary presence from the first century until recent centuries help explain this missions mystery? Or is it a non-issue, and not worth considering? Weigh in with your thoughts by clicking on the comments link below and let's try to solve this mystery together.

Another clue next week.

(Statistics from Johnstone, Patrick and Jason Mandryk, Operation World: 21st Century Edition. Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster Publishing, 2001.)