Friendly Elephants, pt. 2: Why are we sending missionaries overseas when they are so needed here in America?
We do in fact need missionaries in North America! Few of us remain unaware of the rapid secularization of North American culture and the decline of Biblical faith and worldview even among our churches. Ligonier Ministries’ The State of Theology findings released in late 2022 revealed that a minority of Evangelical Christians adhere to a biblical worldview. Take a look at those findings at https://thestateoftheology.com/. We are measurably, in comparison to previous seasons, in a spiritual recession in North America. Our temptation during such a season may be to keep our resources close at hand, to employ the same methods of self-preservation we might apply during an economic downturn. The Barna Group conducted a Great Commission survey in 2021 and in response to the question: “Of all the countries in the world, where should global missionary support be focused?” The leading answer was the U.S.A. with 20% of respondents indicating a preference for home missions. As a support-raising missionary now based in the U.S. I’m inclined to appreciate this rather self-serving perspective. However, is the way to reverse course on our Christian decline in America to become more focused on ourselves?
Some might make the case that withdrawing to sow more effective discipleship in our local churches now, may yield multiplied returns in future seasons. Yet, the point at which our churches withdraw from full-hearted obedience to the Great Commission is the point at which our own discipleship is in question! In the Kingdom of God, closed-fistedness is never an avenue toward faithfulness and growth, and it certainly wasn’t modeled in the early church or scripture. To suggest that the way to preserve our churches is to remove the Great Commission DNA from them, is a bit like saying the way to overcome a financial recession is by ceasing to desire income. In an effort to re-enliven a struggling tree we don’t set to chopping at the root. Yet, it seems so many evangelical churches are willing or tempted to do that very thing.
Of course, few churches would come right out and say, “We are no longer investing in the Great Commission.” The manifestation of the inward focus always leaves margin for ample self-deception. Like the man who tells himself, “I’m not greedy, I’m just frugal,” or the one who says, “I’m not enabling sin, I’m just showing Christ’s love,” churches have succumbed to pressures to redefine the Great Commission in terms that justify their own objectives. While nearly every church would now define themselves as “On Mission,” what exactly that mission is, either lacks clarity or leaves much to be desired. This is where the “everyone is a missionary” rhetoric becomes rather insidious. In an effort to mobilize members to localized ministries(a good and noble effort), the Great Commission to “Go and make disciples of all nations,” has been replaced by some form of witness in the vicinity of the local church, which just so happens to be a very visible social project and thus synergizes with the ever-present but unspoken church marketing campaign. While these ministries are good and biblical in so many respects, they can also serve to represent a church “On Mission,” while sacrificing little for missions. Thus, missions becomes another means to a self-serving end. However, this phenomenon isn’t limited to local ministry in North America.
Several years ago I spoke with a church who were reevaluating their missions strategy. They would be redirecting their support from individual missionaries in specific nations to the general funds of missions sending agencies. The executive pastor of said church was convinced he had “hacked” missions for his church. “Why would we support individual missionaries serving in just one location, when we can support an agency serving in so many places around the world?” His reasoning continued, “They can facilitate trips for us to anywhere in the world, not just the locations we support individual missionaries.” His view of fulfilling the Great Commission extended so far as assisting their local church in mobilizing members to short-term trips and garnering the attention and service of ingratiated mission agency leaders. Missions was viewed through the lens of how it could most benefit their church, specifically as another program that reinforced the perception that this was a church “On Mission.”
The elephant of ethnocentrism is a tricky one that entangles itself in complex self-deceptions, but until we can understand how consumer marketing is the air every American breathes, we won’t be able to identify its effect on our churches and ministries. Not all of the effects are healthy. Let us pray that we can embrace the Great Commission with pure and eager hearts for the glory of God alone, and see our local churches with broader perspective, and one that generously transcends North American borders. Yes, we do need missionaries in North America, but for the right reasons and not at the expense of sending them abroad.
Stay tuned for part 3, when we attempt to tackle the question raised here: What is the benefit of supporting missions for the local church?
Disclaimer: We’ve not addressed here the many immigrant and international communities which allow missionaries here in America to minister the gospel to peoples from around the world! There also remain numerous under-reached populations across North America which desperately need missionaries! However, the question, as it is most usually asked, is in the spirit of concern for the state of mainline American Christianity and this article is a response thus.
