platforms

Most countries in the world today no longer (if they ever had) have a missionary visa.  The few countries that have such a visa do not fully understand the role and function of a missionary.  Visa issues aside, many people at the street level do not understand the missionary category either.  When I was preparing to go, many people would ask me what I was going to do.  When I used the M word, they either had no clue what I was talking about or they would give me one of those "why don't you just leave those poor people alone and not try to change their culture" looks.  I started using the word sociologist.  When I would say that, people would look at me with a look of understanding and recognition.  They would ask me "what people are you studying?" "where will you be living?" "What language will you learn?"  This was a category they understood.  Bypassing the social misunderstanding is simply a matter of linguistics.  Bypassing foreign governments is another issue.  To do the latter many people have used "creative access platforms."  This allows them to use a category that the government understands and accepts.  Many come in as teachers, business people, students, agricultural experts and a host of other real jobs.

Here are some of the issues that are important to understand regarding platforms.
1. Will it get me into the country?
This is the primary question most people ask.  Many people stop and don't ask any further questions.  With most countries it is relatively easy to gain access.  If all else fails, teach English.  You can get a visa into the toughest countries in the world if you have credentials to teach English and have a job at a language institute or university.  While access to the country is important, it is not the only consideration.  Many people who have not fully developed a platform or who have a poorly conceived platform will be faced with the next question:

2. Will it connect me to people?
If you take a job working in the oilfield where you will be either on a platform or in a compound, then you have successfully made it into the country but you are still not going to connect with many people outside of the company.  Conversely, the right platform can be a huge benefit in building connections.  I have a friend here who came in working for a company.  I had been here three months and he and been here one week.  Because he had worked at the company for a long time from the states, he knew many of the people over here.  In fact, in his short time, he knew more people than I did and in deeper ways.  Granted, he knew them before he came whereas I am starting cold.  However, he gained access to a large network on day one.

3. How will it connect me to people?
This is where my personal platform gets me into trouble.  I work as a photographer; I have the equipment to prove it--i'm legit.  The problem is that there are many tourist locations in my country.  Walking around with a big camera makes you look like an easy mark.  It isn't a real problem, but obviously the sight of a camera does change things so I have to be selective and careful.  Definitely consider not just that your platform will put you into contact with people, but how it will put you in contact with people.

Theological Credentials vs. Practical Credentials.

Having spent many years in preparation prior to leaving I followed the path that appeared the most obvious and followed at the time: seminary.  In fact, I not only went to seminary, but I started in Bible College.  In hindsight I would have changed one of my degrees to be in something rather than theology, something of tangible good to a lost world.  There are many easy ways of diversifying degrees.  Pick a business, agg, medical, etc, undergrad and do the seminary work you agency requires.  The other option is to do a theological undergrad (if you must...) and diversify with your masters.  A Masters of TESOL will let you teach at an actual university in stead of a day-institute teaching children.  An MBA will get you a job helping local businesses.  

If you are currently looking at your options before going my advice is to forgo formal theological training (key word: formal) unless you specifically need it.  It may have been an asset in the days of colonialism but today, in most places, it is a liability rather than an asset.  Get an undergrad with a double major--business and anthropology--and then go and get a MA TESOL (a 14 hr degree many places.).

Defective Platforms
Not doing what you claim you are doing.  Many people object to platforms on the basis that they are dishonest.  They are only dishonest if you do not do what you claim to be doing.  Do what you say you are there to do.

Using your platform as a bait-and-switch.  If you want to bait-and-switch, go work for Amway.  I recently heard about a group working with a minority indigenous ethnic group in a large city.  One of their team members found a location where their people grouped up and hung out.  This worker recommended that they host a free esl class.  Their supervisor decided that they should go down there and teach Bible stories in English as the class--If they didn't like it, then "too bad, cause its free."  While this statement is wrong on so many levels, this is such a lost opportunity.  Teach a real class, make it better than anything in the city, and make it free!  This is the popularity of the internet.  You want to start a movement, make it interesting and make it free.

Picking the wrong platform is not the end of the world, but picking the right one can certainly be productive.

disaffected with missiology

I have been doing a lot of reading trying to finish classes lately. I am somewhat jaded by the examples and test cases used in most missions books. Over 90% of the examples have come from tribal settings at least 20 years ago. Why are so few writing about contemporary cultures? Why are so few writing about urban centers. When we thing of the urban world, we always think of the technologically advanced western cultures. When you see a top 100 list, the majority of the top 100 cities are in "3rd world" countries. We seriously need some thought and reflection there as the world is racing into global urbanism.

if I have all metaphors for love, but don't eat worms...

I came across an interesting story about William Reyburn in an unlikely demonstration of love:

When asked to eat singed caterpillars, Reyburn rose to the challenge and ate.  When he did, the people said, "White man Kaka is eating caterpillars.  He really has a black heart."  The pans were emptied.  Each one took a mouthful of water, rinsed his mouth and spat the water to one side, belched loudly, said "thank you, Ndjambie (God)", arose and departed.  My notes on that night contain this one line: "an emptied pan of caterpillars is more convincing than all the empty metaphors of love which missionaries are prone to expend on the heathen." (William Reyburn, Meaning Across Cultures, 1981, pg 473.)

I am constantly shocked by pastors and missionaries who essentially reject--if not hate--their host culture, be it their home culture or their target culture.  These people have a martyr complex for "suffering for Jesus."  That complex taints their ministry and effectiveness.  There are certainly things in all cultures which would irritate the daylights out of any sane person.  However, what if loving these "irritants" and "undesirables" is the key to communicating the love of God and the truth of the gospel in a true and compelling way?  Are we willing to be like Jesus and be fully incarnational?  Our cultures did more than vex him!

Worms anyone?

strategery

Here is a video I made of a popular post from a while back.  Enjoy.

Strategery from Rastis on Vimeo.

priorities

I have written much in criticism of big church spending.  Jerry Rankin has an awesome post on his blog.  Here is a quote:

What our convoluted priorities are practically saying is, “It is better to let the lost multitudes never hear the gospel and go to hell, than change the way our denomination functions.” It is too bad that we have a system in which only two percent of our resources are given to reach a lost world that Jesus died to save. It is unfortunate our denomination can channel only 17 percent of Cooperative Program allocations to international missions because we have to sustain everything else we are doing. We can’t expect to cease a valid ministry, compromise programs that serve ourselves and our own churches in order to provide resources to get the gospel to those who have never heard! That, in essence, is what is being communicated.

FBC Facebook vs. FBC Google wave

Comparing church models and operations to businesses and platforms appears to be in vogue these days.  I have been no exception; I have talked about the implications of Starbucks, Twitter, and Facebook.  If you are not interested in such comparisons, you should probably stop here.

The following comparison might not be worth making as Google wave is relatively new.  I go through phases of purging people on Facebook.  To be honest, many people are stalkers of Facebook.  Ok, so I went to camp with you once ten years ago.  But we didn't talk then, and we don't talk now.  You friended me on Facebook and I added you cause I am a chump.  We still don't talk on Facebook, so why are we Facebook friends?  This is kind of like a mega church where I see a lot of people with whom I have some kind of loose connect but don't really know more than a dozen or so beyond a superficial level.  So basically, on Facebook, people have e-shrines unto themselves, which their friends could check if they actually cared.  Oh, and there are all those meaningless causes we can sign up for which make us look like we actually know and care about the world but won't get our hands too dirty.  The problem with Facebook, as it relates to church, is that it is simply a big gathering of friends but lacks any direction and mobility in the real world.  Sounds like many churches I know.

Google wave, on the other hand, is a whole different animal.  Organic, collaborative, and participative are three words I would use to describe it.  If you don't have anything to do in the real world, wave is boring.  Try the mega church of FBC Facebook if you just want to lurk.  However, if you have friends, with whom you actually have real connections and need a place to plan and collaborate about how to operate in the real world, then FBC Google wave might be what you are looking for.  You can add people to conversations and edit, text, message, chat, etc in real time!  It is completely free flowing.  There is no one there to control {dominate} the flow of information and communication.  It is open source so that people may freely modify interaction.  It is as if Facebook is suffering from the curse of the sound system.

The main difference between Facebook and Google Wave have to with mission.  One is simply a happy fellowship.  The other only works if it is used by people who are going somewhere.  I tend to get bored fast at the "country club" churches.  There is nothing to do.  If I simply needed something to fill my time every week, I could find a more entertaining group with whom to associate.  I am interested in churches and groups who are "on the go" because we share something in common: the body of Christ is bigger than the individual.

language and context

This is for those who think contextualization is bad....

ours is a God of strategy

Over the past year, I have come in contact with a lot of missionaries.  To my surprise, many missionaries I have met are offended by the idea of strategy.  They hear some strategy coordinator talk about how they are going to reach people and why they are going to go about it the way he proposes, and these missionaries balk at the idea that God uses strategy.  In fact, some of them view "human" strategy as an affront to God's sovereignty!  Don't misunderstand me.  I am not really saying anything bad about these missionaries.  They are very spiritual and because of that they have the idea [this was more true of the newbies I met] that they are on a journey together with God and he will lead them step by step through divine appointments to the right people who will start a movement as the pages of Acts unfold anew.  I do not disagree with their understanding; I only do what I do because I believe that God is already at work in the world.  If I didn't believe that, I probably wouldn't get out of bed in the morning.  The difference between us is how we describe God's working and leading.  They view it to be spiritually (somewhat mystically) and I view it to be spiritual and strategic.  

Here is an example from a different group of the same problem--a lack of defining how God works.  We were talking in Sunday School one morning about how we were going to reach our community with Gospel.  One lady suggested that we should pray.  We all agreed and talked about it some.  Everyone seemed to be fine with this solution, and the discussion distracted them from discussing it further.  I called everyone's attention back to the task by asking "then what?"  The room went silent.  There is a popular understanding that we will pray and God will do the work.  We should pray.  God will do the work.  But how will he do the work?  No one denies that it is God who saves.  But when the praying is done--or as it continues--God wants us to do the work of spreading the gospel.  It does not happen via magic or osmoses.  It happens through various forms of proclamation.  

In the same way, God does lead us and guide a movement.  But God also uses methods and strategies to do so.  The person of peace is often misunderstood in mission circles.  These anti-strategy missionaries believe that this is a divine appointment and we can blunder about our day till we have a shazam moment when we find this person who is the magic key.  I am not against the concept of a person of peace.  If you are called to reach young urbanites in your city, however, would you try to find your person of peace by looking in a retirement community?  God is big enough to do anything, but that is like looking for water in the desert or jumping off a cliff in the belief that God is going to save you if it is not your time to go.  This is deterministic missiology.  In biblical terms this is called testing the lord your God.  As crazy as that scenario sounds I heard of a family who did just that.  They felt called to reach young families.  Served for several years with limited success.  After their first term they were discouraged and concluded that the people's hearts were just too hard.  Their problem was that their town was predominantly elderly.  It was a retirement town.  Had they gone to the local government office and looked at the demographics, they would have either moved in search of their people group, or changed who they wanted to reach.  While God can get blood from a turnip, He probably won't do it just to prove it to you, or just so you can prove it to your friend.  In order to show that Spirit-driven strategy is the friend and not the enemy, I want to take you on a brief foray into God's strategy.  

Life began in the fertile crescent.  This area is called the fertile crescent because it is the "land between the rivers" spoken of in Genesis which looks like a crescent; it is Eden.

It is also called this because it stands in contrast to the surrounding desert.  We rarely think of Israel as a land bridge since it is connected to land itself, but with the constraints of ancient travel and with Israel serving as the only watered piece of land connecting three continents, it was a land bridge in ancient times.  

If you are going to cross the land from one continent to another, you cannot cross the desert.  To get from Persia [Iran] to Egypt, you would have to follow the water up the Tigris and Euphrates rivers [Iraq] to Syria and then head south through Israel.  This was called the King's Highway.  So when God chose a people and gave them a land, he did not pick the house on the cul-de-sac in the quite neighborhood out in suburbia.  No, he gave them the only piece of arable land between the three continents of the known world.  Google maps of the Persian, Greek, Roman, and Ottoman empires.  Each of these empires occupied essentially the same piece of ground.  Do you think that this kind of thoroughfare is important in proclaiming the name of one true God?  Would you consider owning every port of entry into every country advantageous to the spread of the gospel?  Every airport, sea port and border crossing?  This is what they had in their time.  It was no coincidence that God gave his people the land of Canaan.  Below is a theological map of the ancient world.

This map is clearly not drawn to scale.  The arrangement of the continents reflects the ancient trinitarian symbol.  More importantly, however, is that Jerusalem is placed at the center of the world.  This map represents the common sentiment of that era.  Again, it is not an accident or a coincidence that God gave the land of Canaan to his people.  He placed them on the center stage.  He placed them there, that is, until he sent them into bondage.  Jeremiah 29: 4 says "Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, to all the exiles whom I have sent intoexile from Jerusalem to Babylon."  That's right, the dispersion of the Jews was not accidental.  One can obviously point to their sin and say that the purpose of the diaspora was punishment.  This is only partially true. I believe that the teleological [end purpose] explanation is missiological.  Little did the Jews know at the time, but their dispersion served to plant the gospel in the first century.  Look at Paul's strategy.  His first order of business when he reached any town was to go straight to the synagogue.  There is a smattering of verses throughout Acts [9:20, 13:5, 13:14, 14:1, 17:1, 17:10, 17:17, 18:4, 18:18, 18:19, 19:8 ]; synagogue ministry was central to Paul's strategy so much so that Acts 17:2 says that it was his custom to go to the synagogue.  This strategy hastened the growth of the early church.  This explains why, in Thessalonica, when he was kicked out three weeks later that there was an established church.


In addition to targeting synagogues, Paul's strategy was inherently urban. Paul made a 27 city tour over the course of his three journeys.  

Paul had a two-pronged strategy.  Prong 1: Go to a new city.  Prong 2: Go to the religious people.  There were two kinds of religious people he spoke to.  The first group was the synagogue.  He would stay there till he was kicked out.  Then he would go to the people who worshiped money and sex.  His message was different for the two groups.  For the first he would begin with "our father Abraham" and for the latter he would begin in culture.  His urban strategy should not be taken lightly.  He went to towns which were on major trade routs.  They were major ports, seats of government, and religious and cultural centers.  Just to emphasize this point, look at the map below.  Corinth was a key city in the Greek world.  It had a major sea port; and it was on a land bridge connecting two larger territories.  In addition to connecting these two territories, Corinth connected the Saronic Gulf and the Gulf of Corinth [3 and 4 on the map].  This is important because in that day most seafaring was done via heavy boats with small sails which required lots of paddling.  If a captain wished to bring goods from one side of Greece to the other he could cut of days of time by crossing the narrow land bridge in Corinth.  There were small tracks which would carry boats over the land.  Apparently the Corinthians were on to something because there is now a canal which serves the same purpose.


The advent of Jesus was not exempt from strategy.  Galatians 4:4 says that Christ was sent to earth in the "fullness of time."  Jesus did not randomly show up.  He came at a time when the world was united by the Romans.  They were builders.  The roads they built connected the empire.  The Romans also brought unprecedented peace, safety, and stability.  Travel was possible and relatively safe for the first time.  Hellenism bequeathed a common language on the world. Within Palestine there was growing discontent with the Roman empire and renewed messianic hope.  All of these factors [and many more] were providential in the advent of Christ and the spread of the early church.  


The time has come in global missions to think and act strategically.  Most of the missionaries I know [98%] come from small towns in the South.  This influences where they want to go when they go overseas.  It also influences where seminarians want to pastor.  We tend to focus on rural work or suburban work.  That is the case in my town stateside.  The majority of churches are middle class, suburban, and white.  My town is one of the most diverse in the world and it is a tragedy to see believers huddling up where it is safe and clean.  We need to have the mind of God.  And the mind of God is a mind of strategy with a deep and steadfast love for people.

mission or worship: the condrum of the chicken and egg revisited

"Missions exist because worship does not" ~John Piper

"The chief end of man is to glorify God" ~Westminster Catechism

Recently Derek Webster has taken on that first statement. {follow up post, exegesis 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9}  It is a good series of articles.  Webster challenges Piper's statement on many levels.  I have no desire to recreate that here.  I do want to challenge the logic of the first statement on two levels.

First, many who take the glory argument promote their belief with this logic: when we think about what is ultimate, what is ultimate must be that which we can do forever and never cease from doing.  This means, that since missions and all other facets of church will cease when we reach heaven but worship will not, that worship is the ultimate goal of man.  The problem is that we do not live life in an ultimate sense.  We live life in time and space; we live in the here and now.  What makes up our lives ultimately is the accumulation of a series of smaller parts.  These smaller parts make up life as we know it. 

While this all appears a bit metaphysical, Jesus put this in practical terms.  In John 12, when Mary used the extravagant ointment, Judas chided her for her lack of stewardship citing the need of the poor.  Jesus' response is telling.  He tells him that the poor will always be there with them, but He would only be there for a short time.  The point: perhaps we should shift away from the "ultimate" view of life to a temporal view of life.  That is to say, that which can only be done in the here and now SHOULD be done with priority over things that will always be around.  Jesus instructed them to put their concern for the poor {a good and biblical concern} on the back burner on the basis that it was more important to be with Him since he was only going to be there a little while.  

The opportunity to partake in missions is a temporal pursuit.  It can only be done for a short while.  This does not mean that it is less important, rather, it is more important.  

The second challenge I want to bring is against the shallow view of worship and glory which typifies modern evangelicalism.  Ask someone what worship is and they will typically reduce it to music.  1 Corinthians 10:31, however, expands worship to every facet of our lives regardless of how menial it many appear.  Our view of Jesus is typically so "porcelain" that he only invokes our worship {where worship equals music or some other kind of worship experience} but not our obedience and followship.  The problem with our understanding of "Glory" and "Worship" is that we often view these as exclusive terms unto themselves.  That is, worship and glory exclude mission, service, etc.  This is a false dichotomy.  When we ask which comes first, When Paul instructs his readers in Romans 12 as to their "reasonable worship" he calls them to transformation.  Paul takes the next several chapters to flesh out what that transformation looks like in the here and now.

I believe we move into dangerous territory to posit worship against mission in an either or because it simply reduces worship to a Sunday experience.  We only truly experience worship when we follow Jesus, do the things he does, and love the people he loves.  It is possible, in a shallow view, to worship without missions, it is impossible to do missions without worship.